• Korne127@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, no. At least where I live, they’re finally starting to do something against gravel gardens. They are illegal here (have been for decades but no-one did anything against it) and they’re absolutely terrible for the environment and destroying green space (additionally to them being very bad for bees and further sealing the floor which is awful when any flood happens). Luckily people shouldn’t be able to do absolutely everything they want if it hurts everyone so much.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gravel gardens seal the ground? I thought it was just gravel on top of dirt.

      I would prefer housing authorities don’t require manicured grass lawns. They are so expensive to keep up and repair, especially since many don’t use native grass species so they need watering in the summer if you don’t want them to go brown.

      • Korne127@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not living in the US. As far as I know, it’s something very ridiculous that every house needs to look absolutely the same (I feel the freedom). And no, what I wrote isn’t “the same”, mandating how every garden needs to look exactly the same is something entirely different to fighting against very specific “garden” styles that combat the environment and are bad for the infrastructure (see floods). I’m fine with people having their garden however they want and doing stuff, but it needs to be in certain boundaries, e.g. that you aren’t allowed to seal all ground which is terrible for bees, the environment in its wholeness and dangerous during floods.

        If there are some rare edge cases where many things depend on it and there are very good reasons to set a certain boundary but otherwise leave the freedom to do the own garden and house how they want, that’s something different to just mandating that there is no possibility to choose anything about it’s looks and destroy all creativity and uniqueness.

        • average650@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Got it. HOAs get bad press for requiring every house to look the same, but the basic function they serve also includes preventing stuff like the above. How far they go depends on the HOA, but one that just prevents egregious stuff like the above isn’t fundamentally different from one that requires near uniformity.

          I just ask because lots of people hate HOAs, but this is one big reason they exist.

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think it’s the difference between principles and practices, and ultimately, the way people become small minded and ruin everything…

            They’re good in principle, but people get controlling, or agendas develop, etc. Not sure how one balances that properly. I guess it’s partly exacerbated by the cultural extreme that Americans take freedom to (I’m not from the dis-US). Maybe the neighborhood as a committee would work better than one or two power couples?

            • average650@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I can certainly agree with that.

              Maybe the neighborhood as a committee would work better than one or two power couples? That just means being involved in the HOA, which would certainly help curb many problems, but its work, and understandably, most people don’t want to do that.

              I suppose you could build into the charter limitations which can’t be exceeded without a certain percentage of the entire HOA agreeing? Not sure.