I often see photographs of small European towns that can be seen off of popular train lines that are a strip of aesthetic, historical homes, sometimes with a well-manicured stream, creek, or river running through, often with a luscious, green field of crops and gorgeous mountains in the background. It's easy to daydream of life here and grow jealous of the folk living here.
...but then I think about how life must actually be like in these areas. I suspect that anything they may want to do has to go through a rigorous approval process. You cannot modify your home even in the slightest without approval, and that will only be granted within strict guidelines. You can't throw up a chicken coup in a bid to be self-sufficient. You can't pop into the gorgeous creek for a swim or hunt for wildlife. You better not leave your bin out for an extra day after pickup. Essentially I've concluded that living in these towns must be like living with an HoA on steroids. What is the point of living within beauty if it comes at the cost of your freedom?
My question for you guys... is this type of aesthetic town even remotely possible without heavy-handed regulation that makes it horrible to live in? Additionally, where on the spectrum of freedom to perfection would you want to live?
>Right to roam
This is something I wish the United States had. I don't know for sure how it is implemented in Europe, but how I'd wish it were in the United States is that you have the right to a 20-50 ft. easement for pedestrians between every single property along the property lines, even if you did not own the property. Except in those areas where the average property is *huge* (in those areas, perhaps an easement every 1,000 feet), this would provide a way for people to explore and maneuver without being among cars on set paths, without severely infringing on private property or people's privacy on their land. This will also ensure no property gets fully landlocked and generally encourage moving around on foot as opposed to car.
Additionally, I think the entire country needs better mixed-use paths that allow ATVs. This is something Europe is notoriously *horrible* at, but America is frankly not much better. It is odd because so many people in America own four-wheelers, off-road trucks, jeeps, and side-by-sides, but there is truly very little you can do with them. You can put around on your own land, trailer them to an ATV park and ride the same trails again and again, or trailer them to a state/area that has more lenient rules to allow for riding on the road, forestry roads which allow ATV traffic, and/or an extensive trail system. Wouldn't it be nice if every state had an extensive trail system and the ability to ride ATVs on berms (so you can get to the trail), such that you could take your ATV, Jeep, dirt-bike, mountain bike, or even hike from your house to some shops and restaurants?
Of course, one of the limiting factors with this is our population. We *are* overpopulated, and this necessitates regulation and limits what is allowed. It is not coincidence that those areas with the most extensive free-use trails are also those with the lowest population. People can say "we have room" all they want, but we don't have enough room to have all these people *and* freedom at the same time; which means we *don't* have enough room. With this many people, things like paved highways with strict vehicle regulations and constant monitoring are required. With this many people, things like hunting/fishing limits are required. With this many people, things like building codes are required. With less dense populations, all of this is unnecessary. You have real freedom.