zlacker

>>vmoore+(OP)
I'm strongly in favor of expanding the US social safety net, but I don't want to neglect other obvious factors here. Dutch children are able to walk or bike outside unsupervised. In the US they'd risk either being killed by a driver, or stopped by an overzealous neighbor or police officer. I think this kind of freedom of movement has a big effect on happiness, it certainly did for me.

ETA relevant links: https://youtube.com/@NotJustBikes https://letgrow.org/

ETA again: I glibly mentioned "being killed by a driver" but of course navigating the typical US built environment if you're under 16 or otherwise unable to drive is a miserable experience in a number of ways even if you survive it. Highways make pedestrian paths unnecessarily roundabout. Parking lots make everything further from everything else. Crossing major roads requires getting drivers to notice and stop for you (harder when you're short!), or waiting through interminable signal cycles, etc.

>>MBlume+yj
> In the US they'd risk either being killed by a driver, or stopped by an overzealous neighbor or police officer.

It may depends on where in the US you're talking about, but in my area none of this is actually true. Although lots of people believe it is.

>>JohnFe+Kl
Overzealous neighbors in the US will have someone's house sold out from under them when the grass is too high and they don't pay the fines to the HOA for mowing it. The idea that they'll be ok with children wandering around unsupervised is preposterous on its face. The cops might not care either way, but only until the busybodies start nagging. Especially the sort of busybodies that live in the places where any sane parent might consider letting their kids wander. Kids would probably go unmolested by aging Karens in the bad parts of Baltimore or Gary IN, but then they have other problems.

I agree with you that the risk of being killed by a car is somewhat low though.

>>NoMore+bn
Most American homes don't have HOAs. Don't buy homes that do. HOAs should severely undervalue a property automatically. HOAs are anti-democratic. It's easier to get rid of a city than an HOA.

>>anon29+ay
While that's true that many (and perhaps most!) HOAs are awful, that isn't categorically true for all of them.

I live in a neighborhood with an HOA. Its purpose is primarily to act as a collective for bargaining with the city government. It also negotiated a sweet deal with the local waste disposal services - they're covered by the HOA dues, which are lower than what my parents pay a mile or so away. It sends out quarterly newsletters about local events and has yearly meetings and elections for its handful of officers.

I was hesitant to buy into this neighborhood when I first learned there was an HOA, but the bylaws don't prevent me from doing anything with my property that the city ordinances don't already prohibit. I've never received any complaints from my HOA, nor have any of my neighbors to my knowledge.

tl;dr: not all HOAs are bad, but it's always a good idea to check their bylaws before committing to a residence that has one.