Buying and using land without attracting attention

[rruff]

I would think there are time limits as the permit is to allow you a variance to give you a place to live while building a legal dwelling or making improvements to the property to do so

See my post #12 above. The permit allows the RV to be used as a permanent residence.

 

[bullfrog]

My head hurts after reading most of 5.1 and 5.7 but they keep referring to a two year conditional permit in a lot of conditions. Way too much legal wording for me. Looks like a real estate lawyer would be necessary to insure the county wouldn’t change it’s mind or process a later protest. Just saying, Way too complicated process with way too many possible outcomes for me to take the risk of owning property.

 

[rruff]

My head hurts after reading most of 5.1 and 5.7

I couldn't even find those sections! Link?

2 year conditional use sounds like the county has the option to change its mind every 2 years. So if you are looking for long term security, that isn't it. The problem with Coconino is that there is a fairly big and expensive town in it (Flagstaff), so a great majority of the population are not sympathetic to the desires of van dwellers. Being about 1hr away from Flagstaff is also part of the appeal, but you can't have everything.

Awhile back I was looking at the area SW of Ash Fork. Lot's of people there in illegal living situations. That's in Yavapai County which includes Prescott, and they are having issues with crackdowns regarding permits now. In my research the buzz was that Yavapai was better than Coconino in that regard.

I think if you want long term security in low budget land dwelling, you need to look at counties that are rural (no large towns) where a sizeable contingent is doing what you wish to do. In that case a crackdown would be met with overwhelming resistance.

 

[bullfrog]

^^^It was in the pdf in your post #12 amongst the 250 pages. There seemed to be lots of areas that could be interpreted differently depending on the board members point of view. Problem is growing populations even in the rural areas of Arizona but in southeastern counties there is now a large enough number of people that have built unrestricted that they have organized to try to protect what they have built and allow more development. The expense and availability of water and sewer plus all the red tape to permanently live there with the possibility of rules being more strictly enforced make it seem more hassle than it is worth to me. Buying an existing older house that has met all the zoning requirements or been grandfathered in or even property that can be demolished with proper inspected utilities seems like it would be less expensive and time consuming to me. Building a small approved house seems much easier than trying to park an RV where it may not be looked on favorably as time goes by. Much better than squatting on raw land with a RV waiting for someone to complain loud enough to start the fines a coming in my opinion.

 

[peteg59]

If you only stay on the land a few months out of the year, and stagger the months you are there year after year, you might get away with living hassle free for awhile?
Or as stated above, eventually build a house or mobile home on it???

 

[rruff]

bullfrog... I had a look at Zillow for the Valle area, and though land is cheap legit houses (and I mean even little prefabs) cost a fortune. Probably code?

I had my eye on Cochise too, since they have an opt out for most codes. They keep making it less desirable. You now need an on-demand water heater... wtf?! Doesn't matter if your plan was to use solar heated water, it's in the code even for opt-outs.

So... I don't think buying an already built code-approved house is a great idea. If it ever passed code it won't be cheap... and cheap and easy are the main draws here. Most of us aren't interested in spending our remaining years doing hard labor and spending $$$ to build something that satisfies the needs and greed of other people. We want it simple and peaceful. It's a sad situation. Vagabonding still seems like the best bet.

 

[JDub]

Land in Apache County and Concho

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/St.-Johns_Apache-County_AZ
Still cheap.

 

[rruff]

Land in Apache County and Concho. Still cheap.

I put in single family homes with at least 5 acres and got this: https://www.realtor.com/realestatea...ty_AZ/type-single-family-home/lot-sqft-217800

Cheap land with a shack or modest home that passes code is expensive. There are cheaper options if a small lot in town works for you.

 

[bullfrog]

I really think most healthy somewhat self reliant people don’t realize the closest you can come to cheap beautiful place to legally camp is federal public lands, most for fourteen days. Using a parks pass at a nearby National Park furnishes utilities for less than $80 a year. No you can’t grow a garden, no you can’t junk up your site with trash or abandon junk, no you can’t build structures, pets in parks need to be on a lead less than 6’ in length but you can stay in an RV, whatever year it is and all your are out is insurance, registration, maintenance and fuel. Lots of seasonal work around nowadays as well as online. No strings attached. Basic nomadic freedom. Why make problems for yourself by owning property unless it is truly necessary. If that is the case start saving cause it isn’t gonna be cheap! Lol!!!

 

[PineyCruisin]

It's striking why there is no serious discussion about the dire water situation that already exists in the southwest. It is not a doom and gloom scenerio, it is the present state of things.

We fell in love with SW after our recent trips and were tempted to retire there permanently. But after MUCH research we have come to the conclusion that any property purchased in SW is too risky right now as an investment bc of the *current* water situation. Wish we were rich enough to simply regard the purchase as disposable just to enjoy as long as possible, come what may. We love the area that much.

Feasible solutions may be found (we've seen crazy ones like pilfering directly from the Mississippi) but without water, money spent on any property there may very well be lost in a couple of years.

 

[rruff]

But after MUCH research we have come to the conclusion that any property purchased in SW is too risky right now as an investment bc of the *current* water situation.

What is the "water situation" you are speaking of?

In the SW water is not so abundant that people will not fight over. But that's very different from it being a major problem. Water rights go back 100 of years, and most of it is used for Ag. The worst that will happen to residential users is that the price will go up and they will have an incentive to conserve. Most nomads are pretty good at using little water.

 

[Morgana]

What is the "water situation" you are speaking of?

In the SW water is not so abundant that people will not fight over. But that's very different from it being a major problem.

Scarce water in the southwest may be an old story -- but that story has always included plenty of unexpected changes, which have caused lots of people to lose their livelihoods and their homes and their ways of life.

So yes, you as an individual could get hurt bad, even if these were normal times (whatever that means), which they are not. Just because you can adapt to one austere situation doesn't mean the next one won't knock you off your feet.

And what's going on right now is not your granddad's drought.

Megadrought in Southwest Is Now the Worst in at Least 1,200 Years, Study Confirms

The Southwest is bone dry. Now, a key water source is at risk.

Everything is volatile right now -- nature, the courts, the economy, local politics. It's just smart to be aware of the risks.

 

[user 22017]

It's striking why there is no serious discussion about the dire water situation that already exists in the southwest. It is not a doom and gloom scenerio, it is the present state of things.

I've always thought it strange. Especially considering so many here are from the west coast.

Nothing about climate change, nor extraction, even though it is impacting all of us. Fires, droughts, floods... all record breaking.

 

[Morgana]

NASA photos showing Lake Mead now and 22 years ago:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150111/lake-mead-keeps-dropping

 

[rruff]

Scarce water in the southwest may be an old story -- but that story has always included plenty of unexpected changes, which have caused lots of people to lose their livelihoods and their homes and their ways of life.

Livelihoods and homes? If someone is planning to buy an irrigated Ag operation, they should consider the risks in that case. But a blanket statement that buying property in all the SW is too risky given the "current water situation" is not sensible. What is the actual risk? Note that we are talking about low budget living on cheap land in the boonies in this thread...

 

[bullfrog]

Amazes me that the Navajo Nation has survived with little or no water resources where the ancients resorted most likely to radical solutions and didn’t make it here in the southwest high desert. The biggest gripe I’ve heard this year on Lake Powell is from wake boat owners there isn’t enough large bays with enough open water to surf behind their expensive boats. People waste, pollute, and misuse more than enough to support everyone’s needs. Water flows uphill towards money don’t you know! Lol!!!

 

[Morgana]

rruf said:
Livelihoods and homes? If someone is planning to buy an irrigated Ag operation, they should consider the risks in that case. But a blanket statement that buying property in all the SW is too risky given the "current water situation" is not sensible. What is the actual risk? Note that we are talking about low budget living on cheap land in the boonies in this thread...

First, I never made a blanket statement.

Second, the original statement-maker arguably just said that it was too risky /for them/, which is not a blanket statement either.

Third, it is risky, period. It's risky to commit to the area at all, let alone to sink one's retirement savings into a place one might not be able to live. That's true of anywhere right now and especially true of a region in a megadrought. (Or at sea level. Or, per some forecasts, in a Sunbelt city.)

Fourth, not sure what's so scoff-able about "homes and livelihoods." If you live in a VW bug, you have a home you could lose. If you make your living by collecting SSI and picking up soda cans, you still have a livelihood. If you live under a tree or in an abandoned gas station, you'd still be sorry to lose it.

And if you know Southwest history at all, you know that everything from war to economic change to dam-building to crooked land deals to Indian removal to whatever the h3ll happened at Chaco Canyon has destroyed plenty of homes and livelihoods, plenty of times.

Fifth, land purchase -- even of "cheap" land -- is a big deal. Choosing where to spend your retirement savings (assuming you have any lol) is also a big deal. And on this forum, as in most of life, it's best not to assume what "cheap" or "low budget" might mean to the next guy (maybe he's poorer than you) or what his retirement plans are (maybe he's richer than you and has higher expectations).

Sixth, I wouldn't be too quick to associate "lower budget" with "lower risk" -- that's a sword that can cut both ways.

A lot of people are making really painful choices right now about where they think they can safely or affordably live. Times are hard. Times are changing. The drought is real. Might as well get as informed as possible and let people make their own calculations on what will work for them.

 

[frodo2222]

Ahhh, if you've been where I've been and seen the things I've seen in previously cohesive and functioning societies where the absolute and brutal anarchy that reigned was totally unforeseen and would have been laughed at if one had predicted it even 6 months prior...

"Ignorance is bliss"

Cheers!

I was a realtor for 30 years I used to develop land I bought remodel and rezoned properties and I ended up suing the city of Portland I won but it cost me so much time and money that is not really a big win but you have to keep in mind is that they're not stupid and if they can make money it will change the rules for you in the middle they will change what you're required to do and it's very difficult if not impossible raw land is the most expensive thing you can do you can buy it the house falling down it has utilities you're a lot better off than trying to develop land especially illegally

 

[afblangley]

I don't understand the appeal of living in a parked van on a vacant piece of property. The purpose of having a vehicle is to be mobile. We put up with all kinds of inconveniences (limited space/water/electricity, hassle of doing basic chores like washing clothes, getting mail, etc.) in exchange for the ability to roam. Being stationary in a 1970s singlewide out in the boonies will be more practical, more comfortable, and cheaper than living in a stationary vehicle.

 

[rruff]

Second, the original statement-maker arguably just said that it was too risky /for them/, which is not a blanket statement either.

The original poster actually did make a blanket statement... no qualifiers. And they made it sound like a major crisis; so major that it removed the whole SW from consideration because of high risk. Yet for 99+% of the people here, there is nil impact on their lives. And I'm pretty sure that it will remain that way for as long as any of us need to care about it. The fact that most of it is a cyclical occurrence (the other part being global warming), means it's likely to get better rather than worse.

I live here, in an area that is listed as being in severe drought for the last 20 years (I've been here 16 years). It's green everywhere, the trees are not dying, everything is fine as far as I can tell. They are still watering the golf courses! Water is expensive, but that's mostly because someone sold a big chunk of our water rights to a neighboring town a long time ago.

All of us are only here a short time and I'd hate to waste too much of it worrying about things that don't need to be worried about.