GypsySpirit
Well-known member
I can only see two ways to make it work. First would be a private members only RV park. The second, become a church. Whole different rules apply to churches. I can see it now, Church of the Rolling Wheels.
buying land to make a new truly free place
- Thread starter moeway
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
Someone was telling me a few days ago that there is a possibility that when a church owns a commercial enterprise and it makes a profit those profits may no longer be tax exempt just because it's owned by a church.
I'm not saying it's true however my source stays pretty much on top of things news wise. As for me the only news I get is what friends & family tell me.
Jewellann
I'm not saying it's true however my source stays pretty much on top of things news wise. As for me the only news I get is what friends & family tell me.
Jewellann
Motrukdriver
Well-known member
I think if you made it a private members only RV park then at least one person/couple would need to reside there full time, mostly to keep an eye on the place and stop squatters from taking it over. It could be a revolving position where the same person/couple didn't stay there full time every year. I'd still want to know everyone that would be members before I'd invest. Spending a winter next door to a butthead isn't something I'd wanna do.
Motrukdriver
Well-known member
I suppose a group of us could always stake out a claim at Slab City. Everyone bring 4 or 5 steel drums we could use as our "fence" each filled with sand. Again, someone would need to stay there year around to ward off squatters but that would be a cheap alternative to buying land so when it collapses all you are out is some steel drums. Every so often I hear about the state wanting to shut Slab City down but so far it's just talk.
MrAlvinDude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2017
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 6
One issue is space (without too many regulations about it), another is the money to get a space, and how to maintain the space.
And options of how to manage this, has already been mentioned in this thread.
But once people gather, and community happens, then there will be a need to deal with people, and all the ideas they tend to get into their heads.
99% of people tend to know how to behave, so everyone else can cope with their presence, but there will always be that 1% who can not. And they will typically end up ruining it for everyone else.
Or at least it will be quite the headache to find ways to deal with them.
So some kind of system, of how to deal with behavior issues, personal boundaries, direction of the community, common projects or needs, and misunderstandings or conflict, and more..., needs to be in place, if one embarks on creating a space for community.
The most common systems involve creating some kind of hierarchy where decisions can be made (and if need be, also be enforced).
So how to manage all of this, and still keep as free as possible?
And to do it with the absolute minimum of overhead or administration?
And options of how to manage this, has already been mentioned in this thread.
But once people gather, and community happens, then there will be a need to deal with people, and all the ideas they tend to get into their heads.
99% of people tend to know how to behave, so everyone else can cope with their presence, but there will always be that 1% who can not. And they will typically end up ruining it for everyone else.
Or at least it will be quite the headache to find ways to deal with them.
So some kind of system, of how to deal with behavior issues, personal boundaries, direction of the community, common projects or needs, and misunderstandings or conflict, and more..., needs to be in place, if one embarks on creating a space for community.
The most common systems involve creating some kind of hierarchy where decisions can be made (and if need be, also be enforced).
So how to manage all of this, and still keep as free as possible?
And to do it with the absolute minimum of overhead or administration?
MrAlvinDude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2017
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 6
Since 2010 I have been a very active member of a community who had only one rule, and only ever intended to have only that one rule, and thus it was named: Rule 0
And is as follows: "Don't act in a way that requires us to create a new rule."
For several years, this worked very well. But eventually someone who claimed to understand, but clearly did not, joined the community, and became that headache that we all, never wanted to deal with.
In the process of finding out, how to maintain the freedom allowed under Rule 0, and still have a very effective, simple and early detection way of reacting to perceived misbehavior, I came across a study (and test) of how to possibly manage entirely peer-to-peer based communities, where there basically are no rules, but only a desire, or even just an outside caused need, to co-exist.
And is as follows: "Don't act in a way that requires us to create a new rule."
For several years, this worked very well. But eventually someone who claimed to understand, but clearly did not, joined the community, and became that headache that we all, never wanted to deal with.
In the process of finding out, how to maintain the freedom allowed under Rule 0, and still have a very effective, simple and early detection way of reacting to perceived misbehavior, I came across a study (and test) of how to possibly manage entirely peer-to-peer based communities, where there basically are no rules, but only a desire, or even just an outside caused need, to co-exist.
MrAlvinDude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2017
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 6
The study and test has been done by an Englishman (Dominic Barter), and has been implemented and tested in shanty towns in Brasil, over the past 20-25 years, where Dominic has also been a residence, and he himself have been living in the middle of the test.
Shanty towns, around the world, are very interesting places to study and test systems of how to improve community spirit. As shanty towns are usually without any actual rules or enforcement system. They are very free. Also usually free from any level of protection that rules and enforcement systems might otherwise be able to offer.
Or in other words, they are mainly peer-to-peer regulated (or gang-to-gang regulated).
So in a pre-existing space, with a pre-existing kind of "community" in constant disarray and flux, Dominic has been asking:
* What works - to resolve conflict resulting from a specific act - in a peer-to-peer community.
And is it possible to find common ground (or a system, or ways of communication) that will be useful to both individuals, families, gangs and possibly even the outside judicial system of law enforcement and courts etc. when doing something to address a specific ACT, that has impacted one or more individuals enough, that the issue needs to be addressed.
And so far a system, and methods of communication, has been identified and implemented and extensively tested.
And is increasingly finding its way into both shanty town living as well as into law, and otherwise highly organized ways of living and interacting.
As everything is based on the three questions:
- what works, when dealing with the impact of a specific act?
- what does not work, when trying to renew balance or co-existence, after being impacted by that specific act?
- what will we do in the near future, to deal with the impact of the act?
I just think that it might be of interest to anyone wanting to form, establish, or connect to some kind of community, where there would be common resources involved, or where people will be interacting for any extended period of time.
Shanty towns, around the world, are very interesting places to study and test systems of how to improve community spirit. As shanty towns are usually without any actual rules or enforcement system. They are very free. Also usually free from any level of protection that rules and enforcement systems might otherwise be able to offer.
Or in other words, they are mainly peer-to-peer regulated (or gang-to-gang regulated).
So in a pre-existing space, with a pre-existing kind of "community" in constant disarray and flux, Dominic has been asking:
* What works - to resolve conflict resulting from a specific act - in a peer-to-peer community.
And is it possible to find common ground (or a system, or ways of communication) that will be useful to both individuals, families, gangs and possibly even the outside judicial system of law enforcement and courts etc. when doing something to address a specific ACT, that has impacted one or more individuals enough, that the issue needs to be addressed.
And so far a system, and methods of communication, has been identified and implemented and extensively tested.
And is increasingly finding its way into both shanty town living as well as into law, and otherwise highly organized ways of living and interacting.
As everything is based on the three questions:
- what works, when dealing with the impact of a specific act?
- what does not work, when trying to renew balance or co-existence, after being impacted by that specific act?
- what will we do in the near future, to deal with the impact of the act?
I just think that it might be of interest to anyone wanting to form, establish, or connect to some kind of community, where there would be common resources involved, or where people will be interacting for any extended period of time.
MrAlvinDude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2017
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 6
For further insights, try to google "Restorative Circles" or "Dominic Barter".
For now, it might be of interest to look at the following statements:
A Restorative Circle is a community process - for supporting those in conflict.
It brings together the three parties to a conflict
- those who have acted,
- those directly impacted
- and the wider community
All within an intentional systemic context, to dialogue as equals (there is no boss, leader or judge - only a communications facilitator, who have NOT been directly impacted by the act).
- Participants invite each other and attend voluntarily.
- The dialogue process used is shared with all participants, and guided by a community member (the communications facilitator).
- The process ends when actions have been found that bring mutual future benefit.
For now, it might be of interest to look at the following statements:
A Restorative Circle is a community process - for supporting those in conflict.
It brings together the three parties to a conflict
- those who have acted,
- those directly impacted
- and the wider community
All within an intentional systemic context, to dialogue as equals (there is no boss, leader or judge - only a communications facilitator, who have NOT been directly impacted by the act).
- Participants invite each other and attend voluntarily.
- The dialogue process used is shared with all participants, and guided by a community member (the communications facilitator).
- The process ends when actions have been found that bring mutual future benefit.
MrAlvinDude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2017
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 6
I apologize in advance for the multiple posts on this same issue, but finding ways to (easily and with as few restrictions or overhead or administration as possible) to co-exist in a community of peers, even when there is disagreement or misbehavior, lies heavily on my mind, and is very dear to my heart.
And here I have found a method (or system), that requires no specific rules, it only requires a willingness to participate in the process of finding solutions, that are mutually beneficial.
And only whenever someone has been impacted deeply enough (by a specific act) that they want to make an issue about it!
And the method has been tested (for decades), and is finding increasing implementation (and success) outside its point of origin.
So I hope you will all have patience with me, for posting so much basically at the same time.
Did I mention that I like the freedom of Rule 0?
And did I mention that I like a method of finding solutions and resolution, that requires no additional specific rules?
And here I have found a method (or system), that requires no specific rules, it only requires a willingness to participate in the process of finding solutions, that are mutually beneficial.
And only whenever someone has been impacted deeply enough (by a specific act) that they want to make an issue about it!
And the method has been tested (for decades), and is finding increasing implementation (and success) outside its point of origin.
So I hope you will all have patience with me, for posting so much basically at the same time.
Did I mention that I like the freedom of Rule 0?
And did I mention that I like a method of finding solutions and resolution, that requires no additional specific rules?
speedgene
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
Hello,
A friend of my bought one acre of land by Elko, NV for $7000. Moved a old 5th wheel on it and set up living their. Someone complained and a code enforcer visited him. He had set up a home made grey water disposal system. The enforcer gave him the choice to disconnect it or replace with an approved septic system. He disconnected and hauls waste away. No more problems living their for 7 years now. I own land their as well and stay on it off and on all summer without any issues. It can be done low key but one dwelling per property. He does have storage trailers and that is OK.
A friend of my bought one acre of land by Elko, NV for $7000. Moved a old 5th wheel on it and set up living their. Someone complained and a code enforcer visited him. He had set up a home made grey water disposal system. The enforcer gave him the choice to disconnect it or replace with an approved septic system. He disconnected and hauls waste away. No more problems living their for 7 years now. I own land their as well and stay on it off and on all summer without any issues. It can be done low key but one dwelling per property. He does have storage trailers and that is OK.
frater secessus
Well-known member
It's a speed trap town, constantly flirting with the Texas "less than 50% of income from traffic violations" law. We also spent down a bit of reserve cash that had been built up over the years. LIke yours, there are few businesses, most are boarded up since the 80s-90s.
We did get a grant for a small library/civic center, about 1000sq ft.
Housing developments are starting to appear about 10mi away, which I see as a very bad sign. I figure someone's brother is in the land speculation bidness. :-(
frater secessus
Well-known member
MrAlvinDude said:
Same here.
I think of them as "intentional communities", places that are joined with mindfulness and a desire to cooperate.
Cammalu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2015
- Messages
- 4,568
- Reaction score
- 134
What I find ironic is that, at the core of this forum is to not live like the rest of the world in intentional communities but to live free in your van or rig and follow the weather but eventually the thought of buying land, building a community and having rules always comes up. Why reinvent the wheel? Just go back to a community that has the rules and is already set up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
frater secessus
Well-known member
Cammalu said:
There are entire sections of philosophy dealing with that idea. Greater minds than ours have struggled mightily with it. Hobbes, for starters.
When I say say "intentional communities" I don't assume stable townships or buildings or whatever. In my mind ad hoc gatherings of nomads are intentional communities.
Cammalu said:
The cosmos all flow to the path of least resistance. The problem is when a nice place is inhabited and grows, 'big money' will move in and dictate their rules for their and only their well being.
When the early release felon cons (Snitch variety, only! - Dealing with Snitches Guide ) start to move in, then it's time to hit the road. My best friend is a felon con, but he is no snitch - they are mutually exclusive types of people: the 'framed' or just plain 'slime' not even cops (that use snitches) care about. And since land is how many become 'big money', it is something you need to be aware of anywhere. It is not flipped like a switch, but big money has cycles in years time (say 7 to 21 years) that they condemn and revitalize neighbor hoods that they buy cheap and sell high. This is going on all over USA currently, but it is a risky business even for the rich.
It's an ingrained 'order' with livable places throughout civilization. But I think an 11' garage/home for a tall van that you can lock up tight, sounds cool for a home base in your taxable State. It does not have to be complete, but just in a working state: 11' garage w/ attached bathroom and solar power. I have seen members here do this, even on this same thread. That's Nirvana imo. Buddha would be doing the same thing, and he was really cool, like Bob!
Motrukdriver
Well-known member
I believe the basic thought on this tread is to purchase land down in the Arizona desert or there abouts. The biggest issue I see with this is what happens when you leave? It is your winter home and you'll only be there maybe 4 or 5 months out of the year. This isn't really a problem if the land remains undeveloped but as soon as you build something then "curiosity" becomes a factor. What I can foresee is coming back to your winter home and someone is on your land. Might involve getting the local po po to make them move. Then there is the vandalism/theft factor. What ever you leave there has a high probability of not being there when you return. Then there is the "oh look, we can dump our trash and tires there since nobody is home" factor. I have teetered back and forth on this idea of having land down there and I've pretty much come to the conclusion of why. Why would I need a permanent home when I'm there on wheels and there are millions of acres I can camp at for free. AND, probably never see the same place twice unless I want. You might have your regular haunts for certain times of the year for gatherings and such but the bulk of your camping will be out on your own or with your small tribe exploring new places. Well me anyway. Save your pennies for a home base someplace besides where you camp. I have my place picked out for a home base and I'll be able to use it most of the time only rolling out when the urge and uncomfortable weather hits. Winters in the desert, summers up north or in the high country and probably spring and fall futzin around the home base doing whatever the mood says I need to do. Now, that said I can also see where folks might want a more permanent place to winter over. Maybe when I get older and moving around every 14 days might become too much for my old bones. RV parks might become too expensive to be a viable option so the thought of owning some land would come into play. I'm pretty much convinced there needs to be someone there year around to prevent the above issues. Maybe investing in an RV park could be possible with your own reserved spot for when you go wintering. Then you can go camp out when the mood strikes and return to your spot to recuperate from the physical activity. Just my own humble opinion on this....
Everyone should check out California City, CA. Let me know if anyone has looked into this more than I have. I've done some digging around and there are a lot of advantages to this place. First off it is the 3rd largest city in California by area. Essentially what the deal is that in the 1950s a developer tried to make a planned city to rival LA. It failed. The city never really got developed, with only around 13,000 to 14,000 people living in city limits today. If you look it up on Google Maps from the satellite view you'll see there are a bunch of dirt road streets that are empty. The land is cheap, you can easily buy a couple acres for under $10,000. What is great is that since it is legally a city, it is pretty straightforward to get water, gas, and electric to a property. There are various different zoning categories, but you can just find a piece of land with optimal zoning to fit your needs. As far as I can tell parking RVs with no house on lot is fine on the residentially zoned parcels. Anyway happy New Years to you all.
VanKitten said:
You struck the nail exactly on the head with your obsevationabout septic systems. I own 10 acres in Wyoming where I spend my summers. My daughter lives on the property fulltime. Even though there are zero rules in this county outside incorporated areas the state is VERY strict about drinking wells and septic disposal. All people located on the property are sized into the septic system design. For an example a family of four will spend around 10 grand for permits, inspections and construction of said "shit hole". You could get around the septic issue buy using outhouses, but that can be nasty for a large amount of people. I would say "septic systems " will be the biggest hurdle to attempting this. Ask peeps that have had mining claims where they had the most trouble with the government, most will say waste disposal.
