Forming an Intentional Community/split

[WanderingRose]

I've tried intentional communities, but ultimately never do well in them, because I am essentially a hermit. I can live peaceably in almost any situation, but sooner or later, someone(s) want you to PARTICIPATE ALL THE TIME. And I just don't wanna. I'll put in my share of the money, and my share of the work, but otherwise, please leave me alone.

Thank you, and I agree with this.

Many of us here are on the hermit, loner end of the scale and don’t care to spend an inordinate amount of time mingling with others with whom we have little or nothing in common.

Others with whom you do not care to mingle then tend to target those on the outside of the group, apparently somewhat threatened by the lack of interest in mingling.

This very frequent group dynamic then encourages we hermit and loner types to avoid groups.

There, I said it.

 

[rruff]

I've been thinking long and hard about this all my adult life.

I've tried intentional communities, but ultimately never do well in them, because I am essentially a hermit. I can live peaceably in almost any situation, but sooner or later, someone(s) want you to PARTICIPATE ALL THE TIME. And I just don't wanna. I'll put in my share of the money, and my share of the work, but otherwise, please leave me alone.

For me, anyway, the answer to this would be to come into enough money to buy an old, run-down trailer park full of single-wides, and gradually convert it to a community. Zoning and services already in place. Kind of what these folks did with an old apartment complex - only not so grandiose. https://www.kailashecovillage.org. I especially liked their approach toward the existing tenants when they bought the place.

I think it is really HARD to run a community as a group. I'd be much more comfortable with a single person or small group that is really in charge. With substantive community input of course, and clear legal rental agreements, but in the end, the final decision is not up to the group as a whole. More like a benevolent dictatorship.

I very much agree with what you've said... but I'd personally have no interest in a typical trailer park, or anything "high density". Too much noise and not enough privacy. A park with an option for a couple acres+ per person and lots of freedom regarding the type of dwelling would be nice, but you'd probably need to start from scratch or add on for that.

Freedom and solitude are highly prized among nomads; at least the ones who could afford to live in a regular home but choose not to. I enjoy people, groups, crowds, etc very much... in small doses. For nomads the community could serve as a home base... that would be some of the appeal to me. I think I'd like a very modest hovel with a shed where I could build and work on things. I'd pay for the share of land, and my buildings, and would be happy to contribute to group facilities and necessary infrastructure. As TBBadger mentioned being able to share resources to reduce cost is a valuable quality for a community... but I'd prefer if most of that was voluntary.

I have no interest in a commune... since I think that makes things more complicated rather than simple, and tends to attract people who don't wish to grow up and take care of themselves. I wouldn't want to be in a community where every time someone has a problem, it's everybody's problem. Most problems are between the person's ears (including mine!), and that's where the solution lies. Projecting inner struggles (and hopes and dreams) on other people and other things just makes a greater mess.

Does a homebase appeal to anyone else? If so, what features would you like it to have? For me it would be a place I visit for periods, but I wouldn't reside there for most of the year. Later, maybe a good place to settle if I get too old to roam. I do believe that for practical reasons some people will need to be there all year to run and manage the place. That's a job.

I was thinking maybe a commercial RV park and cabin rentals might be viable, in conjunction with individually or collectively owned buildings and RV spots, which could be rented out when the owner is away. For instance if you prefer to just park your rig when you are there (no other buildings) you'd own a RV spot that could be rented out when you are gone; you just schedule it in advance. If you have a cabin, then it would work the same way. Optional of course if you'd rather not.

IMO in the great majority of the US the weather sucks for at least half the year. I'd rather have a homebase some place where the climate is moderate, sunny, and relatively dry, so it's nice to be outside any time of year. That would be the southern CA coast... which is way too over run and expensive... and the higher elevation parts (5-7k ft) of southern AZ, NM... and even TX (around Alpine/Marfa/Fort Davis)... which are all very sparsely populated and cheap.

What do you think?

 

[user 32232]

Opened fine with Palemoon on a Debian virtual machine.

It might be blocked because it mentions some good things about Russia. /sarc

My antivirus prevented me for accessing that website because it is infected with a virus. Just an fyi.

Opened fine for me, too.
While I can't vouch for a possibly hacked website, I can vouch for the Kitchen Sisters. I used to work for one of them, and their NPR shows have always been interesting. Serendipitously, the Kitchen Sister I worked for lived with her family and three other families communally. A separate building housed the big shared kitchen and eating areas. Pretty cool.

 

[wanderlust]

Nope, still the case. Tribes are sovereign.

I see, you mean native indian tribes. I was thinking about the hunter-gatherer tribes of the past.

Yes, such tribes are sovereign, whatever it means. I guess they can make their own housing regulation, regardless of the county/state they are located? Do you know of any tribe which will allow non-members to reside on their land? And then again, if you reside there, would you not be subject of whatever decisions thee make? It's like a HOA, only you have no vote in it. and they have different cultural assumptions.

I just read how 20+ women of Yurok tribe went missing, tribe cannot investigate because suspects are not tribal members, and FBI cannot investigate for same reason

 

[JDub]

My antivirus prevented me for accessing that website because it is infected with a virus. Just an fyi.

Doh! Sorry. My screener didn't pick up anything...

Cheers!

 

[Catalyst1]

County control extends to all of the county... and then there are the state and feds! But there must be a legal way to do it on "rural" or remote land in most places at least, since so many communities exist.

What do you think would be attractive qualities in a nomad camp/home base?

You start by looking at land for sale that has the appropriate zoning. Sometimes, if the land is situated in the right kind of area--usually very rural, you can get a zoning exception if you meet the zoning board requirements for it.

 

[Catalyst1]

I very much agree with what you've said... but I'd personally have no interest in a typical trailer park, or anything "high density". Too much noise and not enough privacy. A park with an option for a couple acres+ per person and lots of freedom regarding the type of dwelling would be nice, but you'd probably need to start from scratch or add on for that.

Freedom and solitude are highly prized among nomads; at least the ones who could afford to live in a regular home but choose not to. I enjoy people, groups, crowds, etc very much... in small doses. For nomads the community could serve as a home base... that would be some of the appeal to me. I think I'd like a very modest hovel with a shed where I could build and work on things. I'd pay for the share of land, and my buildings, and would be happy to contribute to group facilities and necessary infrastructure. As TBBadger mentioned being able to share resources to reduce cost is a valuable quality for a community... but I'd prefer if most of that was voluntary.

I have no interest in a commune... since I think that makes things more complicated rather than simple, and tends to attract people who don't wish to grow up and take care of themselves. I wouldn't want to be in a community where every time someone has a problem, it's everybody's problem. Most problems are between the person's ears (including mine!), and that's where the solution lies. Projecting inner struggles (and hopes and dreams) on other people and other things just makes a greater mess.

Does a homebase appeal to anyone else? If so, what features would you like it to have? For me it would be a place I visit for periods, but I wouldn't reside there for most of the year. Later, maybe a good place to settle if I get too old to roam. I do believe that for practical reasons some people will need to be there all year to run and manage the place. That's a job.

I was thinking maybe a commercial RV park and cabin rentals might be viable, in conjunction with individually or collectively owned buildings and RV spots, which could be rented out when the owner is away. For instance if you prefer to just park your rig when you are there (no other buildings) you'd own a RV spot that could be rented out when you are gone; you just schedule it in advance. If you have a cabin, then it would work the same way. Optional of course if you'd rather not.

IMO in the great majority of the US the weather sucks for at least half the year. I'd rather have a homebase some place where the climate is moderate, sunny, and relatively dry, so it's nice to be outside any time of year. That would be the southern CA coast... which is way too over run and expensive... and the higher elevation parts (5-7k ft) of southern AZ, NM... and even TX (around Alpine/Marfa/Fort Davis)... which are all very sparsely populated and cheap.

What do you think?

There are places in Oregon like that also. Land is relatively inexpensive. You have to consider where water is going to come from. Is it feasible to sink a well anywhere on the property? How far off of paved roads is it? Too far, and the venture isn't feasible. Should be a few miles from places where a person can get groceries, parts, maybe mail.

 

[rvwandering]

I deleted a few posts that were political or off-topic.

 

[Frood]

That was all before land use regulation and house building codes. Now, in many/most places, even tiny homes are illegal (house is required to have minimal footage).

Bureaucrats are not interesting to have your community with your rules, they want to force their own vision (obviously the only correct one!) to everyone. HOA can regulate how you paint your fence, and what kind of drapes you have in your windows. So when buying a land anywhere, be extra careful and read the fine print - they likely do not allow what you want, unless it is standard run-of-the-mill house like everyone else has.

HOA's suck. Especially when they are enforced by helicopter/drone overflights.

 

[rruff]

There are places in Oregon like that also. Land is relatively inexpensive. You have to consider where water is going to come from. Is it feasible to sink a well anywhere on the property? How far off of paved roads is it? Too far, and the venture isn't feasible. Should be a few miles from places where a person can get groceries, parts, maybe mail.

If you think there are places in OR that are year-round sunny with moderate temperature, we have very different definitions of those terms!

Wells are usually pretty dear in the SW, which is one way a community can save costs.

 

[Sky]

Thank you, and I agree with this.

Many of us here are on the hermit, loner end of the scale and don’t care to spend an inordinate amount of time mingling with others with whom we have little or nothing in common.

Others with whom you do not care to mingle then tend to target those on the outside of the group, apparently somewhat threatened by the lack of interest in mingling.

This very frequent group dynamic then encourages we hermit and loner types to avoid groups.

There, I said it.

Cheers LMAOFF ~ Yes agree. Even my own brother warned my sister to not drop in on me without notice, years ago and I have gotten worse with age. I am able to mingle but not a daily event unless you are nature and wildlife and only the Raven's can yap at me at random. The very reason why I have been reluctant to have nomads on my land less they are more hermit types and the last visitor was perfect. As is a nomad she had other places to go see and may see her return towards summer if she wants. The failed community I purchased in did start out where you could by how ever many acres you wanted =. I started with 15 but then decided I should have gone for 40 but never did not needed too now. The people that set it up did so incorrectly as far as big brother so if backfired on them. They should have set it up as 'tenants in common' like a condo or shared private ownership or trailer park. They did have a lawyer and means to do things right so it reflected badly on them when the law suits started filing and even I had to question their integrity with all other things considered.

 

[Gofar]

Just want to say, about Social Security, that delaying taking it is not a guarantee you will live to receive it.

My husband died a month after his 65th birthday.

We started drawing our SS when we were 62, after much thought and talking with many others.

We had both worked since we were 15.

Alas, there are NO guarantees in this life. Sorry for your loss.

 

[Luciano151]

There are many in the US. You can organize it however you like. It is not hard to form them... but they are difficult to keep going smoothly. It helps if there is some uniting principal that can serve as as a guide/authority for the group... something to fall back on when disparate "wants" result in conflict.

I think that to put something like that together it would require kind of like a business plan, but designed for people. A better way to state this would be like a Community Constitution that which everybody contributes their ideas too and then the majority votes in what they want in it. When everybody is involved things tend to work out better. Mainly because people support what they create.

 

[rruff]

An issue I see is that rules created after the community is already formed will likely cause conflict. Majority votes are not going to pacify those who voted against. I think you'd absolutely need a "constitution" of some kind at the outset... subject to modification. A core group could put that together at the start, and then new members would have a good idea of what to expect and what is expected of them.

 

[Catalyst1]

An issue I see is that rules created after the community is already formed will likely cause conflict. Majority votes are not going to pacify those who voted against. I think you'd absolutely need a "constitution" of some kind at the outset... subject to modification. A core group could put that together at the start, and then new members would have a good idea of what to expect and what is expected of them.

You definitely have to form the rules and legal structure before you start it. I don't know if you have checked out FIC: https://www.ic.org/foundation-for-intentional-community/
but I highly recommend that you do that. There is a woman and her husband who are very experienced with starting them and the pitfalls. They are now doing podcasts, which you can have served to you by joining the website. No cost to you. They are part of a small, organized group of folks who put on seminars (those cost $) for people who are interested in starting or joining an intentional community. There are people who are part of this who will act as consultants also.