kirk dillon wrote: The idea was that I thought more people would be willing to do this because they would have more privacy by not living together like in an eco-village or something. I think of it like a CSA except you collectively own everything "including" the land. This is definitely not for people who don't plan on sticking around, but it would be great for long term security. If a group of people pitched in together it would be way less cost per person.
That's why we need to acquire the security this might offer.
Fred Morgan wrote:The problem is, no one can see the future.
Fred Morgan wrote:Someone might have a plan on sticking around, but due to circumstances, might have to leave. Now what?
I don't have all the answers, but they can be figured out. Maybe the Co-op could also be a CSA and use that income (and others) for reserve funds. Maybe some people who start out in the CSA situation will eventually become members of the Co-op there-by bringing in more money. There are lot's of ways the Co-op could make money. Selling excess produce, giving permaculture classes and lessons, selling starter plants for other gardeners, etc.
Fred Morgan wrote:How liquid would be the investment? How would they sell out and move else where?
I don't think we'll ever solve that one, but like minded people (Permies), will get along better than the average people at an average job.
Fred Morgan wrote:If you can figure out how to make people work together without conflict and without envy, jealous, and factions, you will have solved a major social issue.
Which is why I think taking out the "community" part of it is a good idea. Let's call it an "Intentional Permaculture Farm Cooperative"..........
Fred Morgan wrote:Most intentional communities fall apart
kirk dillon wrote: but like minded people (Permies), will get along better than the average people at an average job.