I'm going to apologize in advance for what will probably be a long post.

First of all l think your goals and intentions are both admirable and wise. However, having said that l see some inherent flaws in the ways you propose to achieve it and later manage it. This is a matter l have given a great deal of thought to and researched heavily for the past year. In fact it was with an objective like this in mind that l finally opened up to meet other like minded people.

I'm sure you have more preparations for this community than you outlined so l will only cover the things which l see glaringly skipped and not meaning any disrespect.

First thing is land allocation. It's important to determine how much of the total parcel will be allocated per homestead, how much will be for agriculture (community gardens) and how much for livestock. These are determinations made taking into account the property size and number of "homesteads" intended.

Second thing is the actual site. You hint at the property being "up north" I'm going to assume that you located one in an unorganized township which will allow you to build without permits or else bureaucracy will never let you get your community started. Not only are there strict building regulations regarding building code but also to the number of dwellings per property. Additionally, plans, permits, inspections etc get expensive. (I've been a carpenter for 30 years)

Third consideration is the home construction. Since you're up north sustainability is a major concern and as such home size must be limited. There are several reasons for this, it leaves more of each parcel with more available land (private garden/livestock), its easier to be off grid with a smaller home and they're cheaper to build. Lets be honest money is a concern to everyone.

Now the biggest concern l have with your plan is also the one l struggled with the longest while deciding how this could be made to work, you allude to the fact that a persons "say" in how things are done is in proportion to their investment in the project (time/labor/money). That wont work as it makes for an I'm better than you atmosphere. Having said that, a democracy wont work either, although everyone has to have a say. To use an extreme example - if 2/3 of the people decide you should plant squash you better like squash.

The community must have a charter before its formation which is open to amendment. The only way this type of community can work is with a socialist agenda - not the nazi version of it or the twisted American view of it but true socialism as was practiced in Native tribes. Everyone must pull their weight or be excluded, provisions in place for elderly or infirm but all able bodied persons must contribute. A collective attitude towards a common goal. And you must have a goal.

Well that's 0.02 🙂

I'm going to apologize in advance for what will probably be a long post.

First of all l think your goals and intentions are both admirable and wise. However, having said that l see some inherent flaws in the ways you propose to achieve it and later manage it. This is a matter l have given a great deal of thought to and researched heavily for the past year. In fact it was with an objective like this in mind that l finally opened up to meet other like minded people.

I'm sure you have more preparations for this community than you outlined so l will only cover the things which l see glaringly skipped and not meaning any disrespect.

First thing is land allocation. It's important to determine how much of the total parcel will be allocated per homestead, how much will be for agriculture (community gardens) and how much for livestock. These are determinations made taking into account the property size and number of "homesteads" intended.

Second thing is the actual site. You hint at the property being "up north" I'm going to assume that you located one in an unorganized township which will allow you to build without permits or else bureaucracy will never let you get your community started. Not only are there strict building regulations regarding building code but also to the number of dwellings per property. Additionally, plans, permits, inspections etc get expensive. (I've been a carpenter for 30 years)

Third consideration is the home construction. Since you're up north sustainability is a major concern and as such home size must be limited. There are several reasons for this, it leaves more of each parcel with more available land (private garden/livestock), its easier to be off grid with a smaller home and they're cheaper to build. Lets be honest money is a concern to everyone.

Now the biggest concern l have with your plan is also the one l struggled with the longest while deciding how this could be made to work, you allude to the fact that a persons "say" in how things are done is in proportion to their investment in the project (time/labor/money). That wont work as it makes for an I'm better than you atmosphere. Having said that, a democracy wont work either, although everyone has to have a say. To use an extreme example - if 2/3 of the people decide you should plant squash you better like squash.

The community must have a charter before its formation which is open to amendment. The only way this type of community can work is with a socialist agenda - not the nazi version of it or the twisted American view of it but true socialism as was practiced in Native tribes. Everyone must pull their weight or be excluded, provisions in place for elderly or infirm but all able bodied persons must contribute. A collective attitude towards a common goal. And you must have a goal.

Well that's 0.02 🙂

Hey,DvntMstr Thanks for your conditional interest and comments....and i acknowledge your respectful intent.
Some of your apparent assumptions could be attributed to my admittedly very scant kickstart intro to a knowingly huge topic , but indeed life-long concern of mine.
( I meant to be brief, as i had an appointment to keep, and would not return all day.)

For instance, attributing the allusion to me which you described cannot rightly be inferred from what i actually wrote.

Having also been a carpenter/farmer/entrepreneur/innovator for most of my life, i can appreciate the prioritized perspective which you briefly outline as concerns which you seem to read into my proposal.
Believe me, it would surprise me if you came up with any related scenario which i am not already quite versed in . But there's always more to learn!
This by itself does not mean that there is no other conclusion except your or mine or anyone else's. It's a matter of understanding the whole context, and the premises pre/proceeding from that...and that is practically a book.
My interest is in creative dialog in this manner, so as not to get unwittingly stuck on misperceptions, and thus to form a basis for real commune-ity...covering all known contingencies and/or defining the protocol required for any yet-unknown factors .

This cannot be achieved by limited unqualified soundbytes/text...but by committed and later-documented dialog ,and preferably face-face.
The invitation, the seeking, the longing, will have its way ....with diligent attention to this posture of openness to collective wisdom.
I agree already with the points of internal site allocation and so much more that can't be posted accurately enough here, and i sense that we likely have much in common.
Look fwd to reading more from you.
Mainly for confidentiality, this can best be by PM , if you care to engage further.
Have we corresponded before on another venue?
Cheers,

As l indicated, I'm sure you have thought of and planned for these things. The purpose of my post was to point out things you hadn't covered for others who may not have thought of them. Too many people (I've spoke to several) think it will be like the walking dead - people find each other and normalcy returns.

It appears we have many of the same ideas and l will contact you via pm to discuss it further, its nice to have the chance to see what l may have missed as well.

I see the seeds (sprouting) of an intelligent dialogue here in which both of you have intelligent and valid points....guys...please keep your conversation public (as opposed to pm) as I'm confident there are many interested in following the conversation...

I agree a discussion like this should be public in order to share ideas. Out of respect for the OP's position of an interest in OPSEC I will not discuss anything here that he chooses to disclose to me privately. I will however, in an effort to help others, lay out my ideas here for any interested parties to read and comment on. While l will respect his desire for privacy l don't feel the same need for secrecy.

Maybe open disclosure of my ideas on this can allow others to point out things l haven't yet considered and help me learn along the way. l will type out some of my ideas and concerns later this evening and post them for your consideration.

Ok for the sake of discussion l have randomly selected a property up north to use as a model.

There are 75 acres available for 20k, on site water, within 1 mile of several lakes on crown land, lots of trees and good hunting. We all know money is a factor but in my opinion it's important not to make it the primary one.

Ideally the site would be limited in the number of homesteads, I'd recommend between 10-15 lots. Personally l think lot size should be limited to approximately 1/2 acre per homestead. And home size should be restricted to about a 500 sq foot or less footprint (a 2 storey could still have 1k sq feet but I'd wonder at it's being needed unless you had a larger family). The reasons for this are simple, smaller lots leave more land for communal gardens and livestock as well as less interference with surrounding nature. Smaller homes are cheaper to build, cheaper to heat, have less impact n nature and are easier to keep off-grid.

So starting with that, 10 lots at 1/2 acre uses up only 5 acres of the land leaving 70 for community use and projects to sustain everyone. A 20k purchase price means everyone is looking at an investment of only 2000$ to buy their share. Now having said that, here's where money becomes less important.

There are many people who would be very good community additions but just cant come up with 2k and quite likely one person could buy a 20k property on their own. I'd rather have qualified persons than recoup the 20k investment so you find the balance. Is it worth giving a plot to someone who doesn't have the funds because they are good gardeners, mechanics, builders, etc. ? In my opinion yes it is. For someone who could afford multiple shares but can't grow dandelions on his front yard it would be a boon to include someone who's a great gardener.

By trading goods, services and skills you build a community together. Here's a hypothetical. If for example someone has extra funds to invest but cant build worth a damn, that person says to me l will give you 4k for labor to build my house. I now have the option of what to do with that extra 4k, what would you do ? Use it as financing for your own house, finance off-grid energy or maybe buy a lot for another and still offset some of your costs . . . now to expand on that, hypothetical, lets say 5 people come to me and make the same offer - now I've been paid 20k to build 5 homes (plus my own) which leaves 4 lots available - there's enough to supply 4 lots to people who cant afford it on their own and still money left to help them build their houses. And yes, l would do that. Why ? It's simple, more hands mean less work for everyone and like the mystery man mentioned above - I can't grow anything. I can build things - very well, l can work like a dog, l can hunt and fish but outside of growing grass I'm toast. So would l trade a lot or my skills to have someone there who could trade theirs back ? In a heartbeat.

In essence it only works if you all work together towards a common goal. Yes there is still money needed, it still plays a part in the reality - purchase price, material cost, energy options etc. but when you put people first there's so much more accomplished.

I know it sounds idealistic but l do believe there is hope for humanity - albeit mostly in small groups. l will add more later if l continue to get messages of interest in it 🙂

Hi , interested PM'ers....and browsers.

It always seems to be this way: putting out enough details sequentially for comprehensive agreement...then assessing response/readiness over time....and then action requires money. Most folks really like the outline, but few are ready to invest "that far north." beyond huntsville.
There are currently insufficient investors for the acquisition. The more important issue is the comprehension/agreement of the proposed project.

In my recent experience 2yrs.ago, on a similar project, some profit-driven individuals with deeper pockets than mine... sniffed out the huge potential of the preliminary trailblazing and concepts, and try to co-opt the project and turn it into a real estate development....distorting the principled context of the community intent outlined. (not what DvntMstr was suggesting)

The primary infrastructure is the understood , agreed, signed , governance document of premises and features, at a minimum...subject to changes only by consensus process described/referenced on my website.

If there were enough shareholders to acquire the land, i'm sure that would attract even folks who would'nt otherwise be inclined "that far north."
Then, the physical infrastructure could start...to the degree of coordinated personal input and money available.
I would be up there as time and circumstance allows, clearing and building progressively. I was actually trying to build my " 4-season tiny house on wheels" before that, to be more effective onsite when the time comes....but my chassis is still sitting in the field for the 4th yr. now.
I had been recommending this modality for anyone in position to pioneer similarly...who aren't in position to move totally yet.
I do have a conventional trailer standing by though, for seasonal use.

This can also be viewed as a secure, realistic investment for the immediate and far future ,...the designated domain portion of each shareholder being used as a retreat and/or rented out to approved likemindeds, while sorting out things where one currently lives.
There are different and sometimes difficult circumstances for folks before they can extract themselves from the status quo.

It is heartening to know that at least a few are willing to consider this kind of scenario,.....just because of it's basic, frugal living sense, and as a critical bonus...to be in better position of preparedness. There is still the option of plentiful nearby solo survival sites, if needed....and geo-caches which can be monitored on a regular basis because of their relative closeness.
In my view, there could/should be dozens of such projects with their own unique blend of principled living modality...also to serve as pre-emptive models, and if needed, possibly, a privileged/temporary refuge to linked-up likemindeds who may not have had the fortune to prepare in such manner in time.
These may all be the viable citizens of a resilient new culture, borne out of necessity and strength of character.

First of all l don't want to disparage the villager's comments or positions since l agree with a lot of his ideas and truly support his vision but l do want to point out a couple of differences in our way of thinking based on his last post.

Now he mentioned people not wanting to go north beyond Huntsville, and l agree l have met with the same resistance. Using his point of Huntsville as a reference, a quick google search shows property prices (suitable size/water/etc) being between 200 and 400 k. To be fair we will split the difference and call it 300k. Comparing that with the property l found further north and assuming 10 investors each, the northern property is 2000$ per share while the Huntsville one is 30,000$ per share.

Again, not to disparage but merely compare, it should be easier to find 10 people with 2k than it is to find 10 with 30k. Additionally, in my opinion, when you're dealing with a lower purchase price, one or two people could buy it outright with little trouble thus passing the initial problem he outlined, thereby opening it up to others immediately. And again, a lower investment to buy your lot means more money to build your home.

To quote - "If there were enough shareholders to acquire the land, i'm sure that would attract even folks who would'nt otherwise be inclined "that far north."
Then, the physical infrastructure could start." This in my view is the hold-back because l agree completely with his statement. It always comes down to getting it started and hence the need for investors.

I also agree with his position that it is hard to get people willing to go further north than Huntsville. Unfortunately it is, but at the same time there are those who are willing to do so. So l pose the question, is it better to begin such a noble aspiration where less support your choice or suffer paralysis of analysis while waiting to find enough to begin ?

Now to play devils advocate for a minute, if someone posts "l want to find people to invest and begin such a community when we find enough people" and someone else posts "l have a piece of property I'm willing to share with others" - even knowing one is considering closer to the city than the owned one, which do you choose to connect with ? Not to sound disrespectful but in my experience people respond to progress over plans, thus, as l see it, the onus is on us to get it started and then find those who support our choices.

I cant point out enough how I mean no disrespect to the villager or his proposal, since we view so much in common, I'm simply trying to point out other ways to look at the same situation. I am a big believer in the "if you build it they will come" philosophy and would hate to see such a great idea go stagnant due to inaction.

It would be nice if others could chip in with their thoughts and ideas so the two of us could have an idea what others think 🙂

Lots of good points from everyone. I really like DvntMstr's point about not "settling" on a less than ideal location, just to please the masses and attract buy-in easier.

Huntsville is far, far south of any area that is generally regarded as "safe" or "sustainable" in the event of any major disaster. It's now just another Toronto cottage community which will = population overflow if the city ever evacuates.

Build your dream, further north, where your gut is telling you it's smartest to do so. I think you'll find your $$$ will stretch further and, although it may take longer, you'll fill your lots with truly dedicated and knowledgeable preppers who can properly assess risk/reward, and the prepper way.

One thing i'd suggest you consider is adding a compound fee to every lot buy-in. If the straight split for the property is $2000 each, you have so many other shared fees to cover - lawyer (and if you get into something this ambitious without a lawyer, you're crazy), electricity run to a central communal building, digging a communal well, private road/pathway construction, storage facilities construction, shared resource acquisition (working livestock, heavy equipment, etc).

You're looking at, at least, $3000 per purchaser to cover those items. I've seen several groups attempt to create such communities without those items, and sadly they've all collapsed long before even being completed.
No electricity makes life needlessly hard. Simply constructing the abodes for everyone will literally take a decade. People lose interest long before then, and how often can they leave work and family to drive north to help with the work? Think a generator or 2 are enough for a group the size you hope for? They're not.
No well/running water also makes life needlessly hard, and potentially unhealthy. The intent with groups like these is to be better off that the rag-tag masses struggling to escape whatever disaster occurs. Not be dying of thirst, hunger or discomfort along side them.

So, your baseline buy-in price should probably be closer to $5000. And even at that, you shouldn't consider bending to allow ANYONE in for free or reduced. It is not a prohibitive amount - I make just $50,000 FT per year, my wife makes just $30,000 PT and our family of 4 survives fine on that median income. We just bought a used car for $9000 cash, put $1200 away every month in savings, already have our $5000 trip to Spain for May 2014 paid for, and a very significant down payment saved for our own future home property - you want folks who are similarly frugal and intelligent with their money. If someone can't handle their personal finances, can you really argue that they can handle a catastrophe?

More importantly, if you can find a poor horticulturalist, or carpenter, or electrical engineer... you can find one with the money and dedication to really benefit your community, without forcing others to pick up the slack.

For sure, a smaller acreage, further north would be economically easier to buy into...for those even fewer at this point, inclined to go further. I've done those numbers too, and read some dire history of earlier attempts to homestead "further north" than where i'm currently impressed.
(no it's not huntsville, but further north,before n.bay, and yes there is a thicker measure of cottage population around, but who knows how that will impinge on "the situation" when/as things change radically? I consider the potential of alliances with already resilient locals, whose reorientation would possibly prove a great asset in terms of collaborative security in "exchange" partly for updated survival info . Of course, any scenario imaginable is open to speculation.

If my familial and logistical circumstances were different, even more north is where i might be headed. For the "foreseeable" future however, i've considered the pros and cons of the locations i have been comparing for some time. Distance/accessibility is a factor when considering existing infrastructure building equipment/tools/trailers, depending on the nature of the intended features.
Right, it would take considerably longer further north, and that may be more viable for younger folk than me....or there may be no choice at a certain point.

I think there's plenty of room and need for both....especially having in mind the potential of a flexible,communicative network as the overall situation/need changes.
In any case, the crucial factors are not so much a linear and current monetary-value-apportioning of a property, but the early and ongoing development of the likemindedness required for exceptional cohesion in an exceptional project of "commons community" with a view to wholistic development which is clearly designed to accommodate/enhance personal/private development within that context.
This presupposes a minimum willingness to discover what that could be. Many are not interested in that, but just want total autonomy without that kind of stretch to a different ability to encompass. That's kool, and i can relate.
Even though we may have gathered many practical and desired skills and/or currency, they are not the main criteria for community of the kind i'm proposing.
In the end, we move in the direction of perpetuating whatever our demonstrated and imagined values are....hopefully seeking to become more viable/functional than the models we have known....with the requisite sense of humour on the way.

Meanwhile, we would like to arrange for a walkabout on the property in question for anyone who is genuinely interested in the direction i've outlined . A date is not yet set, but before the snow flies, and pending the number of responses....preferably PM. Further info is available on request.

I have also been looking at land in the north. I found last year a piece of land for about $25,000.00 for 165 acres. My concern was figuring out the zoning. I could not get a straight answer from anyone except to go talk to someone else in the government.

Some land is zoned for seasonal living, for hunting, etc but not one person could tell me how to figure all of this stuff out. So if you did find people that wanted to get together, how do you figure out the basics of land use first?

I have also been looking at land in the north. I found last year a piece of land for about $25,000.00 for 165 acres. My concern was figuring out the zoning. I could not get a straight answer from anyone except to go talk to someone else in the government.

Some land is zoned for seasonal living, for hunting, etc but not one person could tell me how to figure all of this stuff out. So if you did find people that wanted to get together, how do you figure out the basics of land use first?

Hi... for all those reasons, an unorganized township is most desirable to save time and fees. You have to find the appropriate maps online for the area you're focused on and it will show the townships....zoomed in.
I had to do some digging to find the relevant ones for my choices. Then on other overlay maps, you can see the zoning of different adjacent parcels. If it's residential, as mine is amazingly, generally there's no problem to build a 4-season cabin ...as small as a "tiny house" on wheels or somewhat larger on a foundation. It just has to conform to ont. building code, no inspection or permit req'd ...for the time being. Most folks i've talked to say an outhouse is allowed. ...and mine is fairly comprehensively designed. If you put septic in, and/or hydro hookup, they have to be inspected. An inspector will usually only inspect if he has access by drive-in road. This is sometimes a very individual matter.

First, an objective private environmental/permaculture assessment should be done,, for the sake of the respectful integrity of the land entity....and to determine the best locations of fertile growing soil for largest common garden, best suited place for pond(s) forest gardens, greenhouse, animal shelters, common dining/meeting hall, vertical axis turbine, satellite internet receiver/distributor., rootcellars, caches, workshop or garage,equipment shed(s) cottage industry location, designated untouched areas for quiet retreat....all with drainage patterns in mind and plotted out. Primary consideration in this is the well(s) access in appropriate proximity to the dwellings...although depending on the type of terrain strata, this need not be restrictive.
The least productive areas would be for the physical dwellings on each individual private "domain" , whose size would depend on total acreage and sustaining capacity of property, but also seeking to include favourable space for personal garden nearby. I envision at least 2-acre parcels with the rest responsibly maintained in common.
If it were by individual domains pre- identified by the group's total criteria, then the first wave of shareholders would select from the number of potential sites planned for the total number of folks anticipated. In my case that's a lot of potential...and with crown land on 3 sides.
This is just a quick sketch of procedure, and i'm sure i've missed some. The process should be constantly revisited without arbitrary deadlines for the most part, and readiness for contingencies.
That's at least a start, i hope... more later..

I can help you zero in on a particular area if you want to PM me.

There were several companies that I had asked to speak at the Huntsville event hoping to get some answers. I believe that one group went but the other could not. Three of them could address my building/design questions but not the land. I contacted the Canadian Real Estate Board to see if I could get someone to speak about zoning. I can't even begin to name all of the government people. The bottom line I was told was ask about a specific piece of land - the Realtor, local and province government.

My idea was for a main house with smaller "cottage" type homes like an artist retreat I once visited in the States; off the grid, full gardens with green houses, fish pond, septic system, well, etc, with some of the out buildings for specific things like black smithing, pottery, woodworking.

Kind of like these ones
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=13005828&PidKey=-917508854
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=13506552&PidKey=1384279290
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=13355762&PidKey=-822039055
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=12440596&PidKey=-715367634

I wonder if this is why:
Buying Crown Land

The Ministry of Natural Resources no longer actively markets or sells Crown land for private recreational or residential use. Instead, rather than directly selling individual Crown land parcels to prospective buyers, the Ministry is focusing its efforts on working with northern Ontario communities to make Crown land available at market value to support local economic development. As such, the Ministry’s field offices and website do not list individual, surplus Crown lands for sale.
As an alternative to Crown land, you may wish to consider privately owned property that may be available for purchase. If so, please contact the local real estate offices in the area you are interested in, or, by making use of the Canadian Real Estate Association multiple listing service at http://www.mls.ca .

I just love this...not
Purchaser to satisfy themselves as to access & boundaries. GPS co-ordinates are not from a survey & are to be used as a guideline only. Owner & Realtor have never been to property.

Your description is very similar to my layout design. (the main house being capable of greater numbers for regular meetings and presentations,and dining, with one or more "live-in"caretaker residents" )..with plus the other assessments of soil/water/forest factors. On a conventional res. lot in most places, a main house and garage is allowed and officially only one auxiliary shed 100sq.ft.without a permit.
(i have based one 4-season tiny house design on this, with a loft., just in case.) These can serve well for 1st. wave of shareholders to start affordably, and later used for rental/retreats, maintenance income...as larger units begin to be built.
From the info i have, this is possible only on unorg.land. unless there is an alternate zoning acquired for a trailer park or possibly a "retreat". This a possibility i have to explore,...since it usually requires expensive septic and/or the Waterloo bio compact units.
There are other more sustainable ways of treating blackwater, if there has to be flushing.... the living machine pioneered by John Todd has been functioning for over 20 yrs., and requires a greenhouse for yr.-round use....and/or a solarizing tunnel . And, there is humanure composting for those who wish to minimize their footprint further....and no electricity req'd.

Thanks for this MNR paragraph. I think that's the case. ...seems they've been saving this piece of the cake to further profit indirectly by political support in rural areas, and as a way of controlling direction of development.
Your examples have a broad range. One of them is halfhour from my prospective site.