I’m sure there are many people like me who long for a self-sufficient life on a 10 acre lifestyle property, but simply can’t afford it.
It seems like such a contradiction, to leave society and commune with nature, which was once upon a time achievable by anyone, is now out of reach for most. Especially those who don’t buy into capitalism and careers.
I was researching today about how human poop affects global warming. It does! Wastewater treatment ponds send methane into the atmosphere. But guess what? Composting toilets don’t. And even better, they can make actual useable compost. They turn a negative into a positive.
Ideally every home installs a compost toilet, and the compost gets collected and used. But that won’t happen.
Because we can’t do something fully, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it at all. Pooping in a compost toilet once per month is better for the planet than never. Spending a weekend once a month at your “weekender” is better for you than never. Once per season, or once per year, is better than nothing.
So I am thinking of a time-share version of a commune…
- Owned by a Trust or Non-Profit
- Includes bush/wilderness protected by a covenant
- Paid full-time custodians, via a tender process and popular vote
- 5 year “ownership” by monthly subscription, via auction
- Offer seasonal subscriptions as well
- Subscriptions are for singles (dorms), couples or families (own rooms)
- Leave at any time, your “ownership” is re-auctioned
Your subscription entitles you to one weekend or one working week per month. If particular time-periods are popular, who gets when can be decided by ballot. Friends can link together for their stays.
What do you get?
- Communal meals
- Shared accommodation / shared facilities
- Work roster (elective and ballot for whatever is popular)
- Parties / celebrations / every Thu and Sun and full moon and solstice and equinox
What are the shared principles?
- Obsessively low carbon footprint
- Regenerative and organic practices
- Free love (joke!)
- Support the arts (residencies, hire bands, make the property beautiful)
- Available to non-members (WWOOFers, people in recovery)
- Obsessively support local business
- As low-tech and manual as can be feasible
- Meat only from long-lived animals
- Compost toilets, no fossil fuels, etc
- Expansion – giving more people access to such a place should be of importance
There are some really good aspects to this concept:
To get “owners”, we will need lots of online content and transparency.
Subscriptions are via auction, so the better we perform as a community, the more successful the venture will be financially.
Potentially some very rich people might be interested. Keep in mind that people already pay $$$ to do volunteer work overseas, or do archaeological digs.
If financially successful, expansion can happen. Properties further away from a capital city are cheaper to buy and will have cheaper subscriptions. Travel time will be a big factor. Public transport and mini-bus pickup will be aimed for.
Unlike full-time communes, a lot of people will be involved, so that leads to a better democracy. And less in-fighting.
People get to boast that they are doing good, in a more substantial and demonstrative way that paying for carbon offsets on your electricity bill.
And, of course, some negatives:
Who runs it? Egos can destroy such a thing.
It needs seed-funding. Land is not cheap.
Ownership? Somebody needs to own the land.
Ideally a benevolent dictator could kick this off?
How does non-profit work?
Because there will be many members, that means it is quite democratic. Profits can be spent on the existing property, or put towards expanding elsewhere. Because one of the aims is low footprint, profits are less likely to be spent on infrastructure.
It can be like the RACV – a very profitable organisation owned by its members, that spends profits buying resorts and accumulating capital.
BONUS!
Reality TV is a possibility, because the concept is unique.
Merchandise. School trips / open days.
Brandable. Products from the farming.
Get around planning laws! Most councils say you can only camp on your property for a portion of the year (like, 3 months total). But you will only be there once per month. That means tents/yurts should be fine on a property that cannot get permission to build. Even if each arrival has to take down a tent and put it up 3 metres away (good for the grass).
Most councils allow for 3m x 3m building without approval, so that can cover things like kitchens, showers, storage, toilets. Unlimited numbers of.
BACK OF THE ENVELOPE
10 people per weekend, 10 people per weekdays (allows for enough mix of singles, couples, families, and the bonding doesn’t get too diluted).
$200 per weekend or weekdays. That is great value for just the food/accommodation but also compared to “experiences’.
That equals $4000 per week in input, against perhaps $50K for the manager per year (they get food and accommodation…).
$150K a year for expenses/profits.
Costs will include:
- rates
- water?
- electricity? just initially?
- FOOD – we won’t be anything like 100% self-sufficient and a lot of mouths to feed
- vets
- fencing
- maintenance / repairs
- seeds / seedlings
- vehicle and fuel for fetching people from a train station
It feels to me like the above would balance out OK, if $200 is what people paid. If the concept was appealing enough to get higher bids, then success and expansion. Presumably the desire/price would grow with time and fame.
If it couldn’t make ends meet, the primary issue – food costs – could be solved by people bringing their own. And bringing their own tents (which should be encouraged anyway)