|
Articles and Information
Veg*n "Eco-Communities" Can Solve Major Problems... AND Help Our
Environment, Too!
by Michael Blate
 What if there were a way you could take your largest single expense—your
home's monthly mortgage payment—and each time you write that check, make
a major, positive impact on the environment immediately around you? At the
same time, this payment could provide for you a neighborhood of like-minded
friends who also eat no slaughtered foods. There is a way to accomplish
this. It's called a "vega*n eco-community."
Article continues below
One third hippie commune, one third condo in the suburbs and one third
environmental project that makes an important difference right in your own
back yard—this almost describes it. But indefinable is that special
quality that comes from living in a community of like-minded friends. People
who truly understand your values and why you follow your special dietary
pathway.
This is not yet a popular way of living for either vegans, vegetarians, or
omnivores in America. But it is a lifestyle that offers the exciting
potential to help save valuable "green space" while simultaneously
fulfilling a very deep human need, one that is seldom satisfied for veg*ns
living in an omnivore world. This is the natural, human desire to seek out
and interact with others like our own selves—caring, unique people who
want to help the world become a better place.
But in a "real world" setting, is America ready for a veg*n eco-community?
We think so ... and my family and I are putting our money where our mouths
are. We are long-time veg*ns and social activists. In the early 1980's, for
example, we formed "The Vegetarian Gourmet Society" in South Florida.
Vegetarian Times Magazine went on to dub this group "the world's largest
vegetarian organization," since we eventually topped 1,000 members.
Today my family owns a 100-acre organic farm in western North Carolina, not
far from Asheville. On it, we're creating what we believe is America's first
veg*n eco-community. And if the idea appeals to you, you can use our "model"
or "prototype" that I'll describe in a moment to create a veg*n
eco-community in your own locality, too.
This project came about not long ago when a request crossed my monitor
screen to post a notice to any veg*n e-group receiving this message. In it,
a group of elderly veg*ns, fearing they would have to live with their
non-veg children during their final years, were looking to instead forge a
"veg*n-only retirement community." A "veg*n village," as it were (contact
SeniorVeg@yahoogroups.com for details).
The plight of veg*n retirees is a very real one, indeed. Most veg*ns, such
as my family and I, are stranded like buoys in an ocean of dietary
indifference around us. And the older we become, the more our
dissimilarities to our neighboring fellowkind seem to show. Easy to
understand, then, why a veg*n village for retirees makes sense.
 So the request for a "veg*n only" retirement community struck a chord
within us and at first it seemed like an excellent use for our property.
However, for several reasons—mainly, the cost to retirees for the housing
-- it became evident that a strictly-retirement project was not the best use
for our land. This led to the concept of a "single-theme" (veg*n)
eco-community.
The idea of "theme" in a housing development is not unique. In fact, some
of the most successful real estate developments are theme projects. For
example, there is the golf-course community and the fashionable ski resort,
two of the most successful theme communities. There, it is one theme only
which is the "glue" that binds the community in place and gives it its
definition. The golf course. The ski slope. And "theme" is especially
important to the eco-community concept, too. In this case, the theme of
course is veg*nism.
There are three important "players" in the eco-community "game": The
land-owner, the builder-developer and the eventual residents. While each one
is important to the project, I think the most vital is the developer. It is
up to him or her to put the project together from both the seller's and the
purchasers' side.
But either the land-owner or one or more of the future residents could also
act as the developer...especially, as in our case, if s/he has close ties
to the veg*n community from which future residents will be drawn. In our own
case, we wear all three hats, so I feel comfortable in addressing each of
these perspectives. With that in mind, let's get down to the nuts and bolts
of actually creating an eco-community.
Here's the model I spoke of: Take a hypothetical 100 acre parcel of real
estate. Let's assume it is now or in the foreseeable future worth $1,800,000
or $18,000 an acre. This is land which has grown too expensive to farm, in
most cases—a farmer could never buy it at that price and still make money
farming it, at least not in today's market. Worse: That farmer's taxes will
be soaring in response to the growing value of his or her property.
Now a conventional developer could easily purchase that land and still make
a huge profit by subdividing it in the normal way. Four or five houses to an
acre. Only as much green space as the zoning laws require. You probably know
the drill, especially if you live in suburbia. Most suburbs have been built
on that model.
But the owner of that 100 acre parcel—assume it's a farmer who can no
longer make a reasonable, living wage for his or her efforts—would still
like to keep on farming because s/he loves doing it. In his perfect world,
he would be able to keep on farming, yet not have to work "in town" (as so
many small farmers must do) to make ends meet. It is what he knows best. So
the farmer who thinks "eco-community" would look for a specialty developer
whose forte lies in developing such parcels of land to their best
environmental use.
Instead of making it into yet another housing tract, we want this special
developer to have a goal of setting aside up to 90% of that land—90
acres, in this case—reserving it forever as "green space." This is an
ambitious goal but it can be achieved. At the same time, we want the
developer to provide affordable housing for a reasonable number of people
without unduly stressing its other inhabitants, the wildlife. Further still,
we want the developer to pay the land-owner a fair market value for the
property. And of course, the developer-builder is going to want to make a
reasonable profit for his or her labors, too. In short, we want everyone
involved in this project to win.
Can these "win-win" ideals be met? Absolutely! Limited, clustered housing
is the key—it's what puts the "eco" in the eco-community concept. While
most residential real estate developers try to squeeze in as many dwellings
per acre as the law (or their marketing department) allows, the vital
principle for an eco-community is to sell and then build only enough
dwellings to pay for the land and the associated costs of construction
thereupon. Nothing more.
This is easier to accomplish than you might think. When you don't have to
provide fat salaries or bonus checks for a CEO and his minions of key
executives, you get a lot more "bang" for your housing buck. Plus, keeping
the land "green and clean" may be so appealing to the seller that he'll even
provide the financing. After all, this might be land which has been in his
family for generations and selling it to slash-&-burn developers may make
him feel awful.
If the seller wants to keep on farming, that's great! The new Homeowners'
Association—which would now own the land for the eco-community—could
work out a crop-share or profit-share arrangement with the farmer. Or the
association might even hire the seller to just maintain the land, not even
farm it.
Conversely, the land could be leased out to a different farmer to grow,
say, organic produce for the residents to consume and/or sell. Or the
eco-community could just let the land revert to a forest, which could then
be maintained sustainably, harvesting enough timber to at least pay the
property taxes.
Next, the developer must gather a group of investor-owners who have at
least that one common interest of veg*nism. This can take a little or a lot
of time, effort and expense, depending on the vision of the developer. So
the developer must first advertise for investor-residents—or, if he
specializes in such projects, perhaps there is already a waiting list.
Once this is in place, the next step of the process can occur. If the
developer is not also a builder, someone must be found to construct the
dwellings. The builder or developer then buys all but five acres of the land
on which the seller's house now sits (and who keeps that remaining five
acres for his family's homestead).
Of the 95 acres the developer-builder buys, s/he assigns about another five
acres for the "housing footprint" on which to build the all-important
limited number of clustered dwellings. They might be closely-sited
free-standing houses or a low-rise townhome building such as we'll be
constructing at "The Woodlands."
The rest—90 acres—is then set aside for posterity. This "retired
land" might even qualify for some kind of land trust funds from state or
private organizations that specialize in purchasing "development rights"
from large landowners. This helps prevent the typical development that
follows when such parcels are conventionally sold, but it can also work to
an eco-community's benefit.
Let us now assume that the builder constructs dwellings that will sell for
$150,000 per unit, including the builder's profit but excluding any land
costs. Let us further say that land costs per dwelling are assigned at
$50,000 per unit. So the builder would erect 40 dwellings on the five-acre
residential footprint, bringing the total price per home to about $200,000
($150,000 dwelling price plus $50,000 for that unit's portion of the land).
One interesting twist we're doing at "The Woodlands at DeerHaven Hills" is
to only provide "shells"—dwellings finished on the outside with the new
owners responsible for completing their own interiors. We're doing this to
help keep dwelling costs as low as possible. Purchasers may then opt to
finish their units as upscale or "minimalist" as they like, either through a
local contractor, doing it themselves or buying complete, ready-to-assemble
rooms at a store like Ikea.
Why do it this way? Veg*ns we've known ranged from being rich as Croesus to
poor as proverbial churchmice for a variety of moral or ethical reasons. So
to make our eco-community as egalitarian as possible—yet not affect a
dwelling's resale value—this seemed the most fair. You too might consider
doing this in an eco-community you put together.
Now let's do the math: The builder has purchased the 95 acres at $18,000
per acre for a total of $1,700,000. S/he needs to make a reasonable mark-up
on the land for development costs, profit and such. Hence, the $50,000 per
dwelling for land costs, plus the normal profit the builder makes for
building each dwelling. At $200,000, the new investor-homeowner has
affordable housing (the average price of a new home in today's market is
roughly $220,000). At the same time, the purchaser has created a beautiful
lifestyle and helped save a large chunk of green space.
The seller has received enough money to live comfortably from the income
received from the land sale proceeds. At the same time, the eco-community
will at the very least need to have its new land maintained, and may very
well want to have the farmer continue farming on a crop-share or
profit-share basis. It is no longer so important for the seller to earn a
living wage from farming and the eco-community, the land's new owners, will
be happy to receive any amount of income to help defray costs of ownership
of the land.
The prices of the dwellings can even be "tweaked" to a certain extent,
since a primary goal of the eco-community is to sell, then build, just
enough dwellings to pay for the land. More dwellings on the property can
reduce the price of each home but puts more pressure on the land being
"saved." Fewer dwellings stress the land less, but mean higher housing
costs.
Of course, this sort of project would not work for all properties nor for
all people. But it clearly might appeal to:
- People who are used to living in condos or apartments and who would now
love to have a "park" next door, instead of a high-rise building.
-
Anyone tired of living in "four to an acre" tract housing who is willing
to lose that 20 feet separating him or her from a neighbor. Instead, s/he
opts for closer, perhaps even attached housing, but with proportionate
ownership of a 90 acre "back yard" to make the deal as sweet as candy.
This is a workable program for many people and many parcels of land ...
especially spectacular land whose views or other features, alone, make it
worth preserving. Space-cramped Europeans have been wisely utilizing their
land for centuries, as have most Asian countries. Adding the veg*n twist
makes it even more attractive, I think.
Details of this project can be found at www.dhhf.org or
www.dhhf.net —scroll down to "The Woodlands at
DeerHaven Hills." You can use the material in this indepth website to help
craft such an eco-community in your own part of America or the world. Bottom
line: An eco-community can be a win-win situation any way you look at it.
For further details, information or discussion, contact:
Michael Blate
DeerHaven Hills Farm 828.863.4660 Tryon, NC
Email: michaelblate@webtv.net or yogafarm@webtv.net
www.dhhf.org www.dhhf.net
Photos by Kasey Baker
|
Sponsors:
|
|
