[gremlinsinc]

Wish something like this existed for starting intentional/ecovillage communal living places...i.e. paid for the land, and maybe using a portion for glamping/etc and then using that to fund supplies for container homes, and setting up vertical farms, rainwatch catch systems, solar panels, etc... Then maybe charge residents like a $200 HOA fee, or something that is used to better the community's shared things. We'd have a library-like facility with commercial kitchens, maker space, shared tools, recreational vehicles to borrow (and rent to glampers), etc... in tiny homes space is king, so if we all don't own every tool/power tool etc...and share more we can utilize less space which is also better for the environment and means less to build.

We can add recreational things too so we don't have to go far from home to have fun...like a climbing wall that converts to a drive-in movie screen.

If this could become repeatable...could factor in some sort of travel program too where all intentional communities could have glamp sections and give free or cheap access to traveling members of other communities..so if you go to disneyland you pay like $10/night for your whole family instead of $100. Or nomads could relocate and stay in semi-permanent housing for the same $200/month rent/hoa fee. (fee could be like a flat $100/person in household, or $200...the goal being make it so anybody can access these as an alternative to normal rents that are exorbitant).

TLDR: my idea is essentially being to make more resilient, community strong, vibrant and affordable housing developments in rural areas backed by income producing assets/resources (glamp camps), and rental fees (not free, but affordable enough for McDonald's wages).

Increasing homes/rentals also has the added value of raising supply, lowering demand and everyone's rent goes down...

[jelliclesfarm]

I like the gist/outline of this idea. Not sure about the details. I would have to look at those numbers(numbers are relative anyways).

Homestead should probably pivot to this..they would still be profitable and it would be meaningful. It should be a rural focused program.

This is how we bake a bigger pie instead of sawing a small pie into thinner slivers.

I strongly urge them to pivot. Splitting urban lots is a terrible idea. California and esp Southern California is a sprawl. And cities in demand are already stretched. And it’s likely that will be profitable only in zip codes that are already overburdened.