View Full Version : Property for Sale near AT in Suches GA
I have removed the property information as the discussion that follows has little to do with this particular tract, and more to do with WB members views on property owner rights, covenants and restrictions, square footage, enviros vs greed, mcmansions, mpg, carbon footprints, water and sewage. Have at it guys and gals.
Of course if anyone might like some pertinent information on this property, please pm and I will give you what I have.
Recieved a question by PM about covenants and restrictions. C&Rs are filed with the property. The lots are to be used for residential only and with a size requirement of 1200+ sqft (?) per home. This property is not suitable for a hostel.
modiyooch
10-07-2007, 08:21
I like it better if it was 1-2 homesites and not 30.
I hate it when they put size requirements on a home. We are forcing folks to build way more house than is needed. A single person can get along just fine with a 600 to 900 sq. foot house.
This type of waste, dictated by local law irritates me no end.
Ok back off my soapbox...
Square foot requirements are used, since discrimination based upon income is illegal.
Just my opinion but.... if you can afford 70K for a piece of land, chances are you won't be building a 900sqft house. Maybe I'm generalizing too much but it seems the more money you have the bigger your house.
Suzzz,
May be true, but my point is that one does not have the option with restrictions like these. I, for one, would build a small home even if I could afford bigger.
Lyle, while you would probably build a nice small home, an asset to the sub-division. There are those who would park a trailor on the next lot, a party tent on another. Suddenly, your nice house's value would be crap. I've seen it happen many times. Restrictions are placed for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a 70,000 lot knowing someone could throw up a tiny little house next to me, guaranteeing loss of value!
Bigger isn't better, just more wasteful and expensive.
Jim Adams
10-07-2007, 20:46
Lyle, while you would probably build a nice small home, an asset to the sub-division. There are those who would park a trailor on the next lot, a party tent on another. Suddenly, your nice house's value would be crap. I've seen it happen many times. Restrictions are placed for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a 70,000 lot knowing someone could throw up a tiny little house next to me, guaranteeing loss of value!
This is a beautiful and quaint area. To me the $70,000 would be to guarentee that it stays that way. There is no reason in this day and age with the condition of our environments for a two person household to be larger than 1,000 sq. feet.
With your attitude, I wouldn't want you building next to me in this area either!
gee:-?
Appalachian Tater
10-07-2007, 20:55
Demographics vs. House Size
The U.S. Census Bureau has been collecting detailed information on household size since 1940 and tracking certain characteristics of houses since 1963. Data on houses were collected by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other agencies from 1940 to 1963. Average household size in the United States has dropped steadily from 3.67 members in 1940 to 2.62 in 2002. The average size of new houses increased from about 1,100 ft2 (100 m2) in the 1940s and 1950s to 2,340 ft2 (217 m2) in 2002. Factoring together the family size and house size statistics, we find that in 1950 houses were built with about 290 square feet (27 m2) per family member, whereas in 2003 houses provided 893 square feet (83 m2) per family member (NAHB 2003) -- a factor of 3 increase.
http://www.greenerbuildings.com/news_detail.cfm?NewsID=28392
It is very possible to have restrictions on what is built without requiring a huge house to be built. 1200 square feet is fairly modest these days for a primary house. I would think in an area like this a smaller, quality house or cabin should be allowed.
KirkMcquest
10-07-2007, 21:08
All these restrictions make me sick. The concept of ownership in this country has really done to s#$t.
A couple of comments in regards to the replies:
First, I am somewhat sorry that this has taken the tangent it has. Only posted the thread to let those interested in AT property know the opportunity exists.
Second, I too wish this was being sold in one or two parcels. But with smaller parcels going for 40-60K per acre in the area the current owner believes he can maximize his value by selling the tract off in as many lots as the code will allow (Union County requires 1.5 buildable acres minimum per lot. As for the definition of buildable, I have learned through personal experience that it is quite complex).
Third, nobody forces C&R's on anyone. They are a choice that people make when they purchase property. They are actually a property owner's right, and the current owner has exercised his right in establishing the C&R's as he believes they will bring added value to the property as he sells it off.
Fourth, in this area 1200 sqft is really quite small. I would say the 15 or so houses within a two mile radius range from 1000 sqft to 8000 sqft. My house is about 3500 sqft. The purpose of the restriction is to keep a group of hunters from getting together and buying multiple lots and putting in a series small bunkhouses creating a hunters camp. The property is surrounded by prime hunting area and this is a concern of the seller. He wants to keep the area a bit more residential and vacation oriented, which as a neighboring property I support. And, of course that is his right as a property owner. And, C&R's can be always be voted null and void by a pre-determined % vote of all the affected property owners if they choose to do so.
Jim Adams
10-07-2007, 22:11
I am familiar with the area and it is very pretty indeed but I myself would rather see it have the hunting camps as the whole area would still be inhabited less often than it would be as a housing developement or even vacation homes. Hunting season isn't that long.
geek
Miss Janet
10-07-2007, 22:36
We have a new "development" going up near the AT and locked into the Cherokee National Forest. It is a very rugged, steep area with dozens of creeks... and beautiful! The limit there will be 1,500 feet... on the first level! They are selling lots of 1/2 to 2 acres. Well, there will be lots of houses but not much mountain left. With over 30 septic tanks in a 60 acre mountain I worry about the water running downhill... into my water sources!
I have several friends who have built nice homes with required sq. footage only to find that they had rooms they never entered... rooms they never even furnished. It is so sad and says some really sad things about our society.
Most people who can afford to buy those $70, 000 lots and build $300,000-500,000+ homes are RETIRED people with GROWN families... so why do they need 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms?? What I hear is ... because "WE CAN"!
But should we??
And please don't feel bad about posting that the land is available. I am sure we don't mean to pick on you but I feel it is a very important issue. If we don't deal with it then our children and grandchildren sure will have to.
Appalachian Tater
10-07-2007, 22:40
1200 sq ft is really fairly modest, it's the same size as a three-car garage. Personally I would want something even smaller, but 1200 is not anything to get up in arms over.
http://www.amazingplans.com/catalog.php?action=search&sqf_overall_between%5B%5D=1200&sqf_overall_between%5B%5D=1299&Submit=Submit
Jim Adams
10-07-2007, 22:42
If you really want to make the area a better neighborhood, don't limit minimum size, limit maximum carbon print!
geek
If you really want to make the area a better neighborhood, don't limit minimum size, limit maximum carbon print!
geekI do not know if that is directed to me or simply a rhetorical comment. If directed to me, let me clarify that I have no control over what happens with the property in question. My property is across the road and in no way connected to, or part of this property being discussed with the filed C&Rs. And as such I have no say in how this tract is developed.
As I mentioned above, I would prefer to see the tract sold in much larger parcels. But it is the seller's property to do as he chooses. And as a proponent of Property Owner Rights, I would be quite the hypocrite if I attempted to interfere.
Appalachian Tater
10-07-2007, 23:37
Fat Man, I don't think any of the comments are directed at you personally. This is just normal thread-drift and if it gets even one person to think about a smaller home, it is worthwhile.
MrSparex
10-07-2007, 23:47
Good grief Charlie Brown!
This is a beautiful and quaint area. To me the $70,000 would be to guarentee that it stays that way. There is no reason in this day and age with the condition of our environments for a two person household to be larger than 1,000 sq. feet.
With your attitude, I wouldn't want you building next to me in this area either!
gee:-?My attitude! I was just pointing out why restrictions can be a good thing in respect to property values. I can assure you lenders will care about property values. As you say, "in this day and age", people are more mobile and they will want to look out for resale value in any property they buy. Restrictions are no guarantee, but they help. Besides, most of the buyers will build vacation cabins, where 1200 sq ft is about right.
Since you're so enlightened, you might wanna talk to the property owner, he's the one trying to sell minimum sized lots in a "beautiful and quaint" area.
We have a new "development" going up near the AT and locked into the Cherokee National Forest. It is a very rugged, steep area with dozens of creeks... and beautiful! The limit there will be 1,500 feet... on the first level! They are selling lots of 1/2 to 2 acres. Well, there will be lots of houses but not much mountain left. With over 30 septic tanks in a 60 acre mountain I worry about the water running downhill... into my water sources!
I have several friends who have built nice homes with required sq. footage only to find that they had rooms they never entered... rooms they never even furnished. It is so sad and says some really sad things about our society.
Most people who can afford to buy those $70, 000 lots and build $300,000-500,000+ homes are RETIRED people with GROWN families... so why do they need 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms?? What I hear is ... because "WE CAN"!
But should we??
And please don't feel bad about posting that the land is available. I am sure we don't mean to pick on you but I feel it is a very important issue. If we don't deal with it then our children and grandchildren sure will have to.
Sorry, I don't see home square footage saying anything sad about our society. However, I do see something sad about one part of society telling another part how to live. They most always play the environmental card, but I believe at the heart of it is something else. That being jeolously.
As far as a retired couple building large houses. That's easy, they need room for when the children and grandchildren visit. They worked all their lives to get to that point and I, for one, am all for them living how they want to live.
take-a-knee
10-08-2007, 01:12
I'll bet you drive a Tahoe don't you Chief? All those boys in the desert getting their asses blown off (literally sometimes) just so you can go whenever you damn-well please, that's their problem ain't it. They shouldn't have volunteered, right?
Jim Adams
10-08-2007, 02:46
I do not know if that is directed to me or simply a rhetorical comment. If directed to me, let me clarify that I have no control over what happens with the property in question. My property is across the road and in no way connected to, or part of this property being discussed with the filed C&Rs. And as such I have no say in how this tract is developed.
As I mentioned above, I would prefer to see the tract sold in much larger parcels. But it is the seller's property to do as he chooses. And as a proponent of Property Owner Rights, I would be quite the hypocrite if I attempted to interfere.
FatMan,
NO, NO, NO!:eek:
That was not directed to you. I am glad when people release info about land for sale near the trail. I wish that I was able to purchase some and in fact I am very jealous that you have land there. Gooch Gap is one of my favorite spots in Georgia.
The carbon print statement was directed toward agreeing with the other comments about the current housing in the U.S. being too large and a waste of resourses and money.
Sorry for any disrespect, it was not intended that way!
geek
Jim Adams
10-08-2007, 02:54
Sorry, I don't see home square footage saying anything sad about our society. However, I do see something sad about one part of society telling another part how to live. They most always play the environmental card, but I believe at the heart of it is something else. That being jeolously.
As far as a retired couple building large houses. That's easy, they need room for when the children and grandchildren visit. They worked all their lives to get to that point and I, for one, am all for them living how they want to live.
Just because you work all your life does not give you the right to :mad: continually contribute to the destruction of this planet!
geek
Two Speed
10-08-2007, 06:08
Mmm, catching a lot of heat here, aren't you Chief?
Sorry, I don't see home square footage saying anything sad about our society. . . Actually, Miss Janet's argument does have logic behind it. Steep terrain usually doesn't make for good septic fields; not enough soil to allow the field to work properly. The standard method of dealing with that is to increase the size of the lot, but if it's a small lot with a big house crammed on it then that gets problematic. The probability of the field failing goes up as the lot size decreases and the house size increases.
FWIW I used to draw septic designs for an engineer I worked for while in college, and currently work closely with the environmental health specialists reviewing construction plans. Trust me, Miss Janet has brought up a valid point.
take-a-knee, how do you know what kind of vehicle Chief drives?
Jim, basically I agree with you. Now, if we can just assure ourselves that Chief is personally responsible for the destruction of our planent and that you and I don't have a part in that sad story we can get all upright and rigtheous and really tear a piece off of ol' Chief. That'll learn him!
FatMan, looks like the standard WB thread drift has gone into overdrive, and we may achieve thread ricochet soon. Of course I'm participating, so I guess I'm part of the problem. :cool:
brotheral
10-08-2007, 09:12
I've camped at Dockery Lake a few times in that area and love it. Hiked to Blood mountain shelter on the AT......
The responses to this thread remind me of a Quote that goes something like this, "Don't waste valuable time looking for things to be upset about !!"
Be Happy !!:sun Happy Trails...............BrotherAL
I'll bet you drive a Tahoe don't you Chief? All those boys in the desert getting their asses blown off (literally sometimes) just so you can go whenever you damn-well please, that's their problem ain't it. They shouldn't have volunteered, right?Nope, I drive a Nissan XTerra. Other than that, what the hell are you talking about?
ChimneySpring
10-08-2007, 09:34
Has the subdivision been approved, and are the plats recorded? Will it be served by water and sewer or will each lot have it's own well and septic system? That seems like an awful lot of density to be served by well and septic, although I'm not familiar with ordinances in that neck of the woods. Assuming that it's all w&s and proposed occupancy of 4-6 people, the ground there is going to be pretty maxed out from a septic standpoint.
Miss Janet's post really alarms me. Whomever allowed that sort of subdivision to take place has created a disaster. In my neck of the woods, the mountain land plan seriously limits development... to the tune of only 1 dwelling unit per 20+ acres or more in many cases.
I've laid back, a bit embarassed for starting the severe thread drift. But I will make one final comment:
People have said, it is the sellers right to divide his property the way he wants, even if it is detrimental to the area - it's his property.
Well, what about the new owners, shouldn't the law protect their property rights, their right to build the size and type house that they feel they need. This would not degrade the area any more than having 30 medium to large homes wedged in the area. No one is telling these people they can't build oversized monstrosities, testaments to their personal greed and overt desire to "show off". Only the people who wish to build a reasonable, well designed, efficient home are being told that their property rights don't matter, the neighbor's opinion takes precidence over their's. I'm sorry, but this DOES say something very sad about our society. Both that people feel they have this right, and that the law allows it.
Now, I'm done making my comments. This is not directed at anyone in particular and is not meant as an attack on anyone's personal view, but just as my personal view about where our society places it's value.
Mmm, catching a lot of heat here, aren't you Chief?Actually, Miss Janet's argument does have logic behind it. Steep terrain usually doesn't make for good septic fields; not enough soil to allow the field to work properly. The standard method of dealing with that is to increase the size of the lot, but if it's a small lot with a big house crammed on it then that gets problematic. The probability of the field failing goes up as the lot size decreases and the house size increases.
FWIW I used to draw septic designs for an engineer I worked for while in college, and currently work closely with the environmental health specialists reviewing construction plans. Trust me, Miss Janet has brought up a valid point.
take-a-knee, how do you know what kind of vehicle Chief drives?
Jim, basically I agree with you. Now, if we can just assure ourselves that Chief is personally responsible for the destruction of our planent and that you and I don't have a part in that sad story we can get all upright and rigtheous and really tear a piece off of ol' Chief. That'll learn him!
FatMan, looks like the standard WB thread drift has gone into overdrive, and we may achieve thread ricochet soon. Of course I'm participating, so I guess I'm part of the problem. :cool:Let's see, the original poster says the lots are restricted to a min. of 1200 sq ft, another poster says 600 to 900 is all you need, and another says 1000 is all 2 people need. Me, I say 1200 is about right and I'm suddenly seen as driving a Tahoe and don't care that people are dying in the desert. Huh, all that over a few hundred sq ft? Is it any wonder that some people discount what enviros have to say and question their agendas.
Chief, re-read the posts, you have misunderstood. The requirement is that no homes smaller than 1200 sq. ft. can be built. My response is that a single person can do very well with a home of 600 to 900 sq. ft., but I would not be allowed to build a house of this size.
You appear to be arguing apples vs oranges, just a misunderstanding.
Take care,
Chief, disregard my previous post, I re-read your's and I was the one who misunderstood. Carry on.
Flush2wice
10-08-2007, 10:37
I drive a Tahoe
max patch
10-08-2007, 10:40
A 50-60 acre tract will be subdivided into about 30-40 homesites on Cooper Gap Road / FS 42 in Suches. A couple of the lots have been officially listed with prices starting about 70K+.
Thanks for posting this information. I always appreciate a heads up on trail property coming up for sale. I'm going to own land near the trail someday. Its not going to be a 70k lot in a subdivision; but I'm glad you took the time to post it.
I drive a Tahoe
You make Baby-Jesus cry :D
I've laid back, a bit embarassed for starting the severe thread drift. But I will make one final comment:
People have said, it is the sellers right to divide his property the way he wants, even if it is detrimental to the area - it's his property.
Well, what about the new owners, shouldn't the law protect their property rights, their right to build the size and type house that they feel they need. This would not degrade the area any more than having 30 medium to large homes wedged in the area. No one is telling these people they can't build oversized monstrosities, testaments to their personal greed and overt desire to "show off". Only the people who wish to build a reasonable, well designed, efficient home are being told that their property rights don't matter, the neighbor's opinion takes precidence over their's. I'm sorry, but this DOES say something very sad about our society. Both that people feel they have this right, and that the law allows it.
Now, I'm done making my comments. This is not directed at anyone in particular and is not meant as an attack on anyone's personal view, but just as my personal view about where our society places it's value.Lyle, you seem to be arguing both sides of the argument here. You begin by suggesting the property owner should not have the right to divide his property at the detriment of the area in the neighbor's opinions. Then you go on to say that the new owner should not be restricted from doing as they please, even if it is against the neighbor's opinions. It looks like it is OK as long as it is you doing as you want, but not others.
The county has determined what is the allowed density, and that is the law. Beyond that point, everything else is property owner choice. Nobody is forcing anyone to build a 1200 sqft house. Those that choose to build smaller will choose to buy property that will allow it.
Other than the county code putting limits on what the owner can do with regards to the division of the property, no one is being told to do anything. When the new owner purchases the property they will sign the document agreeing to the C&Rs. They are not being blindsided with hidden restrictions.
This is simply a matter of choice. And I'm sorry if you disagree, but choice is good.
With that said, when you do your thru-hike I would love to have you stop in for a steak and beer so I a can show off the testament to my greed.
take-a-knee
10-08-2007, 11:05
Chief, my whole point is this; everything each of us does isn't just "our business". John Doone said that no man is an island. What we drive and how much of a carbon footprint we have affects every person in this country.
These Mcmasions that everyone is building and financing with ARM's are being reposessed at an alarming rate. The cost per killowatt hr to generate electricity is growing quickly. People are building houses they can't even afford in this economy, much less one with $150 per barrel oil prices. Most of the people who will buy and build there will have a least one, probably two people commuting back and forth from Atlanta, how smart is that? For the retired neurosurgeons and CEO's who'll buy and build there who have a million or two in a 401K I congratulate them and wish them well. I still think they shouldn't build 4000 ft/sq. in an energy inefficient manner like houses are built now. I used to be in the building business, I got sick of it. It costs a lot more per square-foot to do it right , both from a longevity and an energy efficiency standpoint. If most of us don't wake the hell up and smell the coffee and start mananging our personal affairs a lot better the government will do it for us and I am not in favor of that, but if we are stupid enough for long enough that'll be unavoidable.
Johnny Thunder
10-08-2007, 11:11
******* S.M.U.G. ALERT***********
Before posting Whiteblaze members must indicate the size of their own dwelling, manner of heating/cooling, type of mortgage, type of car, mpg, calculated carbon footprint, and a picture of them in a fuzzy bunny suit.
*******This has been a broadcast of the emergency S.M.U.G. Alert system ********
Chief, my whole point is this; everything each of us does isn't just "our business". John Doone said that no man is an island. What we drive and how much of a carbon footprint we have affects every person in this country.
These Mcmasions that everyone is building and financing with ARM's are being reposessed at an alarming rate. The cost per killowatt hr to generate electricity is growing quickly. People are building houses they can't even afford in this economy, much less one with $150 per barrel oil prices. Most of the people who will buy and build there will have a least one, probably two people commuting back and forth from Atlanta, how smart is that? For the retired neurosurgeons and CEO's who'll buy and build there who have a million or two in a 401K I congratulate them and wish them well. I still think they shouldn't build 4000 ft/sq. in an energy inefficient manner like houses are built now. I used to be in the building business, I got sick of it. It costs a lot more per square-foot to do it right , both from a longevity and an energy efficiency standpoint. If most of us don't wake the hell up and smell the coffee and start mananging our personal affairs a lot better the government will do it for us and I am not in favor of that, but if we are stupid enough for long enough that'll be unavoidable.Funny, none of the above made into your first post. You should have made your point rather than implying things about me.
"Lyle, you seem to be arguing both sides of the argument here. You begin by suggesting the property owner should not have the right to divide his property at the detriment of the area in the neighbor's opinions."
I did not suggest this, I just pointed out that he does in fact have this right. The other point was that the new owner does not have the right to build a reasonable house because the neighbors feel it would be a detriment. I was pointing out the inconsistency of the situation.
If anything, your argument is that it is all ok, as long as it agrees with you. The current owner can subdivide to the detriment of the neighborhood because it is his right as a property owner, but the new owners must build as the neighbors say in spite of being the property owner. This is not a consistent property rights position.
This was my final post, on to other topics now.
Appalachian Tater
10-08-2007, 11:52
For the retired neurosurgeons and CEO's who'll buy and build there who have a million or two in a 401K
Only a very unambitious and lazy or very charitable neurosurgeon makes less than $400,000 a year, many make two or three times that, or more. Having only a million or two in a 401K at age forty would be a mark of failure even for a neurosurgeon with low earnings. People usually underestimate how much specialized surgeons make and overestimate what a general practitioner type makes.
I wonder if Lyle comprehends that a buyer AGREES to any covenents and restrictions when he buys the property. No one's hiding anything, no one's twisting your arm to buy. Lala Land is not a place.
ChimneySpring
10-08-2007, 12:18
Chief, I was going to point that out as well. That, and the covenants would be drafted by the property owner (seller in this case) NOT adjacent property owners. Factor into this that as with all subdivisions of property, there are ample opportunities for local residents to review, discuss, and comment on the proposed plan via their local planning commission meetings.
So many people have so little understanding of the development process, and an equally large number have the "development = bad" mindset... particularly after they themselves have taken advantage of whatever opportunity previously existed for them to get their own slice of rural living.
Add to this the "evil wealthy". As Tater points out, you'd be one slummin' neurosurgeon if Knee's assumptions were accurate. I'd also like to point out that at a reasonable custom-home construction home rate, said 1,200 sq. ft. house would set someone back about $250k (lot included). Hardly an amount affordable to only retired CEO's. But let's assume it is... what's so bad about retired CEO's? After all... haven't they employed people?
Maybe these will be a bunch of retirement homes. Kind of trumps the dreaded commuter argument, huh? Or maybe the people who live there will be able to telecommute? Or, perhaps like some well known environmentalist hypocrites, they will purchase carbon offsets?
We're not all going to live in cities and bike to work, and people living above their means isn't new - and I'll submit doesn't "start" at some preconcieved threshold related to the sq. ft. of their dwelling.
Miss Janet
10-08-2007, 14:31
I grew up dirt poor with a family of 7 children. We SHARED bedrooms and BATHROOMS. I just have a hard time understanding a world where children have "suites" all to themselves... and a new SUV when they turn 16. I was happy to provide my children with their own room and a nice bathroom to share.
So maybe their is some awe of some kind but not jealousy. Jealousy implies that I want what they have. I don't. And it just scares me that so many people do want the McMansions... or the $400,000 McCabins!
I am happy to see this Wilderness Falls "gated community" trying for a little greener presentation. I still stand by my opinion that it is TOOO many flushers in too small a space and I am not even a expert like Two Speeds!
http://wildernessfallstn.com/
Jim Adams
10-08-2007, 14:45
Is it any wonder that some people discount what enviros have to say and question their agendas.
calling me an enviro?
never been one before.
to me this is just another case of over regulation and loss of personal freedoms.
I own a 15 acre plot that I purchased years ago in a beautiful country setting and always planned to build and live there the rest of my life.
Now the property is worth 10 times the original cost and I will never live there. it is totally surrounded by housing plans with 4,000 +sq. foot houses on 1/2 acre plots. I own the woods in the middle of the community!
now I am hoping to find a quaint mountainous area to live that has no close neighbors...an area sort of like Gooch Gap....get it?
this entire country is building itself into human extinction just for the sake of greed.
me?...an enviro...LOL!!! I would ride my motorcycle the entire length of the AT if it was legal but I respect the reasons that it is illegal. BTW, both my motorcycle and my van gets better milage than an Xterra. I'm not really an enviro but I do care about whether the planet I live on will remain habitable.
geek
ChimneySpring
10-08-2007, 15:16
this entire country is building itself into human extinction just for the sake of greed.
geek
Aren't the homes being built so that humans can live in them, and thus not become "extinct"? :D
It sounds to me like you've got a nice little nest egg sitting there, assuming that your 10 acres can be subdivided like the surrounding property was. That should afford you the opportunity to find someplace nice and secluded.
Appalachian Tater
10-08-2007, 15:18
I grew up dirt poor with a family of 7 children. We SHARED bedrooms and BATHROOMS. I just have a hard time understanding a world where children have "suites" all to themselves... and a new SUV when they turn 16. I was happy to provide my children with their own room and a nice bathroom to share.
So maybe their is some awe of some kind but not jealousy. Jealousy implies that I want what they have. I don't. And it just scares me that so many people do want the McMansions... or the $400,000 McCabins!
I am happy to see this Wilderness Falls "gated community" trying for a little greener presentation. I still stand by my opinion that it is TOOO many flushers in too small a space and I am not even a expert like Two Speeds!
http://wildernessfallstn.com/
Miss Janet, being able to distinguish between wants and needs is one of the major determinations of happiness. Not wanting to lay waste to the entire planet so that future generations will survive is not jealousy, it's just being smart.
ChimneySpring
10-08-2007, 15:30
Checked out the link for Wilderness Falls. There has GOT to be a package treatment plant for this development, or it's going to be hooked up to some municipal source. One of the lots is less than 1/3 acre, so there's no way in the world that a water source, drainfield, and house could fit in that small a space.
Interesting sales pitch on it's environmental friendliness (in article). No gas powered lawn mowers. Ok. ATV's not allowed on developed roads (well duh... no one rides ATV's on pavement unless they are a moron). "Most roads will be built on logging roads" to reduce "de-greening". Hmmm... as if the homesites won't require any clearing, huh?
Looks like they have some of the little aspects of being "green" covered. But lord, will you be able to see this development from miles away.
ChimneySpring
10-08-2007, 15:34
I always thought the term "McMansion" was interesting. People who use it a lot have said to them it describes a bunch of houses that all look the same (and of course are "oversized" in their opinion). Which begs the question, why isn't there a term "McRambler" or "McCape" (or "McCod")? Seems like older neighborhoods in a lot of regions sport row after row of the same architecture as well.
I always thought the term "McMansion" was interesting. People who use it a lot have said to them it describes a bunch of houses that all look the same (and of course are "oversized" in their opinion). Which begs the question, why isn't there a term "McRambler" or "McCape" (or "McCod")? Seems like older neighborhoods in a lot of regions sport row after row of the same architecture as well.
I alwasy thought a McMansion was a massive house with a yard that extends just a couple of feet beyond the foundation.
Pennsylvania Rose
10-08-2007, 15:43
What really irks me is that it's getting harder and harder to find land without restrictions, even in rural areas. And that (if I could possibly afford the land) I couldn't move my perfectly good, well insulated and energy efficient, 1000 sq ft mobile home to an area that I love simply because snooty people don't want to live near "trash" like me. OMG, my kids might want to play with theirs!!! In their hand-me-downs and second-hand clothes!! We might try to fix our car in front of the house! Or plant a vegetable garden! The world may end! Wouldn't they be appalled to know that 7 of us comfortably inhabit such a small space.
ChimneySpring
10-08-2007, 16:01
I alwasy thought a McMansion was a massive house with a yard that extends just a couple of feet beyond the foundation.
Interesting. Maybe it's a regional thing? I didn't start to hear it until moving to a largely rural area that has been under a lot of development pressure for some time. Here, the term describes a big house, but they generally are sitting on 3 acre parcels, and the "complaint" seems to focus on their similarity to one another.
Appalachian Tater
10-08-2007, 16:18
Pretty much the accepted definition of a McMansion is a house that is too large for the small lot it's on, especially when it replaces a tear-down in an established neighborhood with much smaller houses.
I wouldn't call a house on a three acre lot a McMansion unless it were really large and overly-grandiose.
In new subdivisions you can get the same thing, a pretentiously large house on a small lot. That they tend to look similar is actually not so awful. In many beautiful old neighborhoods all the houses are in the same architectural style. The underlying complaint would probably be that they all look ugly. If they were well-designed with good proportions and carefully built out of quality materials, nobody would complain about the similarity, just their large sizes and small lots.
In the past I've thought that if you're going to build a large house, go out in the country where you get much more land for the money. However, this is not always possible in some parts of the country these days, and it is not environmentally responsible.
ChimneySpring
10-08-2007, 16:45
Then it's definitely a regional thing. Here in western NoVa, it definitely relates to the "look", although scale follows close behind. Of course, in many spots here we're talking about agricultural land that's been developed, so houses tend to stand out a little (or a lot) more since there aren't a lot of trees.
Just curious, why is it environmentally irresponsible to build a large house out in the country? Are you referring to after-the-fact impact like commuting, etc.?
Then it's definitely a regional thing. Here in western NoVa, it definitely relates to the "look", although scale follows close behind. Of course, in many spots here we're talking about agricultural land that's been developed, so houses tend to stand out a little (or a lot) more since there aren't a lot of trees.
Just curious, why is it environmentally irresponsible to build a large house out in the country? Are you referring to after-the-fact impact like commuting, etc.?
I guess it would have to be regional. Down in the south large yards are very common, and the trend seems to be going towards large houses with no yard. From what I have seen, up north the yards are uaually pretty small, so the southern idea of a McMansion would fit just about every New England house I have seen on Bob Vila's shows.
Miss Janet
10-08-2007, 17:35
[QUOTE=... why is it environmentally irresponsible to build a large house out in the country? Are you referring to after-the-fact impact like commuting, etc.?[/QUOTE]
I am thinking about the hundreds of huge home that are being built all over this area... not large... HUGE. Large is a home big enough to house the family living in it + some guest rooms for the grandchildren, etc.
HUGE is the house with two kitchens for a one family dwelling... a private full bath for each occupant... assorted dens and family rooms and "bonus rooms" for families of well, 2 people.
I just can't understand the indiscriminate use of all these extra raw materials to create space that will not be utilized. Many of the homes I am talking about around here are "second homes" that are lived in maybe a few months every year.
I am sorry, I guess I have said enough. I am just a little frustrated because the prevailing attitude is making it hard to find a place to relocate my hostel. It is a little ironic that those of you who live in nice homes and can afford the luxuries in life are still looked at by many of the "locals" as homeless trash as soon as you put you pack on and start hiking. They don't want you in their neighborhoods!! It doesn't matter to them if you are the most acclaimed neurosurgeon living on a 1/2 acre lot with a 1,ooo,ooo home with a six car garage full of SUV's!
take-a-knee
10-08-2007, 18:17
The hydrocarbons wasted by unnecessary commuting is exactly what I'm talking about, also the hydrocarbons wasted to heat and cool these shoddily constructed monstrosities many live in. Most don't realize how close we are to $140-$160 per barrel oil prices, that is, if you can find it at all. If you haven't heard about the term "Peak Oil", trust me, you will. We are setting ourselves up for failure as a nation in a grandiose fashion.
A lot of the small outlying towns here in the south have a lot of huge old houses that were built by people of means a century or more ago. Many, like those in Madison Ga, have been restored to their former grandeur (mainly by people who commute from there to Atlanta). Most however, have fallen into disrepair at best, and many are literally returning to the earth. Most of these grand old homes housed large extended families, unlike these huge homes built and inhabited by two people today. Most of us will see these sorts of dwellings abandoned one day, and it didn't have to happen.
Two Speed
10-08-2007, 18:19
Hey, Miss J, everybody's got to have a big enough place for their stuff (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8896213084482448693&q=george+carlin). :p
Miss Janet
10-08-2007, 18:24
I am into my 3rd day of a yard sale and Stuff has been carried out by the box full. Where was all this stuff?? Where did it come from?? Why do these people want it??? I could have had room for at least a few more hikers without all this stuff!!!
Two Speed
10-08-2007, 18:27
Yeah, but then they'd have brought some "stuff" with them and then there wouldn't have been any room for hikers.
Appalachian Tater
10-08-2007, 18:34
Not only is a large house wasteful in terms of construction materials and ongoing energy usage, it changes the dynamics of the families who live in them. It also encourages people to hire servants to clean the house, people who could be do more productive things than vacuuming empty houses. People also tend to buy more stuff to fill the house with. It goes on and on.
generoll
10-08-2007, 19:19
right, now if Jeeves will just hurry up with my martini. then we can get into a discussion of stereotyping. just for the record, how many of you currently employ servants?
right, now if Jeeves will just hurry up with my martini. then we can get into a discussion of stereotyping. just for the record, how many of you currently employ servants?
I try to get my dog to cook my dinner. Kind of a work for stay deal.
shelterbuilder
10-08-2007, 19:51
Let's all join this group and be done with it: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/smallhousesociety/resources.htm
Two Speed
10-08-2007, 20:00
Let's all join this group and be done with it: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/smallhousesociety/resources.htmAlright! We got one convert!
Darwin again
10-08-2007, 20:19
Lyle, while you would probably build a nice small home, an asset to the sub-division. There are those who would park a trailor on the next lot, a party tent on another. Suddenly, your nice house's value would be crap. I've seen it happen many times. Restrictions are placed for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a 70,000 lot knowing someone could throw up a tiny little house next to me, guaranteeing loss of value!
That just shows that "value" is a floating, imaginary number. it's not reality based. I'd like to see homes valued by the cost of materials to construct them.
Home values are tanking across the country right now. Ain't nobody putting up party tents, either.
Darwin again
10-08-2007, 20:28
Sorry, I don't see home square footage saying anything sad about our society. However, I do see something sad about one part of society telling another part how to live. They most always play the environmental card, but I believe at the heart of it is something else. That being jeolously.
As far as a retired couple building large houses. That's easy, they need room for when the children and grandchildren visit. They worked all their lives to get to that point and I, for one, am all for them living how they want to live.
How can we all have huge homes? How can our kids have huge homes? How many generations can have huge homes before there simply is no more space left for homes? These are not rhetorical questions, but very real concerns that we need to deal with now.
It also encourages people to hire servants to clean the house, people who could be do more productive things than vacuuming empty houses.
Like what? Don't you employeed people are glad to have a source of income?
Appalachian Tater
10-08-2007, 23:35
Like what? Don't you employeed people are glad to have a source of income?
I think people are happier when the work they do is useful to society. Build a smaller house, clean it yourself, and pay the maid to go down to the local skilled nursing facility as a volunteer to wheel the residents outside for some sun or whatever else you can think of that might actually benefit somebody or something instead of vacuuming the spare bedrooms and waxing the dining room table that nobody uses because you always eat in the breakfast room anyway.
I honestly do think that it would be great if our society worked that way, but think that would only work in a small commune type environment. The US is a capitalist society, so if one spends their money by employing someone, instead on a new car or whatever, I think they are spreading their wealth in a better way.
Appalachian Tater
10-09-2007, 00:00
I agree that employing someone to clean is better than buying a car. I just know from watching others that having a big house causes a LOT of worry and grief, just in regular cleaning and maintenance. You hear what they spend on water which is more than I spend on energy and what they spend on energy is more than all of my monthly housing expenses. Then there is the regular cleaning and the "big" cleaning and the closets that need de-junking and the spare room that needs re-organizing and the outside has mold and has to be repainted and the watering system got messed up when they mowed the lawn and the garage is full of junk and the old fridge out in the garage with all of the freezer-burned meat bought on sale died, etc. I don't even want to know what the annual taxes are, probably more than I spend in a year. It's like a full time job even with modern appliances.
generoll
10-09-2007, 07:53
so Tater, how much do you pay your maid to go volunteer at the local skilled nursing facility? for that matter, how much do YOU volunteer at the local skilled nursing facility? or is this idea just for others? do as i say, not as i do?
drdewrag
10-09-2007, 07:58
I can't believe I read all this...
Appalachian Tater
10-09-2007, 07:59
so Tater, how much do you pay your maid to go volunteer at the local skilled nursing facility? for that matter, how much do YOU volunteer at the local skilled nursing facility? or is this idea just for others? do as i say, not as i do?
Generoll, did you even READ the thread before commenting?
shelterbuilder
10-09-2007, 08:16
MAN!!! Talk about thread drift!
Dances with Mice
10-09-2007, 08:29
My wife & I have a maid service and it's almost as if they are a part of our family. We write them checks and they never call.
The acreage for sale is not the only land for sale along FS 42 near Suches and the asking price and restrictions are both in line with other land nearby. A problem I see is that somebody is going to notice that a relatively easy route to a hospital from that location would be to continue on FS 42 to Cooper Gap, then drop down to Camp Merrill and a paved road into Dahlonega. Eventually there will be some pressure to improve and pave FS-42. Not right away, not real soon, but someday.
That just shows that "value" is a floating, imaginary number. it's not reality based. I'd like to see homes valued by the cost of materials to construct them.
Home values are tanking across the country right now. Ain't nobody putting up party tents, either.Well DUH, value has always been a floating, imaginary number, solely based on what someone is willing to pay. I guess you'd like to see builders work for nothing. Even if you built your own house, is your time and labor worth nothing?
I think people are happier when the work they do is useful to society. Build a smaller house, clean it yourself, and pay the maid to go down to the local skilled nursing facility as a volunteer to wheel the residents outside for some sun or whatever else you can think of that might actually benefit somebody or something instead of vacuuming the spare bedrooms and waxing the dining room table that nobody uses because you always eat in the breakfast room anyway.Got a better idea. Build a large home, hire a housekeeper and gardener, pay them decent wages so they can feed their children. Then with all the time you have, do your own volunteer work rather than paying someone to do it for you.
What really irks me is that it's getting harder and harder to find land without restrictions, even in rural areas. And that (if I could possibly afford the land) I couldn't move my perfectly good, well insulated and energy efficient, 1000 sq ft mobile home to an area that I love simply because snooty people don't want to live near "trash" like me. OMG, my kids might want to play with theirs!!! In their hand-me-downs and second-hand clothes!! We might try to fix our car in front of the house! Or plant a vegetable garden! The world may end! Wouldn't they be appalled to know that 7 of us comfortably inhabit such a small space.
It's got nothing to do with 'snooty people' not wanting to live near 'trash' like you. No, it has much more to do with resale value. If I'm investing tens of thousands of dollars of my money into a down payment on a house, I don't want to see that money go down the tube because someone pulled a mobile home in next to me. Most middle to upper middle class people's homes are there lifetime investment towards retirement. If I'm going to build a 2500 to 3000 sf home, I want to be sure that 20 years from now, I'm not in the middle of a trailer park because there were no restrictions on the land around me. A house is not just a place to live in, it is an investment. Anyone who doesn't see this doesn't understand today's economy. A single person can live comfortably in 900 sf, but if you're looking for an investment, a 900 sf house isn't going to be the way to go. Hence, the 1200sf restrictions on this property by the AT. That is pretty small in relation to what people are looking for out there. To build a house without considering resale value is financially stupid.
Appalachian Tater
10-09-2007, 12:19
Actually there are a lot of people who wouldn't want "trailer trash" moving in next door. Unfortunately , it's not always a financial concern, but a question of class discrimination and feelings of superiority. It's a pretty stupid attitude to have in a society where downward mobility is about as common as upward mobility.
Pennsylvania Rose
10-09-2007, 12:48
So, explain to me...why does a trailer, or small house, or whatever, decrease the value of the home next door? It's still the same house, on the same lot, in the same school district, with the same shopping and services available. Could it possibly be because some people don't want to live next to neighbors they perceive to be beneath them? Sounds snooty to me.
Would they find it ironic that even though I'm overly educated, and my husband has a good job, we made a concious decision to live as cheaply as possible so we can spend more time with our kids, rather than having them come home to a big, empty house and filling their lives with stuff? Or would that force them to scrutinize their own lifestyle?
And, it works the other way around, too. Look at Geek's case. All he wanted was some rural land to retire on. Now it's surrounded by subdivsions. While his property value has increased because of the "respectable" nature of the development, he wasn't looking for an investment; he wanted peace and quiet. Lots of landowners (mostly small farmers) around here have had to sell because development has sent land prices skyrocketing and they could no longer afford to pay taxes. Sure, they made a mint selling to developers, but many of them would have been happy to stay on their land.
I'll stop ranting now - my husband would say that I've been off in mallow-cup world (soft and fluffy and awfully sweet).
Appalachian Tater
10-09-2007, 12:53
It goes beyond that. Sometimes neighborhoods where mostly poor people live have fewer commercial services and sometimes higher crime rates.
Johnny Thunder
10-09-2007, 13:10
So, explain to me...why does a trailer, or small house, or whatever, decrease the value of the home next door?
Because it just does. That's why. It just does.
Lilred has hit the nail on the head. Good or bad, Real Estate is solely about the All Mighty Dollar. I have no facts as to why the seller chose 1200 sqft for his C&R. In fact, I am not 100% certain that is the number as I indicated with the (?). But I am confident in guessing that the decision was 100% financially based. And I am also confident, if while in the selling process, he feels he has left some money on the table by having that number set too high, or too low, he will do what ever he legally can to make the adjustment.
Because it just does. That's why. It just does.That pretty much sums it up. It is the market, and markets are not logical.
Johnny Thunder
10-09-2007, 14:34
That pretty much sums it up. It is the market, and markets are not logical.
Actually, it's highly logical. Basic micro-econ. First week of class.
Actually, it's highly logical. Basic micro-econ. First week of class.I'm sorry, I am talking real world...not classroom BS. But this would make for a great new drift for this thread. Carry on!;)
Johnny Thunder
10-09-2007, 14:54
I'm sorry, I am talking real world...not classroom BS. But this would make for a great new drift for this thread. Carry on!;)
Haha...I wasn't taking a shot at you my FatBro! I was pointing out to the "overly educated" individual that this stuff is basic...but since we're taking it out of the classroom I'll give you a basic description of why...using beer...value and price are not constant (read: value and price are not the same thing as described by basic economics).
There are two cases of beer on the shelf of a store. No other beer or alcohol is sold. They are both equally cold and sold in the same space and can be consumed in the same way. One beer is labeled "Beer" and costs $1 while the other is labeled "Super Premium Beer For Rich Folks" and costs $5.
A customer walks into the store and though the stockman tries to sell the wonders of the "Super Premium Beer For Rich Folks"...it's health factors...it's resale value...etc...the customer will tend to purchase with his wallet first and his noggin second. Invariably, the price for "Super Premium Beer For Rich Folks" while sold next to "Beer" will have to fall to a rate lower than if the "Super Premium Beer" was sold alone.
That's just the way it works. If y'all need me to, I can give you other examples using houses, cheeseburgers, or boeb. But, I guess that'd all border on "Classroom BS."
Appalachian Tater
10-09-2007, 15:30
Price of a six pack of Bud varies from 4.49 to 14.99 in the 5 boroughs.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/gouge_map_beer_07.html
You gotta zoom in on the map 'cause some people were dumb and reported their local prices even though they weren't in the metropolitain area.
I know that you weren't talking about perfect market conditions but that would be a good way to introduce the topic while sticking to the same theme.
So, explain to me...why does a trailer, or small house, or whatever, decrease the value of the home next door? It's still the same house, on the same lot, in the same school district, with the same shopping and services available. Could it possibly be because some people don't want to live next to neighbors they perceive to be beneath them? Sounds snooty to me.
Would they find it ironic that even though I'm overly educated, and my husband has a good job, we made a concious decision to live as cheaply as possible so we can spend more time with our kids, rather than having them come home to a big, empty house and filling their lives with stuff? Or would that force them to scrutinize their own lifestyle?
Ah yes, we get to the heart of the matter. You have CHOSEN to live a cetain lifestyle, but you deride those who would not want to live next to you, as if they don't have a right to CHOOSE how and where they live. Hence, the need for restictions. Surely, being overly educated, you get the logic in that.
Jim Adams
10-09-2007, 18:03
Actually this has alot to do with common sense. Dividing a wilderness area into 1 1/2 acre lots to build a housing plan instead of limiting it to say 10 or 20 acre plots to help protect the area is not logical, it is greed. I am now the owner of one of the largest tracts of wooded land in the neighborhood but as you suggest that I could easly sell it at a major profit, the responsible thing to do is to keep it wooded and have an area that my children and their children can relax and enjoy.
FatMan has kept a very good open mind about this and I applaud him for that but I would like to know how he will feel 5 years from now when he is surrounded by huge houses with upscale "snooty" people that are bitching about his original house bringing down the neighborhood property values.
I think that I would much rather have 20 acre lots and a mobil home for my neighbor. I'm thinking more quality of lifestyle than quanity of populace.
geek
So, explain to me...why does a trailer, or small house, or whatever, decrease the value of the home next door? It's still the same house, on the same lot, in the same school district, with the same shopping and services available. Could it possibly be because some people don't want to live next to neighbors they perceive to be beneath them? Sounds snooty to me.
Would they find it ironic that even though I'm overly educated, and my husband has a good job, we made a concious decision to live as cheaply as possible so we can spend more time with our kids, rather than having them come home to a big, empty house and filling their lives with stuff? Or would that force them to scrutinize their own lifestyle?
And, it works the other way around, too. Look at Geek's case. All he wanted was some rural land to retire on. Now it's surrounded by subdivsions. While his property value has increased because of the "respectable" nature of the development, he wasn't looking for an investment; he wanted peace and quiet. Lots of landowners (mostly small farmers) around here have had to sell because development has sent land prices skyrocketing and they could no longer afford to pay taxes. Sure, they made a mint selling to developers, but many of them would have been happy to stay on their land.
I'll stop ranting now - my husband would say that I've been off in mallow-cup world (soft and fluffy and awfully sweet).
A trailer will bring down the price of real estate because a trailer is NOT real estate. You get a deed when you buy real estate, you get a title when you buy a mobile home. Mobile homes, like cars, depreciate in value, not increase in value, so therefore, as the price of the mobile home is decreasing, it drags down the price of the real estate around it. Secondly, it brings down the price because, like it or not, people see trailers as low class, suggesting all kinds of low class lifestyles.
And talk about being 'snooty'? I'm sure an overly educated person like you can see the snootiness of your self-description. Not to mention your suggestion that if someone has a big fine house then they are neglecting their kids. C'mon now, sounds like you're throwing around stereotypes of rich people.
smokymtnsteve
10-09-2007, 19:15
ifn you got enuf $$$$ to build such a big fine house ..mayB u otter buy yoreself a big enuf parcel of property so U don't have ta worry bout nor git into the nieghbors busyness.
I jist built me a small cabin in FBKS AK ...rite in the middle of a neighborhood of $300,000 dollar type homes, painted the cabin really bright green with purple trim and a red porch,
shelterbuilder
10-09-2007, 19:42
ifn you got enuf $$$$ to build such a big fine house ..mayB u otter buy yoreself a big enuf parcel of property so U don't have ta worry bout nor git into the nieghbors busyness.
I jist built me a small cabin in FBKS AK ...rite in the middle of a neighborhood of $300,000 dollar type homes, painted the cabin really bright green with purple trim and a red porch,
Now all you need to make the neighbors' joy complete is a kennel of 30 or 40 howlin' huskies in the front yard, a couple of sleds waiting to be repaired, and an ol' VW chassis without the body or engine for the dogs to practice pulling. What more could a man want in Fairbanks???:D
Appalachian Tater
10-09-2007, 19:49
Now all you need to make the neighbors' joy complete is a kennel of 30 or 40 howlin' huskies in the front yard, a couple of sleds waiting to be repaired, and an ol' VW chassis without the body or engine for the dogs to practice pulling. What more could a man want in Fairbanks???:D
Maybe an old car seat to go on the front porch next to the old sofa and a couple of twenty-year-old luxury American-made automobiles to put up on concrete blocks in the front yard to impress the neighbors?
How about a collection of used hikers backpacks and boots hanging from the trees? An ode to the trail :)
Jim Adams
10-09-2007, 20:23
Maybe an old car seat to go on the front porch next to the old sofa and a couple of twenty-year-old luxury American-made automobiles to put up on concrete blocks in the front yard to impress the neighbors?
HEY!!!!
Leave West Virginia out of this.
gee
Pennsylvania Rose
10-09-2007, 20:46
And talk about being 'snooty'? I'm sure an overly educated person like you can see the snootiness of your self-description. Not to mention your suggestion that if someone has a big fine house then they are neglecting their kids. C'mon now, sounds like you're throwing around stereotypes of rich people.
Ouch - I never attacked anyone personally in my post. I truly don't understand the whys of our economic system sometimes. It's not that I haven't heard the theory - I just don't get it, if you know what I'm trying to say.
Most of my friends are working moms, as I was until recently. It's not negletful when both parents work outside the home. I just never liked coming home to an empty house when I was a kid, and my kids don't, either.
And, since it's hard to convey emotion when typing, I think you misunderstood my "overly educated" comment. It was a jab aimed at me, myself, and I. It's a running joke in my family that I spent way too many years in college, using a degree for a couple of years and going back to school part time because I can't settle on what I want to be when I grow up - there's too much to choose from.
I never should have gotten into this discussion. Thanks for the info about the land for sale. It's a beautiful area.
Back to lurking where I belong.
Two Speed
10-09-2007, 21:07
Back to lurking where I belong.Nah. You need to be back on the trail, just like the rest of us.
Blissful
10-09-2007, 21:17
I never should have gotten into this discussion. Thanks for the info about the land for sale. It's a beautiful area.
Back to lurking where I belong.
That's the difficulty with White Blaze at times. Things taken out of context or misconstrued. Arguements. People that obviously dislike each other. And why a lot of hikers I met out there on the trail this year don't like White Blaze and have said so. You really need a tough shell to be in these threads sometimes. Many times when I post I don't even read the responses because I know the messages can get attacked (and have been). What I don't read can't hurt me. :)
But I have also gotten the opposite. Interesting discussions. Great friendships. Great people. Great advice. I try to concentrate on the good and I tell other hikers that as well. White Blaze is a terrific resource. It helped me attain my dream.
Ouch - I never attacked anyone personally in my post. I truly don't understand the whys of our economic system sometimes. It's not that I haven't heard the theory - I just don't get it, if you know what I'm trying to say.
Most of my friends are working moms, as I was until recently. It's not negletful when both parents work outside the home. I just never liked coming home to an empty house when I was a kid, and my kids don't, either.
And, since it's hard to convey emotion when typing, I think you misunderstood my "overly educated" comment. It was a jab aimed at me, myself, and I. It's a running joke in my family that I spent way too many years in college, using a degree for a couple of years and going back to school part time because I can't settle on what I want to be when I grow up - there's too much to choose from.
I never should have gotten into this discussion. Thanks for the info about the land for sale. It's a beautiful area.
Back to lurking where I belong.
This is true, you never personally attacked anyone in your post. Just grouped an entire class of people as 'snooty' for trying to protect their investment. I hope you can see the irony of calling others snooty, then making your education remark. I know what I thought when I read it. You chose your lifestyle so you'll have to deal with the prejudice.
I'm not a big fan of developers by any means and it's a shame so many houses are going up. I think developers are ruining this country.
The Solemates
10-10-2007, 10:36
A trailer will bring down the price of real estate because a trailer is NOT real estate. You get a deed when you buy real estate, you get a title when you buy a mobile home. Mobile homes, like cars, depreciate in value, not increase in value, so therefore, as the price of the mobile home is decreasing, it drags down the price of the real estate around it. Secondly, it brings down the price because, like it or not, people see trailers as low class, suggesting all kinds of low class lifestyles.
ramsey?...
Even though the land should be beautiful, considering the state of the housing market and property location, I wouldn't look for these bits of land to be gobbled up at $70k.
Appalachian Tater
10-10-2007, 10:50
I dunno, you might be surprised.
http://homes.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?ctid=67703&typ=30&sid=d82f73b7ad6746c499eac30d50f46f86&sdir=0&sby=2&pg=2
Definitely not farmland in south Alabama at $1k/acre. When I stayed at the Hiker Hostel in 2006, the lot next door was for sale. I asked what the asking price was and was a little surprised, don't remember exactly how much it was, but remember thinking that you could buy a decent house for the same price in thousands of small cities and towns across the country.
The market looks fairly saturated with undeveloped property; though fifty acres for $1.1 mil could be an investment opportunity, considering there are a ton of smaller lots are going for about $100k an acre.
Appalachian Tater
10-10-2007, 11:06
If it's only $20,000 an acre, there's probably something wrong with it, like it can't be subdivided or much of it is unbuildable!
I dunno, you might be surprised.
http://homes.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?ctid=67703&typ=30&sid=d82f73b7ad6746c499eac30d50f46f86&sdir=0&sby=2&pg=2
Definitely not farmland in south Alabama at $1k/acre. When I stayed at the Hiker Hostel in 2006, the lot next door was for sale. I asked what the asking price was and was a little surprised, don't remember exactly how much it was, but remember thinking that you could buy a decent house for the same price in thousands of small cities and towns across the country.farmland in south Alabama at $1k/acre? Almost made me laugh! Neighbor just down the road got $2.2 mil for his 60 acre sod field. Adjacent to that, 300 acres of pines sold for $11 mil last year. Those days are over!
From what little I can tell it looks like it just some old farmer's field, though it is "waterfront". The lack of greenery and/or a "back 40" makes it extremely unattractive to build one dream home on.
From what little I can tell it looks like it just some old farmer's field, though it is "waterfront". The lack of greenery and/or a "back 40" makes it extremely unattractive to build one dream home on.Lots of chicken farms in that area. So not only do you get your 50 acres, you get the smell that goes with it. The waterfront they refer to is a "small branch". Although in the 30572 area code, not really considered the Suches area. The area is Skeenah Valley. But the upside is the property is close to the BMT which traverses the ridge above. Little Skeenah Creek which runs through the valley is considered polluted and not to used as a water source when crossed on the BMT.
Appalachian Tater
10-10-2007, 11:54
farmland in south Alabama at $1k/acre? Almost made me laugh! Neighbor just down the road got $2.2 mil for his 60 acre sod field. Adjacent to that, 300 acres of pines sold for $11 mil last year. Those days are over!
Yeah, we've had a lot of inflation. You can still pick up a big farm for $2,000-$3,000 an acre. Check United Country.
Yep, and there are reasons the land is cheap.
The Solemates
10-10-2007, 14:52
you can buy as much land as you want in west texas for $200 an acre. that's no typo...only two zeros in that price.
briarpatch
10-10-2007, 15:09
but mineral and water rights are not included at that price.
Appalachian Tater
10-10-2007, 15:10
Yep, and there are reasons the land is cheap.
Frequently the problem is the location, somewhere just west of West Bumble****. However, to some, that is an advantage.
take-a-knee
10-10-2007, 15:11
Land prices are at a cyclic high right now, this means land is a very poor investment currently. It is almost garanteed to loose value in real terms in the next several years. Buying a lot for a home is one thing, hoping to flip something later for a profit probably isn't too smart right now.
Appalachian Tater
10-10-2007, 15:12
but mineral and water rights are not included at that price.
Usually that land doesn't have any water anywhere around it, including falling out of the sky. If you are willing to live completely off the grid and haul in water, it could work for you.
Appalachian Tater
10-10-2007, 15:14
Land prices are at a cyclic high right now, this means land is a very poor investment currently. It is almost garanteed to loose value in real terms in the next several years. Buying a lot for a home is one thing, hoping to flip something later for a profit probably isn't too smart right now.
Part of the problem is the dollar itself. If you look at the cost of real goods such as gold, land, and oil in terms of some currencies, it doesn't look quite so expensive. There are buildings going up in NYC that are being marketed exclusively to the Irish and Russians, they just love the real estate bargains they're picking up right now.
leeki pole
10-10-2007, 15:23
Land prices are at a cyclic high right now, this means land is a very poor investment currently. It is almost garanteed to loose value in real terms in the next several years. Buying a lot for a home is one thing, hoping to flip something later for a profit probably isn't too smart right now.
I have to disagree. Land is finite, there's only so much to go around. The real task is the ability to hold until a profit is realized. Long interest rates are still mighty cheap, so a prudent investor might realize an opportunity here in a somewhat depressed market to pick up "subprime" real estate and "flip" it at a time where real estate prices come back, and they will. They always do.
ramsey?...
No NOT hardly. Never have listened to him. This is from experience. I dabbled in real estate for awhile.
I have to disagree. Land is finite, there's only so much to go around. The real task is the ability to hold until a profit is realized. Long interest rates are still mighty cheap, so a prudent investor might realize an opportunity here in a somewhat depressed market to pick up "subprime" real estate and "flip" it at a time where real estate prices come back, and they will. They always do.
Yup I agree. I got out of the real estate market about a year ago. Sold all my holdings, paid off bills, and bought a very nice house. Then the bottom fell out. I still have one property I can't sell with all this mortgage mess going on. However, I kinda wish I had some serious cash on hand to invest in properties again. You can pick up some real cheap stuff right now. $70,000 is pretty high for a lot, especially in this market. But land rarely depreciates, unless something comes in nearby to lower the value.
smokymtnsteve
10-12-2007, 19:26
How about a collection of used hikers backpacks and boots hanging from the trees? An ode to the trail :)
those along with my snowshoes ..hang on the side of the shed I built out of junk from the local dump.
You could hang a collection of used backpacks and boots from the trees at this property and it would be appropriate. IMO the best AT property in GA. For the financially well healed hiking enthusiast. Only 644K.
http://homes.realtor.com/search/listingdetail.aspx?sby=2&ctid=67703&ml=3&mnp=33&mxp=32&typ=1&sid=48b3ab6a4e09488fb3113c64842f2abe&lid=1084993023&lsn=1&srcnt=4#Detail
And the best part if you buy is that we would be neighbors.:D
You could hang a collection of used backpacks and boots from the trees at this property and it would be appropriate. IMO the best AT property in GA. For the well healed hiking enthusiast. Only 644K.
http://homes.realtor.com/search/listingdetail.aspx?sby=2&ctid=67703&ml=3&mnp=33&mxp=32&typ=1&sid=48b3ab6a4e09488fb3113c64842f2abe&lid=1084993023&lsn=1&srcnt=4#Detail
And the best part if you buy is that we would be neighbors.:D
Sweet. But outta my league. And if I could afford it, I wouldn't share it. :D
smokymtnsteve
10-19-2007, 16:01
you can buy as much land as you want in west texas for $200 an acre. that's no typo...only two zeros in that price.
this past summer the city of Anderson, AK was giving land away for FREE...
all U have to do it build a houe on it within 2 years