Panama Trip Report

Started by John Raabe, February 19, 2006, 08:50:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CREATIVE1

Amanda, the two house idea is great, but is most easily accomplished with a newfangled commune.  Someone stays behind with the dog and the garden and to collect the important mail.  Hopefully they would live somewhere on the same property, share some expenses, provide help when needed, otherwise live and let live.

This is hard to put together, because it takes a small group--two or three friends or couples.  I always seem to be the only one with money.  Tried to set up a cooperative situation in Washington with a friend of thirty years' standing only to find out that we were only the cash cow.  Twenty acres came up on the Hood Canal, wooded with water and electricity, for about $200,000.  Tried to interest lots of people who professed to want such things, and--nothing.  Ten acres in Costa Rica on a river with a house, $40,000--again, all talk, no go.  Done for now, but maybe, just maybe---------

jraabe

#26
You're right Creative!

Some type of co-housing type model might work for this. A true commune usually ends up with someone feeling like they put in all the equity, did most of the work, and got the short end of the stick.

So much for blissful idealism!  :-[. The study of economics teaches us why "the paradox of the commons" insures that virtually all such efforts fail. (It is in my personal self-interest to grab as much of the common property as I can with as little work as possible.)

But a community of cottages perhaps with a condominium legal structure - the building and the ground under it - perhaps with a small private yard - are owned personally. The walkways, parking, garden areas, etc are owned by the group with each having an undivided interest.

The good thing about such a group of cottages is that your neighbors could look after your place while you are gone and you might even be able to work out a way that it could be used or rented to guests of other members. This happens on most Israeli kibbutz.

The trouble with most co-housing groups I have worked with is that they make common decisions by consensus - this insures that meetings are endless and that everyone will have a burning opinion about your cat and what color the mailboxes should be. (In consensus model meetings the more passionate and unbending your opinion the more likely the group will yield to your position.)


Amanda_931

John wrote:

QuoteThe trouble with most co-housing groups I have worked with is that they make common decisions by consensus - this insures that meetings are endless and that everyone will have a burning opinion about your cat and what color the mailboxes should be. (In consensus model meetings the more passionate and unbending your opinion the more likely the group will yield to your position.)

Yeah.  One of the many reasons I wouldn't live in an intentional community.  Even though I'd love to have neighbors who stood in the same relationship to me as long-time co-workers.

It's probable that the nearest one is dying because of that.  

glenn kangiser

#28
Looks like others have exit strategies - ie:  not retiring in the US.  

As Maui Wowee mentioned this may not be good for the country.  Many there don't want him as a neighbor.  Suppose he expects trouble when everyone finally figures out what he's really been up to?


Quote[size=14]Bush Buys Land in Northern Paraguay[/size]

Buenos Aires, Oct 13 (Prensa Latina) An Argentine official regarded the intention of the George W. Bush family to settle on the Acuifero Guarani (Paraguay) as surprising, besides being a bad signal for the governments of the region.

Luis D Elia, undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning Ministry, issued a memo partially reproduced by digital INFOBAE.com, in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842-acre farm in northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia.

The news circulated Thursday in non-official sources in Asuncion, Paraguay.

D Elia considered this Bush step counterproductive for the regional power expressed by Presidents Nestor Kirchner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

He said that "it is a bad signal that the Bush family is doing business with natural resources linked to the future of MERCOSUR."

The official pointed out that this situation could cause a hypothetical conflict of all the armies in the region, and called attention to the Bush family habit of associating business and politics.

ef ccs tac rmh

PL-38

http://mathaba.net/z.htm?http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BEBA55617-2676-4091-ABBC-20650EB6FEE1%7D)&language=EN

Nice to have a place in the country--just in case.

Note that this is the third time I have read this article along with earlier reports of our military scoping the place out a year or so ago.  I assume there must be some truth to it -- no guarantees though.
"Always work from the general to the specific." J. Raabe

Glenn's Underground Cabin  http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=151.0

Please put your area in your sig line so we can assist with location specific answers.

John Raabe

Interesting plan for getting out the backdoor. Anything we can do to speed the process up?
None of us are as smart as all of us.


glenn kangiser

I don't think so, John--- I think it's supposed to be a bit of a secret.  Seems to only be reported in non-mainstream news.

It's always good to have a backup plan though.  I wonder if he'll be taking Airforce One with him - job perk?
"Always work from the general to the specific." J. Raabe

Glenn's Underground Cabin  http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=151.0

Please put your area in your sig line so we can assist with location specific answers.

CREATIVE1

QuoteInteresting plan for getting out the backdoor. Anything we can do to speed the process up?
It's easier to transplant a bush than a tree. ;D

Sassy

Panama Canal set to transform shipping

an interesting article... hopefully the people of Panama benefit from the expansion...

jraabe

I think they will Sassy.

They own it and are very proud of their management of it.

As I understand it, this expansion was put to a popular vote and over 60% of Panamanians said yes.

A huge investment such as this is based on the continued growth of world trade... a pretty safe bet. The only fringe possibility is the opening up of the Northwest passage through the Arctic with a bit more global warming  :o. That might be a quicker and cheaper route between Asia and Europe during the summer at least.


Sassy

#34
John, what part does Hutchinson & Co (Chinese) have in the profits, being that they run the ports-of-entry on both the Pacific & Atlantic sides?  

Here is another interesting article - written in 2001, which gives some of the background

http://enr.construction.com/features/international/archives/010730.asp

On another proposed huge undertaking, the Security & Prosperity Partnership between the US, Canada & Mexico, I have read that Hutchinson will run the ports between Mexico & the United States... who will really profit?

Here's another article The Panama News

And yet another good historical article that was on the PBS site http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/panamacanal/canal_12-13.html