Re: NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Pablo Halpern (phalpern![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 08:11 CST |
> From: Mabes [at] aol.com > > were thinking that the transfer of all development rights would protect th > rest of the land from future development pressure, however, we would consi > other, more permanent forms of protection. Does anyone have any suggestio > in this regard? This sounds like a good place for a land trust. You divide the land into a large farm parcel and a smaller cohousing parcel. You put the farm land into a trust, with trusties from the surrounding community. The charter of the trust would be to preserve the land for farming and/or open space in perpituity (or 99 years, or whatever). Of course, you have to transfer the development rights to the cohousing parcel first. - Pablo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pablo Halpern (508) 435-5274 phalpern [at] world.std.com New View Neighborhood Development, Acton, MA, U.S.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- RE: NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing, (continued)
- RE: NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing Rob Sandelin, March 20 1995
- NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing Judy, March 20 1995
- Re: NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing Stephen Hawthorne, March 21 1995
- NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing Mabes, March 21 1995
- Re: NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing Pablo Halpern, March 22 1995
- Re: NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing John Gear, March 22 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.