Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Public access to sewer and water?

[April (aroggio]

Sure - there are definitely good arguments for doing urban infill, 
especially from a sustainability perspective.  But I think there are some 
equally good ones to be made for locating on the outskirts of the metro 
region, in some of our outlying communities.  Many of us are working from 
home, for example, and don't need to commute.  And there are a fair number 
of people who've expressed interest in our group who would like to practice 
small scale agriculture.  Where I'm sitting in upstate New York, having an 
inmigration of people might be a benefit to the community's economy.

Fact is, and this speaks to John's advice as well (Thanks, John!), is that 
we either find land inside an urban area, which doesn't appeal to many of us 
who'd rather not locate directly in a city; in a suburb, which, frankly, 
doesn't really help the sustainability question much at all *and* means 
exceptionally high land prices, or locate in one of the more rural areas, 
where the land is cheap and fertile land available.  One of the options 
available for rural areas is to work with a farmer who could continue 
working the land, while developing less than five acres for homes.

But the rural areas have no access to water or sewer, for the most part, as 
even a fair amount of the villages do not have water and sewer.  (The hamlet 
I'm in is only getting sewer next year, and has no plans for public water.) 
Which is why I'm trying to get a handle on the difference between the cost 
of public access and private well/septic.  I do think there are interesting 
tradeoffs available and I'm wondering what others, in this situation, have 
opted to do.

Thanks to you both,
April
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen Carlson" <kcarlson2 [at] wisc.edu>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Public access to sewer and water?


> Personally, I'd look for opportunities to infill rather than building on
> virgin land.  Communities as close as possible to all the services
> members need means less dependence on cars. This would answer your
> question about sewer & water.
> Karen Carlson
>
>
> April wrote:
> > Hi all -
> >
> > I was wondering if some of you could speak to the trade-off between 
> > purchasing land with access to public water and sewer, versus purchasing 
> > land that requires its own wells and septic systems?  I know this might 
> > be hard to do, as I assume the costs vary across states, but the argument 
> > I've been hearing is that it is incredibly expensive to purchase raw land 
> > without access to either service, and so the high cost of locating within 
> > distance to these community services is "worth it".
> >
> > I guess I just would like to know where the threshold is - there's got to 
> > be numbers associated with these two things, such that a property can be 
> > so inexpensive that it would outweigh the potential benefit of locating 
> > within access to public water and sewer.  Anyway, I'm sure some of you 
> > must have debated this before us, so I am hoping you might have some 
> > insight, despite the fact that there are so few of us in New York State.
> >
> > Thanks (for this and the numerous other helpful responses I've gotten 
> > over the past half year)!
> > April
> >
> > April Roggio
> > Capital District Eco-housing in Albany, NY
> > ~ a sustainable cohousing community in the making! ~
> > www.cdecohousing.org
> > info [at] cdecohousing.org
> > Next business meeting is on August 12th, 1pm - email me for directions!
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/