Feedback on George F. Elmendorf's Idea For Mother's Research Center

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

G. H.
Texas

Although the idea for the Research Center community is, in my opinion, basically great, I must disagree with a major part of it ... especially with MOTHER's proposal of "very strict standards, no automobiles, only alternative sources of energy, no chemicals, etc.".

The trouble with that plan is that it's too utopian, too dropout-oriented to have much chance of success. It requires fanaticism of the participants as a substitute for the tried and proven techniques that would serve well to accomplish the desired objectives. It doesn't make sense to expect folks to build a house without mechanical equipment. It can be done, of course, but why not take advantage of current technology as long as it's available? Don't ask me to got rid of my pickup truck! It's too valuable a vehicle, even if gas does cost 501 a gallon. Rather, let's agree to utilize its good qualities (reliable hauling at low cost) while working to replace it with a machine that's free from its deficiencies (inefficient and polluting use of an exhaustible resource).

What I'm suggesting is a more moderate approach, with the goals MOTHER proposed seen as just that: ideals we hope to reach in the foreseeable future, but don't insist on initially. Meanwhile, there is-if not much-still something that is good about this society, and I don't think we should ignore it. U.S. Steel makes very fine steel and does so much more cheaply than a community of even 1,000 families can hope to.

D.S.
Illinois

I find a few things about the Research Center proposal rather hard to understand ... the most alarming of them being the initial investment of $10,000. Does MOTHER really believe her readers have that kind of money? I understand the need for large amounts of capital to finance such an establishment, but is the price right for the leasing of two to five acres of land?

If I had $10,000 I could, with a little investigation, find a nice plot in a remote area and possibly have enough left over to build temporary living quarters. (Remember that the cost of a homestead is not the cost of the land alone. Even the most humble of homes, barns, power generation systems, etc., would at least double the original investment figure.) 'Granted, I wouldn't have the advantages described in the proposal access to greenhouses, companions with the same interests, etc. but I would have my own place at a more reasonable price.

I have an alternative suggestion that could help people like myself and my wife who are just eking out an existence in this inflation-ridden world of ours. First of all, I'd make the lease a 99-year, non-refundable agreement In other words, for a minimum of $1,500 and a maximum of $2,500, a person could lease two to five acres ... knowing that no money will be returned if he and his family decide to leave the community. The lessee would of course be reimbursed for improvements on the property, but this would be the responsibility of the future residents ... who would also again pay the community the initial stipend of $1,500 to $2,500. Such payments would and up in a community chest, along with a minimum rental fee of perhaps $10.00 to $20.00 per month which could be used toward taxes and the collective welfare. In this way more people could live in such a community without tying up all their savings in the land itself.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print