Saturday, August 2, 2014

Property Liquidity Potential: A Few Specifics

Arguably my posts can be short of specifics - and I recently found myself explaining why I had not (yet) gone into depth in this regard. Hence it's time to illustrate some possibilities for a more diverse and flexible spectrum of property use. Often I've been hesitant, dropping specifics from notes for more than a decade...and at some point, it becomes necessary to make suggestions for new legal structures! Incremental ownership is also about ownership of skills capacity, but it especially represents new property elements which have the potential to make a services economy prosper.

A bit of context is in order. There is a growing mismatch of expectations among cities, individuals and business concerns, which new property use definitions  - in conjunction with knowledge use systems - could address. Presently, communities need their citizens to be financially well endowed for infrastructure needs, which doesn't always work according to plan. How much infrastructure would respond to the kinds of innovation which also mean less overhead and business expense? Let alone the possible savings in water use and other resources.

Not enough individuals and businesses are still able to run operations profitably, from the required infrastructure components of the 20th century. Plus, many local economies are caught in NIMBY circumstance which prevent a lot of first mover or other business starts options. They would need to be convinced - and sometimes guided - by other communities which have found success through more versatile economic arrangements.

Some of the first settings in this regard would probably create walkable communities for both living and working in reasonably high densities. Just the same, flexible building components would mean mostly structures which are single level multiple use settings. Variance toward more traditional structure could still include multiple level living options in residential zones, but at a higher cost and less flexibility. The goal would be a variety of zoning in close proximity to other zoning options, with diversity in landscape.

Depending on the land, some zoning might be checkerboard or interspersed with permanent structures which work particularly well for given settings - for instance natural beauty or simply practicality. Most manufacture in high density settings is more likely to be light industrial, which could fit in well with other multiple use characteristics. Much of the local property could be easily bought and sold, through the incremental process of property shares.

Local residents would have the option of buying property shares which could represent at least five zoning categories. Lifelong residents would likely hold shares in all areas - an investment solution which could help with needs later in life, and also prevent problems regarding family property issues.For each local hour matched in services, a share could be made available should the resident desire to purchase it. Shares would be apportioned so that they remain available for those who are especially active in services matching. This provides a direct link between gradual improvement of local skills sets over time, and monetary gains from increased value in local property shares.

Where land does not have readily distinguishable characteristics (other than human adaptation) ongoing components of land use can be adapted as desired, particularly for group service and entrepreneurial projects which are voted in by community at regular intervals. Many purchased shares would represent portions of these flexible properties in particular. Perhaps three levels would be possible: a producing share in which the buyer regularly participates, a holding share which might become part of a rental property share pool, and option shares which allow occasional use of property over the course of the (locally) calendared year.

Property shares would include "non traditional" business areas which are services oriented. Those who gravitate towards services functions would likely choose to hold more of this group. These property areas might be located either at the core of the community or close to a small traditional "total" business core with perhaps a plaza. Large holdings would also be represented by residential business areas, in which all neighbors have the option of providing home businesses and also environments for services matching where they live.

There would probably be areas which remain residential only. However, a prime goal of many walkable community settings would be to keep residential only zoning to a minimum. What's more, these areas would likely be on the outskirts of the communities. This would also entail creating a combination of diverse transportation options from town centers, during early planning stages.

Some parts of these communities, especially as they grow, would have more traditional business in the sense of catering to individuals well beyond locally matched services. In practical terms, these areas would have ongoing money exchange, as opposed to the services settings which have compensated systems for skills arbitrage. Other aspects of community might include "hunter gatherer" elements, which could include settings for a combined camping and harvesting experience.

Again, some of these environments may take on characteristics of more permanent structures which require more commitment and investment. However, a primary goal would be to maintain flexible structures among the permanent structures, so that these communities would not end up like so many across the U.S. with abandoned buildings old, new and everything in between. In the process, people could gain more confidence as they take risks, knowing that the supporting structure of their own communities would mean less failure, more successful ventures, and greater prosperity.

No comments:

Post a Comment