halfmoon wrote: 1. Look at the surrounding landscape. Buying a parcel in the middle of rampant development won't do much for habitat. Adjacency to other habitat, especially publicly owned land, is important and will also help with qualifying for property tax reduction if you go that route (see #2).
It's funny how this rule of thumb also somewhat applies to my urban situation. There is not enough protected green space of any kind within walking distance of my project, but within biking distance there are various projects to reclaim blighted areas into parks, large gardens and greenhouses, and long biking/pedestrian paths with wide green boundary. Due to influx of both public and private investment and philanthropy, fingers of green space have been expanding fairly rapidly in my direction in just the few years I have been living here. So, I sometimes find myself hoping along the lines of "Please, my Lord Dan Gilbert, grant unto my humble neighborhood the honor and privilege of easy, safe access to the path upon which the neon spandex wearing yuppie bicyclists who dwell in the far northern realm of abundance will travel to the great river. I beseech of thee also to further grant funds to allow the expansion of the realm of Universal study of the Scholar Monks towards our other border, so that we may no longer live in fear of banditry after viewing art film evening at museum. Please accept this small gift basket of super-anti-oxidant organic black currants grown upon my humble estate as token of my respect and gratitude. (Best "Miss Bunny's School of Dance" Curtsy)."
OTOH, my situation is the opposite since green space expansion and gentrification go hand-in-hand. However, this is an extremely minor issue in my locale since the realm of blight is so extensive. I would be amazed if development proceeded at a pace such that I could no longer pick up vacant lots for a pittance even 30 years from now.
@Illinidave's intention to donate land to a conservation group is well-intentioned, but keep in mind that they may not want it. Conservation groups have limited funds, and they generally don't want the ongoing expense of property without significant acreage or unique habitat.
Dunno if that caution is for me or just a generic one. The presence of wetland is the key. It is aggressively protected in the area. And I suppose if when the time comes no one want's it, so what? The real purpose is for me to enjoy it, and it will be preserved for as long as I own it. In truth, that's not saying much. Besides possibly erecting a small hunting shack on the fringe and a tiny corner that could theoretically be logged, nothing will ever happen there. County, state, and I think even federal regulations/law bar any activity/development that will impact the wetland.
The other option would be to donate it to the state which owns an adjacent "40" that includes most of the rest of the wetland in question.
This isn't just an starry-eyed tree-hugger impulse. A couple years (and counting) of thought/planning have gone into it.
@IlliniDave, I apologize if my comment sounded dismissive of your plan. I was trying to give the OP a general outline of things to consider, which you obviously have. In fact, your idea of buying that wetland property and keeping it natural sounds great. Wetlands are fantastic habitat.
It sounds like the state would have a good reason to be interested in the parcel you mention. We have 20 mountain acres in NE California that came to us years ago through a bad debt. It's part of a small inholding surrounded by National Forest, and we tried to donate it to the US Forest Service. The woman in charge of such things for the region indicated a faint, unenthusiastic interest and never got back to us. After calling and reminding her a couple of times, we gave up. Oh, well...the taxes are only about $100/year.
@7Wb5, the current situation in your part of Detroit sounds fascinating. Taking urban blight and restoring it to abundance would make me very happy. Having great ethnic food in the neighborhood wouldn't hurt either. I'd be so tempted, though, to keep buying vacant lots for a pittance. Are there still city services provided to the area you're homesteading?
It sounds like the state would have a good reason to be interested in the parcel you mention. We have 20 mountain acres in NE California that came to us years ago through a bad debt. It's part of a small inholding surrounded by National Forest, and we tried to donate it to the US Forest Service. The woman in charge of such things for the region indicated a faint, unenthusiastic interest and never got back to us. After calling and reminding her a couple of times, we gave up. Oh, well...the taxes are only about $100/year.
?
That little piece of property sounds like a gem from my perspective!
What I'm talking is all within the outer border of the Superior National Forest, but there's quite a bit of private, state, and municipal parcels checker boarded around. The one I'm looking at currently is not adjacent to any federal land though. The 40's to the north and south are private, to the east is state, and to the west is county.
@halfmoon: There are city services available, but hooking up to the water supply or power grid would greatly increase my overhead. The fire department will fill my water cube for free once a year, and I try to limit my trash generation/outflow.
I am regularly tempted to pick up more property, but then I remember that unless I can first obtain a solar-powered armored robotic lawn-mower, I will be taking on more than I want to handle at this juncture. Also, I might prefer the additions of some sort of woods-and-water Northern camp and/or sand-and-sun Snowbird escape camp to acquiring more property in the city. My camper is a bit heavy and ancient for the purpose of hauling to other locations seasonally, and I don't own a motor vehicle of any kind, so I might just keep buying more campers to park too. I have got to do a better job of getting this all organized!
That little piece of property sounds like a gem from my perspective!
It's in a beautiful area, but it sits at 4500' elevation with absolutely no hope of grid power. We talked to a couple of realtors about selling it for a pittance, but they were even less interested than the Forest Service. I get that, because it's hard work to sell remote land (have to get out of the vehicle and walk around), and the commission on a pittance price is a micro-pittance.
Also, I might prefer the additions of some sort of woods-and-water Northern camp and/or sand-and-sun Snowbird escape camp to acquiring more property in the city. My camper is a bit heavy and ancient for the purpose of hauling to other locations seasonally, and I don't own a motor vehicle of any kind, so I might just keep buying more campers to park too. I have got to do a better job of getting this all organized!
You see chaos, I see the joy of having options. I truly admire your adventurous spirit.
I'd be so tempted, though, to keep buying vacant lots for a pittance. Are there still city services provided to the area you're homesteading?