Small town takeover: An alternative solution?

NeoLotus · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 25, 2005 Posts: 128 Location: MN

I live in one of these small towns in rural south central Minnesota. Our population is around 2200. It's a very parochial town and rather dysfunctional compared to some of the other towns around it. Even so, I have managed to get on the planning commission and now I'm getting involved with our county's DFL (Democratic) central committee.

I've been studying this place a long time, especially when I was working on my master's in urban planning. What other's have said about what small towns are like are true of this place as well, so tread carefully. I started with no degree and no money to having a master's and still have no money because I'm a West Coaster and not very politically correct for around here. I'm also not a subservient female and that really rankles around here among the women as well (and Minnesota is supposed to be so progressive, yeah right). However, even with all of that, I have finally managed to make some inroads and gain a toehold with a few folks in the political but not the econo-oligarchic hierarchy. If I had money and lots of it to start a few businesses, things would be very different, but that's a long story.

Anyway, the idea of creating a corporation then selecting a community to set up shop in is really something that many places around here would welcome. Just don't cram too many "suburban liberal" notions down anyone's rural throat. Those things will change over time with new blood in these towns but you gotta let the people see it work first.

Also, be aware that there can be a lot of egos in places like this. Big fish in a small pond type thing. They won't take to kindly to anyone coming in encroaching on their "territory."

NeoLotus
_________________
-We don't need an ownership society,
we need a 'give-a-crap' society!
------------------------
-Making judgments without intellectual justification is prejudice.
-We do not act rightly because we have virtue, we have virtue because we act rightly.

Pen-Name · Coal Joined: Jan 28, 2005 Posts: 2

Hi, I'm new here. I just thought I'd impart some information of a CIA study done a while back and how it affected my decision to live where I now live. I cannot give you details of the study, such as its name or a link, you'll have to accept that I once had access to this information. All I can really discuss is the implications to surviving a post holocaust world.

Simply put, if you want to survive after the nukes go off then it's not some mountain in Tibet, nor one of the Poles. Neither will it be some beach in Australia. It will be in the Cascade Mountain range in NW Washington State. The reason is the air currents (especially the upper atmosphere) and the rain patterns. It's the one place on earth that might, depending on some weather and military variables that are generally in its favor, not get nuclear fallout and might, depending solely on military variables again generally in its favor, be the one locale that will receive nearly radioactive-free rainwater.

Since it seems that the most likely Peak Oil scenarios would lead to some form of nuclear/biological exchange on a limited scale (anything massive and it really doesn't matter, we're dead), I would think the logical choice of locale for an intentional or adopted town would have to be in the Cascades.

I mean, you don't think the other nuclear powers will just go down easy do you? When things start to get really harsh? If Peak Oil leads to the the fall of civilization, moving to the one place on earth that would be most habitable after the dust settles would be a wise decision.

Just sayin'. Smile

Pen-Name · Coal Joined: Jan 28, 2005 Posts: 2

Hmmm, I don't see the edit function. Probably here somewheres but it is late and I need to sleep. Anywhoo...I meant to say OLYMPIC Mountain range in NW Washington State, not Cascades.

holmes · Fission Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 2427

Im looking to build some earthships and am in the hunt for land come May.