I often see photographs of small European towns that can be seen off of popular train lines that are a strip of aesthetic, historical homes, sometimes with a well-manicured stream, creek, or river running through, often with a luscious, green field of crops and gorgeous mountains in the background. It's easy to daydream of life here and grow jealous of the folk living here.
...but then I think about how life must actually be like in these areas. I suspect that anything they may want to do has to go through a rigorous approval process. You cannot modify your home even in the slightest without approval, and that will only be granted within strict guidelines. You can't throw up a chicken coup in a bid to be self-sufficient. You can't pop into the gorgeous creek for a swim or hunt for wildlife. You better not leave your bin out for an extra day after pickup. Essentially I've concluded that living in these towns must be like living with an HoA on steroids. What is the point of living within beauty if it comes at the cost of your freedom?
My question for you guys... is this type of aesthetic town even remotely possible without heavy-handed regulation that makes it horrible to live in? Additionally, where on the spectrum of freedom to perfection would you want to live?
You buy a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere.
You build your house on the land. You invite your kids to live there, and deed them property. If you have like-minded individuals, you can sell them land too.
When you reach a certain number, you incorporate as a township or city or whatever, and you set strict regulations.
It requires each of you being very careful who you sell land to, so make sure the landowners develop a high-trust relationship. Make sure they have their wills and everything set in order so that the land cannot be given away.
There are several places in the US where it is impossible to buy land. Nice communities, nice farms, but you will never be able to buy land there because it simply isn't for sale. In the rare occasion when land is sold, it's always to a family member.
It may be possible to develop such a system but with leases rather than sales of land, but I've never heard of that working.
That's the only way to do it.
This is probably the most demotivating thing: no matter how wealthy you get, you are still beholden to laws that utterly undermine your basic, unalienable rights. You can't choose who to sell your own property to and you can't choose who you work with. Right to property and freedom of association are dead.
In fact, the wealthier you get, the *more* these infringements affect you. If you are wealthy, you likely own a business and if you own a business, your freedom of association is completely stolen from you. The better your business does, the more likely you are to get caught and get sued, especially as your business grows large enough that you have to hire people to do hiring for you: if you tell them explicitly your hiring criteria, you *will* get caught, if you hope for the best by only putting that power in the hands of someone you trust but without writing the unwritten hiring rules, it is only a matter of time before that person caves.
That's the key.
EDIT: From a quick internet search, selling property to a family or friend without listing it is OK. If it's near market value (hire an appraiser) it's not a gift. You can even go so far as to finance the property sale yourself. As long as you charge market interest rate, you are not giving them a gift.
Just don't list the property for sale or lease.
That's the way they do it down here. If I want to buy property, I have to get to know property owners because there is a lot of property that is ready to be sold but not listed and never will be listed. Without an introduction or a pre-existing relationship, I'll never know it was even for sale. Agents are rarely used for large tracts of land.