Tweet
Leasing as a retreat option? copyright 2006 Robert Henry
The single biggest expense for the survivalist is usually buying land and building the infrastructure needed for a survival retreat.
As if it wasn't expensive enough to begin with, increasing land costs in most areas of the country are making a retreat harder to attain for most individuals and small groups.
I've never advocated a group purchase of land. Having regularly consulted with dozens of groups and hundreds of individuals around the country in the last ten years I can say that I've found only one example of that working. That group is the exception rather than the rule. The reason it worked for them was that they were already a long established group- although not a survival group- and already had a true sense of community built up. By "long established" I mean in excess of 30 years.
On the negative side of the group purchase of land are the stories of people who have lost there investment when the group went south. Two long time friends, both survivalists at the time, purchased a modest amount of land together in the midwest. Several years later one of the two decided he was no longer "into" preparedness and wanted to use the land for other purposes. The remaining survivalist of the two now has to deal with the fact that his bug out location has been compromised due to the other fellow inviting many friends there for hunting and outdoor activities.
Most numerous of the examples of retreats that worked are those of individual survivalists. These are your cl***ic single family retreats as talked about by Mel Tappan almost 30 years ago.
Some of these have become de facto group retreats. Usually this involves the land owner "inviting" others from the group to pre-position supplies and perhaps establish some sort of housing at the land. The landowner remains the sole owner of the property so this negates any squabbles about land usage. If a group member decides to leave the group he simply comes and gets any supplies he has pre-positioned. This negates the problems relating to dividing up the land if the relationship fails.
The all too thrown about notion of "we will buy 40 acres and then you'll get 10, I'll get 10 and Joe and Jack will each get 10" is unfeasible in my opinion also. For the same reasons mentioned above. Consider also that each 10 acre parcel would have to develop it's own infrastructure- a well for each parcel, septics for each parcel, building for each parcel. This method is no different than going it alone only that you ***ume that there are 3 other families to help you when the chips are down.
To that I would argue that unless the dwellings are within VISIBLE and viewable (i.e, no trees or hills in the way) rifle distance of each other, defense will be dangerous at best. An attack on Joe's parcel would theoretically draw help from the other three parcels. If they are out of viewing distance and rifle distance this means each family has to send some of there defenders to help Joe out. My first question would be that if the chips were down, would they. My second comment would be that if they did, it would leave there parcels undefended. Are these guys well trained enough to coordinate such a defense? What's to stop friendly fire accidents during the defense? What if the attack is just a feint? What if it's a ruse to ambush the others coming to Joe's aid? A very real possibility.
OK you say, then we will each build near where the corners of the land meets. That will help solve the defensibility issue for sure. But what happens when Joe Bob decides he's not "into" this anymore and looks at his investment of land as a hunting camp? Next thing you know you got drunk Bubba's wandering around your place every weekend during hunting season.
What about for those of us without the big dollars to make the investment in land? First let me preface the following ideas with the fact that you do not need 100 acres of land. Unless you have a large group (50+) you should not need more than perhaps 40 acres. That's ***uming the land is good, defense is possible, enough of a woodlot, water sources, etc. etc.
Let's say you realize the need for a bugout location for your family or your group but cannot come with the money necessary.
I'm going to throw an idea out at you, to my knowledge this has not been discussed before in survival circles but it might bear investigating.
Leasing land for a bug out location.
I know, sounds kookey as all get out. But let's think about this.
It's common in rural areas for people to lease land for hunting. This is usually timberland where someone is raising a 20 or 30 year crop of trees for sale to lumber mills. The extra income from the hunting lease will usually pay the property taxes on the land. Most hunting clubs will normally "police" the land also, helping to keep out tresp***ers thus helping the property owner.
You would have to seek a long term lease of at least 5-10 years. To make this really work out your going to need to lock the land in for at least 5 years or more. There is going to be some improvements to the land you will absolutely have to make in order to make it worthwhile for a survival retreat.
The question has likely came up by now- what happens if TSHTF and the owner comes and tells you to leave? Well, if you have a legal lease and have kept up with your payments, legally he has no right to. Now will that stop him from trying? Of course not. Here is where judicious picking of land and checking out the landowner will come in handy. An elderly couple, small family that does not live on the land your leasing, or an absentee owner would be ideal. I would ***ume that if you keep good relations with the landowner this would not be a problem as you would be within your legal rights. A group could in theory offer "protection" in this case if the landowner lived nearby. No I don't mean "protection" as in Mafia terms. Consider also that an absentee owner would probably have no idea that you've essentially "moved" to the land if TSHTF.
Land leases and the laws pertaining to will vary from state to state. Read up on real estate laws in your particular state. Might be worthwhile to have an attorney draw up your land lease agreement. At the minimum the lease agreement should include the time period, the amount per year, an agreement to allow certain betterments to the land- putting in garden areas, fruit trees, stocking a pond perhaps, etc, as well as not granting any other leases for any other reasons. Make sure it allows year round access.
Where I live, about $7.00 an acre per year seems to be a fair rate for land leases for hunting.
Improvements you will have to make to the land-
Gate off any roads or trails coming in to the land. Post no tresp***ing signs. For OPSEC purposes get a sign shop to make up signs for your "hunting club." Post these at the entrances and near any structures you put up. Under the guise of a hunting club, occasional shooting will not raise any eyebrows.
Small RV's, travel trailers and even portable buildings are commonly seen in areas leased by hunting clubs. A 20' sealand container on site could solve some of the logistics storage problems. If your unsure of doing that, find a local "self storage" center within quick driving distance and pre-position your supplies there. Bury the minimum amount of supplies you can at the site itself. Leave nothing in any dwellings that would point to the true purpose of the land. Ammo, water filters, camoflage clothing would be fine, gas masks, razor wire and survey meters would set off red flags.
Water could be handled a couple of ways. Since you leased land that had a water source you could always filter your water. Katadyn Drip filters or Berkfields could be used for filtering ground water. Ideally the land would have a well on it of some sort that you could power via a generator. If not, talk with local well drillers to find out average depth to water in that area. It may be possible to drive your own well and put a hand pump on it.
You can develop the soil for gardens and make them look like "food plots" that hunters commonly use for bringing in deer. The same mixes of wheat, alfalfa, etc. that are used in these "deer mixes" make good cover crops to enrich the soil with.
I don't see why this plan would not work out for a small group of motivated people. The expense would be minor compared to purchasing land and developing the infrastructure for a real retreat. Is this plan lacking? Of course, but it's probably the next best thing to owning your own retreat. And it definitely puts a survival retreat in reach of any serious survivalist.
Least of all, it would also provide a place for a group to train and practice outdoor skills that would be semi-secure.
Let me know what you think of this idea. My email address is guderian308@hotmail.com
Hope this helps.
Robert
Our good friend Mr. W. sent in this article along similar lines. Much food for thought here-
A discussion came up concerning pros and cons of one person buying a plot of
land, developing it, and forming a survival group. The landowner would
allow folks to store supplies there for a simplified bugout and also a
guarantee that members would have supplies.
There are some pros and cons with this approach.
Pros
Landowner gets instant security when the balloon goes up.
Landowner gets help on projects around the homestead
Control and decision making for the group is centralized (landowner)
Cons
Landowner is footing most of the bills
Others must invest some time/money in someone else's land
Landowner is doing most of the work (realistically) preparing for others
(livestock, fencing, etc)
The land must be owned free and clear by one person. Communism sucks. An
alternative it to buy adjoining parcels with like minded individuals. Is
there risk that your buddy could decide to build a trailer park next to your
little slice of survival Heaven? Sure, but not as much risk as if you don't
even know who owns the next parcel.
The way I see it, the landowner purchases a spread and develops the basics -
house, water, fuel, power. This becomes headquarters for the group.
Because of his investment, he will probably be the leader of the group.
He/she can appoint or the group can elect "committee heads"
Teammates start out building sturdy "sheds" in which to store supplies in a
landowner-designated area. They pay for it, they put in work on it - it's
their building. If they quit or get kicked out, they are allowed to remove
it. These sheds can serve as rudimentary housing if need be.
I would think the landowner would have final say on construction methods,
design and so on - with input from the group. I'd keep it all pretty
standard.
The group then builds infrastructure around the "village" or "compound" or
whatever you want to call the group of sheds. Toilets, showers, cooking and
cleaning facilities - maybe a group hall. The hall belongs to the landowner
if push comes to shove but everyone pitches in time and money to build it.
A group could finance this by building and "selling" it as group campsite.
In that case, they'd have to have storage areas for gear separate from the
cabins. But they could rent it out to generate income.
Raising critters presents some problems. Who pays for them? Who pays for
the feed? We know the landowner is the one who is going to be taking care
of them day to day. A working retreat should have several types of
critters. It takes time to "figure it out" and get everything set up - a
group cannot wait until the balloon goes up to obtain livestock. I would
think the group could go in on the purchase of said animals and their feed.
The landowner pays nothing or very little - he is investing time and work
instead. If any of these critters are sold - the profits are divided
evenly.
I have moved around a lot and have had the opportunity to form and join a
handful of groups. I am convinced that you need to form a group of fairly
local people. Either that or VERY dedicated and fairly well-off people.
Why? Because you have to get together FREQUENTLY. At least every month.
More often is better. You should be part of each other's daily lives - not
just a contingency.
A group can develop animosity towards those who "don't contribute their fair
share" be that time, money, supplies, or what have you. Also, in the end,
this is all about relationships. Absence does not make the heart grow
fonder - quite the opposite.
Another thing to consider. Let's say five families have formed a group and
have been working at it for two years. Now someone new is going to join.
How do you address a "buy in" if any? Here we have a group that has
sweated, fought, and cried over a parcel - they have invested THEMSELVES in
it. And now a new member joins. Something to think about. Something to
decide upon up front.
Rules should be well thought out and clearly stated - in writing. There
should be no "coulda, shoulda, woulda". Everyone should know what is
expected, what is forbidden, and what penalties for non-compliance are.
Choose your members VERY carefully. Have some type of thorough evaluation
process. The time to figure out that Bob doesn't share your basic m****s and
principles is BEFORE he is invited into the inner circle. You should know
your potential member's family well also. A good way to evaluate people is
to put them under stress - a hard working environment is good for this.
Hard training is another way. The longer (work or training sessions) and
the more frequent - the better. True selves have a way of coming out when
folks are tired and frustrated. Word to the wise.
Have a procedure for dealing with folks who, for whatever reason, leave the
group. Everything should be kept "civil". The group should help the now
former member safely and efficiently remove his/her stuff from the retreat.
No vindictiveness should be tolerated. Keep it professional. Again, it
should be clearly stated and understood in the beginning just what a former
member can take with them. No surprises.
Can this work? Absolutely. We see similar arrangements with large
farming/ranching families. There is a time coming in this world when folks
will have to band together to survive. Most will wait until the last minute
and do it out of necessity. Most will die. The smart ones are taking steps
now, sacrificing now, to ensure a better future for themselves, their
families and their friends.
Good luck.
Mr. W
The single biggest expense for the survivalist is usually buying land and building the infrastructure needed for a survival retreat.
As if it wasn't expensive enough to begin with, increasing land costs in most areas of the country are making a retreat harder to attain for most individuals and small groups.
I've never advocated a group purchase of land. Having regularly consulted with dozens of groups and hundreds of individuals around the country in the last ten years I can say that I've found only one example of that working. That group is the exception rather than the rule. The reason it worked for them was that they were already a long established group- although not a survival group- and already had a true sense of community built up. By "long established" I mean in excess of 30 years.
On the negative side of the group purchase of land are the stories of people who have lost there investment when the group went south. Two long time friends, both survivalists at the time, purchased a modest amount of land together in the midwest. Several years later one of the two decided he was no longer "into" preparedness and wanted to use the land for other purposes. The remaining survivalist of the two now has to deal with the fact that his bug out location has been compromised due to the other fellow inviting many friends there for hunting and outdoor activities.
Most numerous of the examples of retreats that worked are those of individual survivalists. These are your cl***ic single family retreats as talked about by Mel Tappan almost 30 years ago.
Some of these have become de facto group retreats. Usually this involves the land owner "inviting" others from the group to pre-position supplies and perhaps establish some sort of housing at the land. The landowner remains the sole owner of the property so this negates any squabbles about land usage. If a group member decides to leave the group he simply comes and gets any supplies he has pre-positioned. This negates the problems relating to dividing up the land if the relationship fails.
The all too thrown about notion of "we will buy 40 acres and then you'll get 10, I'll get 10 and Joe and Jack will each get 10" is unfeasible in my opinion also. For the same reasons mentioned above. Consider also that each 10 acre parcel would have to develop it's own infrastructure- a well for each parcel, septics for each parcel, building for each parcel. This method is no different than going it alone only that you ***ume that there are 3 other families to help you when the chips are down.
To that I would argue that unless the dwellings are within VISIBLE and viewable (i.e, no trees or hills in the way) rifle distance of each other, defense will be dangerous at best. An attack on Joe's parcel would theoretically draw help from the other three parcels. If they are out of viewing distance and rifle distance this means each family has to send some of there defenders to help Joe out. My first question would be that if the chips were down, would they. My second comment would be that if they did, it would leave there parcels undefended. Are these guys well trained enough to coordinate such a defense? What's to stop friendly fire accidents during the defense? What if the attack is just a feint? What if it's a ruse to ambush the others coming to Joe's aid? A very real possibility.
OK you say, then we will each build near where the corners of the land meets. That will help solve the defensibility issue for sure. But what happens when Joe Bob decides he's not "into" this anymore and looks at his investment of land as a hunting camp? Next thing you know you got drunk Bubba's wandering around your place every weekend during hunting season.
What about for those of us without the big dollars to make the investment in land? First let me preface the following ideas with the fact that you do not need 100 acres of land. Unless you have a large group (50+) you should not need more than perhaps 40 acres. That's ***uming the land is good, defense is possible, enough of a woodlot, water sources, etc. etc.
Let's say you realize the need for a bugout location for your family or your group but cannot come with the money necessary.
I'm going to throw an idea out at you, to my knowledge this has not been discussed before in survival circles but it might bear investigating.
Leasing land for a bug out location.
I know, sounds kookey as all get out. But let's think about this.
It's common in rural areas for people to lease land for hunting. This is usually timberland where someone is raising a 20 or 30 year crop of trees for sale to lumber mills. The extra income from the hunting lease will usually pay the property taxes on the land. Most hunting clubs will normally "police" the land also, helping to keep out tresp***ers thus helping the property owner.
You would have to seek a long term lease of at least 5-10 years. To make this really work out your going to need to lock the land in for at least 5 years or more. There is going to be some improvements to the land you will absolutely have to make in order to make it worthwhile for a survival retreat.
The question has likely came up by now- what happens if TSHTF and the owner comes and tells you to leave? Well, if you have a legal lease and have kept up with your payments, legally he has no right to. Now will that stop him from trying? Of course not. Here is where judicious picking of land and checking out the landowner will come in handy. An elderly couple, small family that does not live on the land your leasing, or an absentee owner would be ideal. I would ***ume that if you keep good relations with the landowner this would not be a problem as you would be within your legal rights. A group could in theory offer "protection" in this case if the landowner lived nearby. No I don't mean "protection" as in Mafia terms. Consider also that an absentee owner would probably have no idea that you've essentially "moved" to the land if TSHTF.
Land leases and the laws pertaining to will vary from state to state. Read up on real estate laws in your particular state. Might be worthwhile to have an attorney draw up your land lease agreement. At the minimum the lease agreement should include the time period, the amount per year, an agreement to allow certain betterments to the land- putting in garden areas, fruit trees, stocking a pond perhaps, etc, as well as not granting any other leases for any other reasons. Make sure it allows year round access.
Where I live, about $7.00 an acre per year seems to be a fair rate for land leases for hunting.
Improvements you will have to make to the land-
Gate off any roads or trails coming in to the land. Post no tresp***ing signs. For OPSEC purposes get a sign shop to make up signs for your "hunting club." Post these at the entrances and near any structures you put up. Under the guise of a hunting club, occasional shooting will not raise any eyebrows.
Small RV's, travel trailers and even portable buildings are commonly seen in areas leased by hunting clubs. A 20' sealand container on site could solve some of the logistics storage problems. If your unsure of doing that, find a local "self storage" center within quick driving distance and pre-position your supplies there. Bury the minimum amount of supplies you can at the site itself. Leave nothing in any dwellings that would point to the true purpose of the land. Ammo, water filters, camoflage clothing would be fine, gas masks, razor wire and survey meters would set off red flags.
Water could be handled a couple of ways. Since you leased land that had a water source you could always filter your water. Katadyn Drip filters or Berkfields could be used for filtering ground water. Ideally the land would have a well on it of some sort that you could power via a generator. If not, talk with local well drillers to find out average depth to water in that area. It may be possible to drive your own well and put a hand pump on it.
You can develop the soil for gardens and make them look like "food plots" that hunters commonly use for bringing in deer. The same mixes of wheat, alfalfa, etc. that are used in these "deer mixes" make good cover crops to enrich the soil with.
I don't see why this plan would not work out for a small group of motivated people. The expense would be minor compared to purchasing land and developing the infrastructure for a real retreat. Is this plan lacking? Of course, but it's probably the next best thing to owning your own retreat. And it definitely puts a survival retreat in reach of any serious survivalist.
Least of all, it would also provide a place for a group to train and practice outdoor skills that would be semi-secure.
Let me know what you think of this idea. My email address is guderian308@hotmail.com
Hope this helps.
Robert
Our good friend Mr. W. sent in this article along similar lines. Much food for thought here-
A discussion came up concerning pros and cons of one person buying a plot of
land, developing it, and forming a survival group. The landowner would
allow folks to store supplies there for a simplified bugout and also a
guarantee that members would have supplies.
There are some pros and cons with this approach.
Pros
Landowner gets instant security when the balloon goes up.
Landowner gets help on projects around the homestead
Control and decision making for the group is centralized (landowner)
Cons
Landowner is footing most of the bills
Others must invest some time/money in someone else's land
Landowner is doing most of the work (realistically) preparing for others
(livestock, fencing, etc)
The land must be owned free and clear by one person. Communism sucks. An
alternative it to buy adjoining parcels with like minded individuals. Is
there risk that your buddy could decide to build a trailer park next to your
little slice of survival Heaven? Sure, but not as much risk as if you don't
even know who owns the next parcel.
The way I see it, the landowner purchases a spread and develops the basics -
house, water, fuel, power. This becomes headquarters for the group.
Because of his investment, he will probably be the leader of the group.
He/she can appoint or the group can elect "committee heads"
Teammates start out building sturdy "sheds" in which to store supplies in a
landowner-designated area. They pay for it, they put in work on it - it's
their building. If they quit or get kicked out, they are allowed to remove
it. These sheds can serve as rudimentary housing if need be.
I would think the landowner would have final say on construction methods,
design and so on - with input from the group. I'd keep it all pretty
standard.
The group then builds infrastructure around the "village" or "compound" or
whatever you want to call the group of sheds. Toilets, showers, cooking and
cleaning facilities - maybe a group hall. The hall belongs to the landowner
if push comes to shove but everyone pitches in time and money to build it.
A group could finance this by building and "selling" it as group campsite.
In that case, they'd have to have storage areas for gear separate from the
cabins. But they could rent it out to generate income.
Raising critters presents some problems. Who pays for them? Who pays for
the feed? We know the landowner is the one who is going to be taking care
of them day to day. A working retreat should have several types of
critters. It takes time to "figure it out" and get everything set up - a
group cannot wait until the balloon goes up to obtain livestock. I would
think the group could go in on the purchase of said animals and their feed.
The landowner pays nothing or very little - he is investing time and work
instead. If any of these critters are sold - the profits are divided
evenly.
I have moved around a lot and have had the opportunity to form and join a
handful of groups. I am convinced that you need to form a group of fairly
local people. Either that or VERY dedicated and fairly well-off people.
Why? Because you have to get together FREQUENTLY. At least every month.
More often is better. You should be part of each other's daily lives - not
just a contingency.
A group can develop animosity towards those who "don't contribute their fair
share" be that time, money, supplies, or what have you. Also, in the end,
this is all about relationships. Absence does not make the heart grow
fonder - quite the opposite.
Another thing to consider. Let's say five families have formed a group and
have been working at it for two years. Now someone new is going to join.
How do you address a "buy in" if any? Here we have a group that has
sweated, fought, and cried over a parcel - they have invested THEMSELVES in
it. And now a new member joins. Something to think about. Something to
decide upon up front.
Rules should be well thought out and clearly stated - in writing. There
should be no "coulda, shoulda, woulda". Everyone should know what is
expected, what is forbidden, and what penalties for non-compliance are.
Choose your members VERY carefully. Have some type of thorough evaluation
process. The time to figure out that Bob doesn't share your basic m****s and
principles is BEFORE he is invited into the inner circle. You should know
your potential member's family well also. A good way to evaluate people is
to put them under stress - a hard working environment is good for this.
Hard training is another way. The longer (work or training sessions) and
the more frequent - the better. True selves have a way of coming out when
folks are tired and frustrated. Word to the wise.
Have a procedure for dealing with folks who, for whatever reason, leave the
group. Everything should be kept "civil". The group should help the now
former member safely and efficiently remove his/her stuff from the retreat.
No vindictiveness should be tolerated. Keep it professional. Again, it
should be clearly stated and understood in the beginning just what a former
member can take with them. No surprises.
Can this work? Absolutely. We see similar arrangements with large
farming/ranching families. There is a time coming in this world when folks
will have to band together to survive. Most will wait until the last minute
and do it out of necessity. Most will die. The smart ones are taking steps
now, sacrificing now, to ensure a better future for themselves, their
families and their friends.
Good luck.
Mr. W