We anarchists know from both theoretical and empirical evidence that free markets in land work. And experience. Here is an example. I was was negotiating for a piece of property on a urban island where nearly 1/10th the homes were waterfront. Although waterfront is desirable, I though it foolish to own it because the taxes were high and the privacy was nil on the days you most wanted to use the waterfront. As you want to enjoy your beach, you are treated to gawkers slowly cruising by in their day boats. Ugggh. Later I also learned, naturally enough, that waterfront means mildew challenges.
To my mind the smart thing was to own land higher up for the views, and across from a park for the beach. That did not work out, but something better did. It is common to have what is called "shared waterfront." With shared waterfront say five homeowners together own a 30 x 300 foot stretch of waterfront, and in this case a 85 foot dock protruding therefrom. The 300 feet heads inland and is contiguous with all of our respective properties.
Now that is the ticket. All five homeowners own the shared property 100%. This is legally important, since none of us has say so over anyone else, no one can act for everyone else. No one is in charge. Anarchy.
(And 30 the taxes on 30 feet of waterfront split five ways is negligible, a lake is like a bathtub with the nasty things around the rim, so you want to swim out in the lake, off the dock, or further, from your boat. And you can find privacy in the middle of a lake. Much better deal than waterfront.)
Negotiating for this property, the real estate agent told us there was a problem. There was no waterfront agreement. Without an agreement there would be chaos. Stories of bitter enmity among co-owners of waterfront property were legion on the island. Examples ran from people not speaking to each other to violence.
Waterfront agreements dealt with issues such as maintenance, upkeep and expenses thereof, protecting from encroachment and the real challenge, who gets what space on the dock. Since an 85 foot dock shared by 5 people leaves about enough room for 5 skiboats at 24 ' each max, accounting for shore slope, lake levels, dock configuration, space to maneuver, etc, it is fine if no one goes above limit. (A 20 ski boat is probably all the recreational skier needs.) Then there is the issue of slot, some slots are far more desirable than others, what with wave patterns, etc. Next, skilled sailors are annoyed by wannabees who have no idea as to how the wannabees action make long term trouble.
And in this particular case, the son of one co-owner was docking his 35' Cape Hatteras year round of the dock, in the prime space. Big trouble ahead.
I asked the real estate agent to research how long there had been no waterfront agreement among these five owners. He was amazed to discover there had never been one. For fifty years, ever since the parcel was developed with the five properties and shared waterfront, there had never been a waterfront agreement. Although there had been several combinations of owners over the years, at no time did any agree to a waterfront agreement. As is the case in such instances, if one does not agree, the others cannot outvote the one. Sheer anarchy.
And in his research he found even more horror stories to share, so he urged us all the more to make it a requirement in the purchase and sale agreement, and she recommended a good lawyer to draw up the concord, a fairly standard document that should not cost too much. I encouraged him to pursue the agreement.
The seller's agent and our agent went to work on the other households and got no where. This house had been on the market the year before at $880,000, then came 9-11, and 2002 there was a dip in real estate prices, no one new what was next, the price had been dropped to 720,000, agents were panicking, and it looked like this deal would die because of the other four families refusal to have a waterfront agreement. Once the other families refused to agree, that was my signal to buy. We offered $695,000 and the sellers were glad to get it.
Now as the real estate agents were working themselves into a panic, two things were plain from what the real estate agents had told us. 1. Wherever there was a legal waterfront agreement, bitterness, pettiness, confrontation and unpleasantness, and in some cases violence, reigned. 2. This unique group that had no waterfront agreement refused to discuss any changes. Now, unhappy people want change. Happy people do not want change. Ergo, the people with no waterfront agreement were happy. That's who I want to join, happy anarchists.
No one ever asked the obvious question: if people were unhappy with waterfront agreements, and happy without one, what does that tell you?
A waterfront agreement becomes a legally binding document, legal in the sense of state-backed rights and responsibilities. That brings out one view of the world, and as we see, the state always leads to chaos. No agreement leads to order out of chaos, or anarchy. That brings out another view of the world. Over fifty years, various combinations of people shared waterfront with all of the rights and responsibilities, and never a conflict. Imagine that! In fact, knowing that, and having the real estate agents drive themselves into a panic over no agreement, they accepted $25,000 less on the price. Being an anarchist saves you money. And this is not to say there is no government among the owners, that is just to say we needed no state intervention to govern our private affairs.
Had the others in this instance agreed to a waterfront agreement, I would have paid more and experienced the conflict the other shared-waterfront owners experienced. (And I would not have bought.) Lawyers, as government workers, agents of the state, bring chaos to where there is normally order. We can do better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment