Question of land...

...Ok, so here is a situation, hypothetical if you can, or realistic if you dare.

There is some land near your home, the land itself is worthless. Can't be built on unless you were to sink tens of thousands of dollars- possibly $100K to actually build a home on it. It has a deep revene, some spring fed water, nothing really but a dribble, lots of trees, and the locals claim that if it is bought and built on, that the buyer would need to purchase a tract of land similar in cost in protected wetlands as part of the purchasing deal. If it was offered at a price that you considered reasonable, even though you know that you can't build anything on it, would you buy it?

The lot across the street from us is up for sale, at the cost of $10K. The lot is the same size as ours, but there is nothing there. Ok, I take that back, there is some trash from the local bear from last fall and there are many cute little bunnies and birdies, and I am sure several snakes...but other than that, nothing.
It has been for sale since the opening of our development- 1993. No one has purchased it yet, due to the cost of actually building something there, and all the fill dirt that would be needed to make it a usable lot.
I know that we are not going to live here forever, but it would keep a portion of the neighborhood in a natural state....

Just wanted to throw that out there and see what anyone thought about it.

[DCJenn]

If I could afford it and it would guarantee that 1) no yahoo with an insane desire to build would end up with it and 2) it would guarantee the bears, bunnies and birdies had a place to live? Absolutely.

The house we made an offer on (another story) has two extra lots that I'm plotting the xeriscaping for as we speak/type. Why people attempt to grow grass in South Texas is beyond me.

Jenn

[Vishenka69]

I'm having a hard time picturing a piece of land for $10K. I can very clearly see a bag for $10K or a couch. But a whole plot of land with actual live animals?

[rainbabies]

I'm having a hard time picturing a piece of land for $10K. I can very clearly see a bag for $10K or a couch. But a whole plot of land with actual live animals?

you crack me up!

[planet]

If I had the money I would do it. It does bring the birds and other wildlife close. It keeps a potential crazy neighbor away. I would keep it wild, but if you wanted to do any development there are options other than housing. You could put in a playground or memorial. The land itself might appreciate or it could be part of the package deal when/if you sell your house.

I wouldn't buy it (given what very little I know from your post).

Unless I'm misunderstanding (and if so the next few lines will be absolutely worthless), the way I read it there is a currently-protected piece of wetland property that has to be bought as part of purchasing the main lot you're talking about. So, in terms of protecting the environment, the most critical part (the wetland part) has already been protected. I.E. If someone (other than me) bought the lot and wanted to build a house, a lot of protections would be in place for the wetland piece of the equation.

If the lot has been for sale since 1993 and if my city / neighborhood has experienced a lot of growth in that time, chances are there's even a greater backstory to that lot. So, if I ever thought I'd develop anything (which it doesn't sound like you'd want to do), it probably would be a major PITA. Likewise, if I simply enjoyed it undeveloped and in roughly its current state, what's to suggest that it's going to change any time soon - regardless of whether or not I plunked down 10K.

And (though this also doesn't seem like a major concern to you) if I thought that I could buy it and retain the option to do something really eco-friendly and/or sell it down the road (with strings attached), I'd fear that it would end up being a huge money pit rather than an investment.

And if a crazy neighbor hasn't shown up since 1993 and I may not be there very long, I probably wouldn't worry about a crazy neighbor showing up in the near future.

I think if 10K was a significant chunk of change, I'd put it somewhere else, watch it grow and compound (preferably tax deferred) for the next twenty or thirty years. Then, or maybe before then with some other funds, I'd do something with a more clearly defined purpose and promise of return on investment (in terms of environmental impact). Then, if I lived near the old neighborhood, I'd drive by the old neighborhood and would likely still see the vacant lot and I'd chuckle about all the things I'd been able to do with that initial 10 K investment.

But, 10K today on that lot, no.