1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. alt.internet.wireless

  • Drift: square-yard patches

    From Carlos E.R.@robin_listas@es.invalid to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.internet.wireless on Thu Dec 4 12:48:22 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.internet.wireless

    On 2025-12-04 12:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    On 2025/12/4 0:43:14, Marian wrote:

    []

    What I love about Usenet is we all work together as a team, where each
    individual brings a completely different perspective to each discussion.

    This "minimum size" thing is certainly a different perspective! I don't _think_ anywhere in the UK has a minimum property size rule. (I vaguely remember - some decades ago - some people wanting to hinder development
    in some area sold off a field in square-yard patches, ideally to people abroad, thus making it difficult for any potential developer to even _contact_ all the owners, and something might have been done to prevent _that_, but we're talking many orders of magnitude different here!)

    Selling a field in square-yard patches? Really? Wow. The cost of the
    paperwork would be more than the land!

    Do you remember where this was? It is an idea, when the people want an
    area not to be developed.
    --
    Cheers, Carlos.
    ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From J. P. Gilliver@G6JPG@255soft.uk to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.internet.wireless on Thu Dec 4 13:50:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: alt.internet.wireless

    On 2025/12/4 11:48:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:
    On 2025-12-04 12:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
    On 2025/12/4 0:43:14, Marian wrote:

    []

    What I love about Usenet is we all work together as a team, where each
    individual brings a completely different perspective to each discussion.

    This "minimum size" thing is certainly a different perspective! I don't
    _think_ anywhere in the UK has a minimum property size rule. (I vaguely
    remember - some decades ago - some people wanting to hinder development
    in some area sold off a field in square-yard patches, ideally to people
    abroad, thus making it difficult for any potential developer to even
    _contact_ all the owners, and something might have been done to prevent
    _that_, but we're talking many orders of magnitude different here!)

    Selling a field in square-yard patches? Really? Wow. The cost of the paperwork would be more than the land!

    Do you remember where this was? It is an idea, when the people want an > area not to be developed.

    Sorry, no - as I said, it was decades ago. I think some of the sales
    were to Americans who liked the idea of owning a bit of the old country.
    And those buying - whether Americans for that reason, or those who
    agreed with the opposition to development - were willing to pay over the
    odds, i. e. more than the land was _practically_ worth. I _think_
    something was done to get over the requirement to contact all owners
    (e.-ag. when "compulsory purchase" was involved), but I don't remember
    any details, or even where it was (other than I'm pretty sure it was in Britain, probably England).


    (Gonna be hard to google, too: I just tried, but all I found were the
    opposite - discussion of people buying "micro-plots" as investment
    [unlikely to work as you'd need all owners to agree if development _did_ happen], plus mention of "ransom strips" [bought in order to deny access
    unless bought back at excessive price].)
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2