Hi,
I'm a newbie here and I was wondering about this whole Island/homeland idea. It seems to me that a Wiki page would be very useful as a starting point. Ideas could be crystalized on the forums and then transferred to the wiki.
A very quick google, came up with:
https://signup.jot.com/?utm_source=googl...wiki_terms
OR
http://www.linux.org/lessons/short/wikis/x58.html
I'm not much at web page design so if anyone feels more qualified, please put you hand up.
I am thinking of writing up a document on what I think such an Island/Homeland would involve, our options and how it could be implemented. This would be heavily my personal perspective and hence I thought it could form a startig point for the wili and then everyone can then attack it and change it into something that is more acceptable.
What do you all think? Any volunteers for the wiki page design? How many people here are intrested in being involved in the Island/Homeland project?
Hi AspieDAD, we have a wiki already -
http://www.autism-wiki.com
So it would be easy to put info there.
If people write it here, I could add it there, at the moment its locked due to spam bots.
Who? What? Why? When? Where?
5 basic questions that need to be answered in most projects.
I'll start with Where;
Since this is a global project for Aspies from all around the globe, we need to consider global implications.
The first of these that I can see is immigration issues. Not much point in having it in (for example) the UK if people from other countries cannot immigrate to the UK. Sure it is ok if it is only going to be for holidaying but I think the long term plan extends beyond this.
The second is the current stability of the host country, their laws and customs.
The third is the local planning laws that may apply to development -building houses etc.
Only after these can we start worring about things such as climate, water availibility, services (power, gas, telephone, sewerage, internet etc), accessibility etc.
Before I deal with the issues, I am going to make my suggestion as to where I think MAY be a good location. Think of it as a starting point and we can move from there.
I suggest Costa Rica in central America.
(The info below is based on memory from several years ago)
It is my understanding that pretty much anyone can immigrate there if they want to by investing a certain amount of money. I think it is $50 000 in US currency. I am not sure how long it has to be invested and the ins and outs of immigration but I believe that it is fairly easy.
Costa Rica has not had any wars or unrest for over 100 years. It gets along with it's neighbours and I believe it doesn't have any border disputes. It's legal system is based on one of the European countrys (can't remember which) and it seems to be a fairly tolerent society - no extreemist religeous views.
I don't know about local planning laws so this may be a gotcha but I feel that a developing country like this is unlikely to have the levels of red tape that some more developed nations have.
The climate is quite tropical but I seem to remember that they do not have Hurricans/Cyclones or other extreem weather.
Before going on to availability of water, services and accessibility, I need to discuss "What?" as in What are we after, an island or a piece of land on the mainland?
Islands are generally more expensive and the main thing they offer is a degree of isolation, a greater sense of community and clearly defined boundarys. The disadvantages of an Island are difficulty in transporting goods (try transporting 20000 bricks to build 1 house) Isolation - it may be difficult to get a sick person to the mainland hospital during a storm. A lack of expandibility ie. if the community grows, it is not possible to increase the available land. Problems providing services, not insurmountable but can get expensive - generator for power, gas bottles, septic systems, radio to mainland communications, wireless internet.
I guess it comes down to how much money can be got together and how much the various options cost. Certainly if services are freely available on the mainland then this is a financial plus. Alternativly if an island is say >100 acres this this may make it a better option.
I have not covered everything here in great detail but it is a starting point. I suggest for now that island vs mainland be left until after further investigations.
AspieDAD
I would not think that Costa Rica has very good healthcare, and what was there, would be expensive comparatively.
AspieDAD, do you want to write some of this on the wiki page for it?
MttJocy has already made a start.
Hi Amy,
Thanks for the reply - glad to know someone is reading this.
Good point about the hospitals/medical care. I need to do more research but really want to get my thoughts down first and then develop it from there. I suspect that as in many developing nations you can get anything for a price - even good healthcare eg. in Russia, the government facilitys are terrible but if you go private, you can get some of the best in the world. Also the US is not too long a flight and their private healthcare is world class. Still worth investigating further.
I think I will deal with Who next.
This isn't so obvious as it sounds. Sure we can say only people with Aspergers or people in the autistic spectrum but it may not be so simple. Do we make an exception for NTs if they are medically trained, what if they are accepting and get along well with us? What about family - they may not fall in the spectrum? And if we have friends or relatives that may want to come along?
Then there is the finance part of this - how does this affect who gets to go. If someone puts in money but is an NT, surely they have a right to come and live there?
What if an aspie wants to live there but doesn't have the money to buy in or even for the flight? How do we deal with this?
I am still not sure about my feeling on this but I think we should do what we can to help all on the spectrum to live there but that will depend on funding. I suggest setting aside say 20% of the island for those who are on the spectrum but cannot afford to buy in. There is still the issue of housing and flights for these people.
For that I suggest a tax on all transactions (in addition to any that have to be paid to the host country) of 10%. Of this I recommend that 20% is used towards helping others move to and build on te new island or land. The remaining 80% can go to running the place, roads facilities etc.
This way we can slowly build up the number of people arriving that cannot afford to do so otherwise.
Another idea is that some may choose to allow someone without funds to live on their land in return for services such as cleaning, gardening etc. like rental really except using barter of skills and effort instead of cash.
I think that this will ultimately prove to be a big topic.
Why?
I guess the main reason why would have to be because NTs and aspies don't mix very well. I suspect that there is also something elso though, I suspect that aspies minds work in a way that makes them desire to do something different and to prove their worth outside of the NTs world.
It is an adventure and it promises a far better life. It promises more stimulating social contact. There is less pressure to conform. We can be a role model for both NTs and aspies around the world.
Because we can.
When?
ASAP but in reality this is quite hard to determine. One possibility is to put on a time limit and another is to put on a funds limit, or maybe we can do a combination of both.
I suspect the real time we are measuring is until the place is purchased. After that there is a whole host of new timescales that come into being, eg. how long until first settlement? how long until assisted aspies first arrive? how long until we get a lbrary or town hall etc.
I suggest a time limit of 1 Jan 2008 - that gives us plenty of time to try to do this. Also I suggest we set a finance limit based on th cost of purchasing the property.
Finance
This is the hardest problem and the one that is most likely to cause the failure of the project is finance.
Without money, we cannot do anything PERIOD!!!
Wishy washy ideas about some form of sponsorship are extreemly unlikely. We may get partial sponsorship but only after demonstrating that we have found the bulk of funding ourselves.
We need to raise money, somehow, someway.
If we can register as a charity, all the better.
We need to get any contributions we can so think of organisations that may agree to do this including other charities. We also need to put a very strong case.
As a charity, we can organise events and raffles/lotteries. I know that in Australia, one way for charities to generate money is to get a sponsor of eg. a car which is then raffled off.
There are a lot of ways that a charity can get money from tins to bakesales.
We all need to think of ideas for this.
Finally there is the members contributions.
I suggest something along the lines of the following:
Land is divided up as follows;
20% set aside for those that cannot afford to contribute.
30% set aside for public and communal land.
50% is set aside for people to buy in - lets call this retail land.
Retail land is divided up according to the amount of contributions a person has personally put in, including how much they anaged to get from charitable or other sources.
So for eg if the island/land costs $1 000 000 and Mr Smith manages to raise $100 000 from charity work and invests $100 000 of his own money, he has contributed 20% of the cost of the island/land and so he gets title to 20% of the retail land ie 10% of the total land.
If Mrs Jones has no money of her own but manages to raise $50 000 then she is entitled to 5% of the retail land or 2.5% of the total island land.
Once the 30% communal land has been chosen (by common concensus) the retail land selection should be done by order size of contribution ie if Mr Smiths contribution is the largest, he gets to choose first then if Mrs jones was the next largest, she get to choose second. The selection needs to be one contigeous block and can only have an equivalent percentage of beach ie. Mr Smith cannot select land with more than 10% of retail beach.
The remaining 20% is what is left for those that cannot contribute.
Land should be divided into blocks prior to the selection process to make the process easier.
Land should be transferrable ie. Mrs Jones above should be able to sell part or all of her land. Eg. she may not have money to build her house so she sells 4% of her 5% stake (to Mr Singh) keeping 1% to build her home on. Mr Singh then can then keep the land or sell all or part of it. Mrs Jones may be able to sell her 4% stake for more than the original contribution (perhaps she sells it for $100 000). There is no reason that she shouldn't.
All the above should help motivate people to get money for the project. The great thing about this is that even if you have NO money you can still do well out of this project by getting the charitable contributions.
Wishy washy ideas about some form of sponsorship are extreemly unlikely. We may get partial sponsorship but only after demonstrating that we have found the bulk of funding ourselves.
Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot know if sponsorship would work or what people would think.
Also many of us are in different countries, you cannot know what companies in each country would feel.