I'm considering a fairly simple new home design for an area that may or may not be currently served by existing infrastructure, but not really interested in being dependent upon any of that anyway. From what little I know of the area it seems that the local governments are not equipped, or possibly experienced enough, to effectively plan municipal growth and development. These last couple of words are notorious for their politically espoused supposed "good" vs. practical reality of being horrid. Growth is not good (IMO), especially unplanned and unregulated growth. I may be interpreting what I've read incorrectly, but I get the sense that the existing infrastructure is, at the very least, severely stressed, and at worst, failing quite miserably. I've not read anywhere that the local governments are requiring anything of prospective developers in terms of impact fees or contributions toward improving existing public infrastructure that their projects will inevitably be adding even more stress to.
Unfortunately what I have read is about all sorts of rather kooky development ideas, from water parks to giant golf resorts, but with that I've not seen any sort of plan for new waste water treatment, storm water management, or distribution systems for electricity, sewage and water, to say nothing of roads and increased maintenance, so what gives? Given the growing interest of outsiders in relocating there, along with my perception of municipal authorities with limited to no financial resources, I would expect that corruption involving poorly conceived land development projects and complicit gov't officials is near rampant. Don't mean to sound like a Debbie Downer, but I've witnessed this happening my whole life here in the States, and the public ALWAYS gets stuck holding the bag, whether the impact damage done is from residential, commercial, or industrial development, so I say again, growth is usually bad.
Taking all of that into consideration, my own intention is to construct a new residence that does nothing to add to, but decreases, the present stresses being placed on the existing environment and infrastructure. This would manifest itself as a structure that does not require being tied to the local power grid, produces no physical waste stream of any sort, provides a neutral or negative impact on the existing storm water runoff patterns, and requires no connection to the publicly available water system. This is not purely conceptual, as I have built numerous iterations and similar structures in the past in the States, but, like apparently too many others, I am still interested in relocating there. What I do not want to do is to add to what I perceive as being an already worsening problem, and while I realize that, even with a zero home, we will still represent yet another vehicle on the road when we do venture forth, I'm basically a homebody who is perfectly happy not seeing stop signs or traffic for weeks at a time, so I doubt anyone will hardly notice I'm there.
Anywho, just curious about folks' take on the current state and trends of development in the area and whether or not my rather bleak view is accurate? I would add that I lived on the Chesapeake Bay for a lot of years (another shallow saucer of water that people tend to mistake for being an unlimited resource with an infinite capacity for somehow absorbing all sorts of waste), and the lake seems to be suffering a lot of similar challenges. The Chesapeake Bay is declining terribly under the current onslaught of environmental irresponsibility being perpetrated by the present Imbecile in Chief, and I hope to hear that the people of Mexico are not being similarly poorly served.