Electricity and gas and internet are private companies using an easement.
Police and fire can easily be funded by sales tax, just like the public transit. Alternatively, land owners can voluntarily pay yearly for police and fire, or opt-out just like people are not forced by government to buy homeowner insurance.
Maybe look into the lot lines and confirm if they extend through the 'road'. Then go to county clerk and recorder and find what easements were filed there. Lots of misunderstanding about this, even in local government.
Have those laws been tested? Published appellate cases specific to the law may be very interesting. An encumberance or taking requires compensation. Also, be careful to not use motor vehicle laws and words like 'drive', as you can do what you want on private property. My child was practicing use of movement via a personal conveyance when 11 years old, in what looks like a car on what looks like a road.
Incorporate a town and do what you want. After incorporating, set up contract to pay county to do maintenance until the town has time to bid it out.
Curious thing here is that with the limited ability of the town to meddle, town council election is occasionally cancelled because it is not contested. There is little to fight over, so not a lot of grift or power.
Am west of Mississippi river.
If there aren't cubs around, you yell, clap and raise your arms. It'll run in a heartbeat. If there are cubs around, you back away slowly- running will just make it chase you. If it follows, stop moving.
Edit: not to mention that VAT and sales taxes are considered regressive taxes that disproportionately burden the less wealthy. I would much quicker remove VAT than property taxes.
For the same reason that I'm planning my retirement without social security. Politicians can't be trusted long term. They'll write laws to allow them to use funds that were previously protected.
For state an local governments this is mostly true but even there the federal government helps out.
What you want is for the wealthy to pay for the poor and old and those without much wealth or income.
You're still giving the "it's property" framing waaay more credit than it's due. Remember, granting someone exclusivity to a contested resource means preventing other people who would like to use the resource from using the resource. It's entirely reasonable for those people, represented in aggregate by the government, to ask for compensation in return, even if the government provided the landowner no additional services beyond the exclusivity.
The entire concept of "owning" land is just a hustle to argue against paying taxes on it.
The details need to be hashed out. I'm not convinced that 99 years is right, it's long enough to ignore and then pretend to be surprised when it comes up for renewal. Perhaps 35 years and no termination clauses, to make it easier to plan around? It would allow one house for having children and one house for retirement. The improvements mechanism would likewise need iteration.
I am interested to see how the various global experiments in these directions will pan out, though it looks like right now the market is betting that the 99 year leases will turn into perpetual ownership. That's unfortunate, because perpetual ownership is directly responsible for most of the largest perverse incentive problems in the real estate industry, not to mention ongoing gigantic deadweight loss.
