Can you actually do land development with a full time job, or does the entitlement calendar decide that for you
I'm trying to figure out which strategy fits, and land keeps looking attractive to me for a reason that might be wrong. The timelines are long, so the work seemed spread out. Long project, not much happening most weeks, fine around a job.
Then I sat in on a planning commission meeting that started at 6pm and ran to 10:30, and it was the third hearing on that same application. Someone had been at all three, plus the neighborhood meeting, plus whatever happened at the staff level in between. That's not spread out, that's bursty. Nothing for two months and then five things in one week, all during business hours.
The case for doing it employed is that the money side works, you're not depending on the project to eat, and carrying land through a long approval takes patient capital, which a salary sort of is. The case against is that the process punishes anyone who can't be in the room, and county staff answer the phone between 9 and 4.
The middle version is partnering, you bring money and underwriting, a local operator handles the hearings and the site. Which sounds sensible until you think about how the work splits and who's actually making the decisions.
Or the version where you only touch by-right splits, no rezoning, no hearings, so the calendar mostly belongs to the engineer and the county reviewer.
Where does the room come down?
Land development while employed full time?
27 votes