Re: divvy up commons cost <– Date –>    <– Thread –> From: Nancy Wight (wighthpwarr.wal.hp.com) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 15:26 CST
```>
> Nancy Wight asked me about ideas on sharing the commons cost - We initially
> said we would share acquisition cost (including development costs)
> proportionally to size (sq feet) of units - i.e. if I have 1200 sq feet and
> the
> total residential sq feet is 24000,then I have 1200/24000=5% if costs of
> common
> space.  And then the plan was to divide up operating costs on the basis of #
>
> Don't know if this will stay the same - these were initial ideas.
>
> judy
>

This is very interesting.  Initially, we thought this would work, but
we are somewhat divided on this issue.  On the one hand, we found that
it puts an unfair burden on the people who need larger houses but won't
necessarily contribute to more "use" of the common land/house/gardens/etc.
For example, a three-person household w/ a 2000 sf house using a BR as an
office should not necessarily have to pay twice the common development costs
as a  three-person household w/ a 1000 house. The operating costs should be
divided somehow on the # of people in the family, but the actual "soft costs"
- all of that money put at risk for 2-3 years - should be divided more equally.

On the other end of the spectrum, some people feel that the soft
costs should be divided evenly or based on the # of adults in the household.
This would mean that all of the legal, architectural, engineering,
administrative, etc. costs would be more equally distributed, because
everyone gets the same benefit from these services.  Also, the
larger houses will cost more anyway because the "hard costs" (land and
construction costs only) will be divided up on a square footage basis.

Anyway, we are currently leaning toward a formula that is based more or less on
the appraised value.  The difference between the total appraised value and
the total development costs would be split in half: half of it would be
divided by the square footage formula you mentioned above, and the other
half would be divided more or less evenly.  We haven't decided on this
yet, but it is currently on the table, and we are having a hard time
figuring out the fairest thing to do.  I'm glad to see that the simple
square footage formula worked for you.

- Nancy

```

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.