Re: divvy up commons cost
From: Jim Ratliff (jratliffbpavms.bpa.arizona.edu)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 15:41 CST
On  1:21 PM 11/10/93 -0600, Judy wrote:
 
>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 #
>adults in the family.  
 ^^^^^^

I'm not suggesting I _know_ what the _best way_ to allocate commons cost
is. But I wonder why the number of _adults_ instead of the number of _human
beings_ would be the appropriate measure of a family's responsibility for
cost sharing. (Or even the number of _mammals_?) (Of course one might want
to use various weighting coefficients to apply to distinctly different
groups: e.g. to adults, children, dogs, cats,...)

Any justifications for one scheme over another?

  ___
   |
 \_|IM
Tucson Cohousing


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.