|Re: divvy up commons cost||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|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.