|RE: Equitable distribution of costs||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com)|
|Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 10:31:25 PST|
In addition to what you list, I would also suggest collecting from "members" a small monthly assessment of $15-25. As your membership grows this will give a pool of funds to work with, is relatively painless to do, a sets a level of monthly financial commitment that is small, but significant. This has worked well for a couple of the groups that have just gotten started in our area for a couple of reasons. One big benefit that has come of this is that it sets a very tangable financial criteria for membership. I have heard from several forming groups that there are lots of people, who are "interested" in cohousing but don't actually ever commit. Sometimes these onlookers can have valuable skills and knowlege to contribute and add a positive energy to the project. Sometimes they bring negative energy or just waste your time. If part of membership is defined as an ongoing financial commitment, often those who are only marginally interested will drop out or you can use their knowlege and energy as non-members but not give them blocking voice in meetings and decisions. ---------- From: "Fred H. Olson WB0YQM" <netmail!fholson [at] maroon.tc.umn.edu> To: Rob Sandelin Subject: RE: Equitable distribution of costs Date: Wednesday, January 26, 1994 8:19AM I've been reviewing the messages from the last month about assessing member fees. I plan to use them as the basis of an article for our local newsletter. Note that I have not been a part of a cohousing core group that has gotten so far as raising significant amounts of money for development costs. The scheme I currently like is similar to New View's but in thinking about it I think my wifeand I have had an insight that I'd like your comments on. Suppose: Money would be raised to cover early development costs as they arise from member households in some equitable way - per household maybe with an adjustment for household size. Records would be kept of who paid what and would later be counted toward house purchase. Costs would be added to the cost of the houses and common space shares. Thus when the community is completed the development costs are paid for in proportion to house cost. But if costs are eventually in proportion to house cost what difference does it make how members raise this money as long as enough money can be raised? Why, for example, not essentially borrow from members who have liquid assets that they can essentially prepay toward their house? Note the case of the community that fails and everyone looses the money they have put in so far (no post failure transfers). In this case people would lose in proportion to the fee assessment formula. Thus an equitable fee assessment formula essentially spreads the risk equitably. It also enforces a level of monetary commitment among members. Similarly, I'm inclined toward keeping a record of hours worked but I'm also sympathetic to arguments about individual circumstances. The group has the potential to take these into account in enforcement. Keeping track would allow differences in time to be open knowledge and exert some peer pressure for members to do what they can rather than a source of private resentment. Fred Olson Minneapolis,MN Seward Cohousing Group *and* fholson [at] uci.com Anderson Lane Core Group COHOUSING-L sysop Hopefully one of them will get built!
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.