Re: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: David Hungerford (dghungerforducdavis.edu) | |
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 94 10:41 CST |
Ray Gasser wrote (a few days ago, sorry this post is late, i've been swamped): >What have y'all done about it out there in the already-constructed world (or >even in the firmly-decided world)? > >We'd love to hear from anyone with ANY thoughts on the matter, since >we're gonna be going at it this weekend. At Muir commons we divided everything by the number of units, so an equal cost of infrastructure was paid by each household (technically, we each own an equal sized lot surrounded (well, in front and back) by common space, which has setbacks and such subject to city restrictions--larger house footprints take up more of the lot. the premise was that access to the common facilities was equal, and not a function of square footage or the number of people in the household, and that this access was the closest thing to a market value that each house would maintain as a characteristic. In other words, when, in a few years, someone needs to sell their house, will the willingness to pay of the potential buyer for common facilities be a function of the square footage or of some intangible called "access to community facilities and common space?" or, more properly, "access to cohousing." We assumed the latter, and after watching 6 units turn over, that is how people (and appraisers, although they don't seem to value it very highly) appear to perceive it. We also divide homeowner's fees by household rather than by individual or square footage, although the singles may be subsidizing common house energy consumption for large families--assuming every individual uses the common facilities equally--and smaller houses, insome small increment, subsidize the larger houses by paying equally into the reserve fund (which will pay for future painting, roofing, etc.) We figure it will all work out with some degree of equity in the end. Seems like your agreement to divide infrastructure costs by sqft assumes either that bigger houses "use" more common space or that bigger houses reflect greater wealth which, to be equitable (not equal), should be redistributed. A curious decision. David Hungerford Muir commons
-
Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure RAYGASSER, November 14 1994
- Re: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure Ian Higginbottom, November 15 1994
- RE: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure Rob Sandelin, November 16 1994
- RE: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure Ian Higginbottom, November 20 1994
- Re: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure David Hungerford, November 23 1994
- Re: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure Judy, November 23 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.