Re: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure
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


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.