RE: co-housing and real-estate investments
From: Ryan O'Dowd (odowdrelwha.evergreen.edu)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 23:12 CST

On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Loren Davidson wrote:

> At 05:16 PM 2/13/95 CST, John Eaton wrote:
> >> 
> >> We are drawing up our documents, and are considering a clause which grants 
> >> the community the option to buy any member's lot at a "limited equity 
> >> value,"
> >> The intent of this clause is to prevent the value of these lots from rising
> >> so rapidly that they are no longer affordable to moderate-income families.
> >> (As community living becomes the trendy lifestyle of the future!) 
> 
> >Bad idea. The community is not at risk if the value goes down but stands to
> >gain if the value goes up. That is not fair. The biggest problem comes from
> >"The tyranny of the majority". Majority rule is not always fair. In this case
> >if the property has skyrocketed then 51% of the residents could decide to 
> >force out the other 49% at a fraction of the real value and then turn around
> >and resell the units at market value and make a killing.
> >
> >
> >Giving the community the right of first refusal is a better idea. Let the 
> >market determine the price. 
> 
> I don't agree.  Since we're taking "opinions" and not just "experiences" on
> this one, let me add  my $0.02.
> 
> I've been reading a lot lately about communities and various development
> types, and about such things as Community Land Trusts.  This sounds a lot
> like a CLT in intent if not in actual form.  The purpose of a CLT is to
> start taking real estate out of the speculative market.  It is this
> speculative market that has jacked the cost of land up so far in the first
> place, making cohousing (and all other forms of housing) so highly expensive.

just wondering loren, I was under the assumption that clt's were set up 
to not only take land out of the speculation game, but also as a tool to 
keep development away, keep the land as it currently is?  Here in Olympia 
Wa. we use a land trust to keep ecological sensetive land, land.  
Co-housing, however grovey an idea, dose not belong everywhere.

 > 
> John, you're making this sound like if the community (which community?
> Merely the development itself, or the greater community that might benefit
> from lower housing costs?) is somehow an adversary of its members in this.
> This "zero sum" thinking is anathema to what I consider community to be.
> 
> I believe these folks are to be commended for trying to create their own
> small corner of sanity in an otherwise speculative marketplace.  Taking land
> out of speculation this way is perhaps the most effective way of doing this,
> and certainly preferable to any government attempts to regulate land and
> housing costs.
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Loren Davidson 
> lmd [at] beauty.batnet.com
> http://www.batnet.c
om/beauty
> This document made from 100% recycled electrons.
> 
> 

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.