RE: co-housing and real-estate investments | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
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. > >
- RE: co-housing and real-estate investments, (continued)
- RE: co-housing and real-estate investments Dan Everett, February 13 1995
- RE: co-housing and real-estate investments John Eaton, February 13 1995
- RE: co-housing and real-estate investments Loren Davidson, February 13 1995
- RE: co-housing and real-estate investments Rob Sandelin, February 14 1995
- RE: co-housing and real-estate investments Ryan O'Dowd, February 14 1995
- RE: co-housing and real-estate investments Loren Davidson, February 15 1995
- Re: co-housing and real-estate investments RAYGASSER, February 23 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.