|Subsidies||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: porcupin (porcupinshocking.com)|
|Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 04:50:00 -0600|
A quick warning about subsidies. While best intentions should be respected subsidies that are applied to buildings rather than the needs of potential ocupants are easily turned amiss. At Valley Oaks Village in Chico CA the common costs of the project were split according to a complicated formula that charged larger houses more. Ownership of common properties however was divided equally. This formula was devised by the original seven members/families very early in the planning process. Those seven families purchased seven subsidized units and one penalized unit. (One couple divorced and bought two houses) Over $58,000 of costs were transferred for the project as a whole. The result of all this subsidy? The majority of the subsidized homes were highly customized with several having special pads poured so they could lay some very expensive adobe flooring. I believe that if subsidies are desired by cohousing communities they should look to subsidizing qualified buyers with low interest loans payable to the homeowners assosiation or some similiar system. This is a tried and tested technique used by many small towns like my own to provide low-income housing without actually building it. Subsidizing the buildings can mean that you end up buying toys for childless professionals. Removing housing from market pricing forces new buyers to go through a popularity contest in order to get pass the sellers or communities hoops. These last two concepts may build ugly resentments among the community that surface later in other venues. It might be best to avoid them. John Poteet Valley Oaks Village Chico CA
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.