|Re: equity caps: cohousing context as asset or liability||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Hans Tilstra (hanstilstrarabbit.com.au)|
|Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:44:47 -0600 (MDT)|
thought provoking discussion! I am endeavouring to sell the whole concept of cohousing, in the hypothetical possibility that the cohousing context adds value to the house itself. So, -by design-, can the cohousing context become a financial asset or does it end up a liability in relation to the value of the units? McCamant and Durrett contrasted communities organised around ideological beliefs with the plain desire for a more practial and social home environment. So, do I speak & act for myself or do I have a hidden sense of doing this for someone else? Having worked in human services for the last ten years, I'm increasingly wary of caring motives, compared to a frankness about the market realities. Other story. I imagine that keeping up with the market adds to a sense of security and choice. Yes, I would try to screen out speculators in the beginning, so as to avoid freeriding. Yet, when the cohousing project is established, I'd want the market to decide the value of the units. Mind you, in Western Australia the state government has been actively involved in supporting the establishment of cohousing projects. My first impression of one of the projects visited was, that the participants accommodated the cohousing idea in the developing stages and gradually ignored the common house once they had their unit. Beatiful shared native garden, very low rent but little "co". I like the Danishness of cohousing. I like idea that cohousing is more likely to attract well educated people who presumably like other people. I like the freedom that people will be able to smoke cigars, vote for gun ownership, whatever. In their own units. Hans Tilstra www.vicnet.net.au/~cohouse/
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.