Re: Affordable Unit Lotteries
From: Fred H Olson (
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:25:01 -0600 (MDT)
Lon Goldstein <zebulon303 [at]>
is the author of the message below.
It was posted by Fred, the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at]>
because the message had a "digest" subject line - I restored it.

NOTE: Lon appologises below for quoting a digest in a previous message.
I regret that I did not catch that due to an artifact of the listserve
software - when I have 'approve all posts' set ("moderating") it does not
warn me of oversize messages (or html!).  Lastly I was on an overnight
school camping trip with my 13 yo son and 30 boys the last 26 hours and
forgot to turn off 'approve all posts' off before leaving so there were
about 15 messages held up while I was camping...

Bear with us, we all make mistakes.  I'm sure Lon will resolve with me to
try harder next time.

BTW I do have 'approve all posts' set most of the time lately.  It allows
me to catch some posts ( e.g. "digest" subject line and "unsubscribe" )
and do something about them.  Now to get the oversize message feature


--------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------

Follow up with clarifications: (First off, my apologies for reposting text
from the digest mode in my last message.  It was unintentional and I am
sorry.)  City of Boulder normally requires only 20% affordable in all new
housing developments.  The Holiday Drive-In neighborhood of which Wild Sage
cohousing will be one part is a special case in that they are requiring 40%
affordable.  For more info on the permanently affordable housing programs
in Boulder, contact Lora Lefhae at Boulder Housing Partners.

>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 02:18:03 -0600
>To: cohousing-l [at]
>From: Lon Goldstein <zebulon303 [at]>
>Subject: [C-L]_Affordable Unit Lotteries
>Reply-To: cohousing-l [at]
>The City of Boulder has a similar requirement for percentage of
>"permanently affordable" units.  I believe it is 40% for all new
>developments, and that is the proportion we have in the Wild Sage
>community.  There are other people in our community as well as at
>Wonderland Hill ( , our developer who could
>provide a deeper understanding about how it worked, but I can share
>high level perceptions. Basically, the city was very cooperative with
>us from the beginning of the process.  They understood what cohousing
>is (no doubt through the efforts of Wonderland and possibly through
>previous experience with the Nomad community) and how it is different
>from other housing projects.  They agreed to let us use our processes
>to choose who could purchase affordable units as long as people
>qualified through the city program as well.   So people who are
>purchasing an affordable unit needed to complete the city's
>qualification process as a pre-requisite to taking part in our unit
>selection process.   And once they were qualified they were kept in a
>separate list from the city's point of view than all the other people
>who just got on a list for general affordable housing.   It seems to
>work pretty well.  Hope that helps.

Lon Goldstein
zebulon303 [at]

Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at]  Unsubscribe  and other info:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.