Re: Diversity in Cohousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: David Mandel (dlmandelpacbell.net) | |
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:29:01 -0600 (MDT) |
Howard wrote: >"We have a >consensed community value that we want to "finish off" River Rock >within 5 years, but the expenditure levels needed to do that >appear impossible to achieve. We, collectively, say we want something >but are unwilling to pay for it. ... >I believe that any cohousing group which includes low-income persons >is likely to run into this problem. My advice to you would be: make >sure EVERYTHING is completed before move-in, or you could be waiting >for years to do any major capital improvements." Or have a system, as we do, in which funds for capital improvements are paid every month by all households but on a sliding scale, heavily weighted by ability to pay. This enables the community as a whole to determine priorities on spending a known amount of money for capital improvements without each decision running up against the fact that some have far more means than others. Also relevant: See the archives about debates regarding allowing some members to work more and others to pay more. We have for the most part successfully resisted this idea so far, thought it keeps cropping up. It may function very well when you have a community full of people who can each take that choice as they wish, but it's fraught with dangerous implications for community solidarity when some HAVE to work more because they can't afford to pay more -- and yes, these might be people who are already working long hours at low wages outside. If you care about enabling people of less means to join your community, as we did from the start, then instead the community needs to adopt a balanced approach involving both the amount of work expected of its members and the amount of money to be collected, plus the basis of collection. If being able to include some lower-means folks doesn't matter to you, then by all means, develop your gated cohousing community with sprawling houses, bigger garages, an Olympic pool and banquet facilities, music studios, etc. in the common house. Hey, it will still be more environmentally friendly if you can share these amenities instead of each family having its own! But have fun getting all your upscalers to agree on whose "needs" will become community priorities. David Mandel of the original "downscalers" cohousing group in Sacramento _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- Re: Re: [C-L] Diversity in Cohousing, (continued)
- Re: Re: [C-L] Diversity in Cohousing Martie Weatherly, June 29 2002
- Re: Re: [C-L] Diversity in Cohousing Cheryl A. Charis-Graves, June 29 2002
- Re: Re: [C-L] Diversity in Cohousing Sharon Villines, June 29 2002
- Re: Re: [C-L] Diversity in Cohousing Sharon Villines, June 29 2002
- Re: Diversity in Cohousing David Mandel, June 29 2002
- Re: Diversity in Cohousing Sharon Villines, June 30 2002
- The value of work Racheli Gai, June 30 2002
- Re: [C-L] Diversity of Cohousing Sharon Villines, June 30 2002
- Re: Diversity of Cohousing Kay Argyle, July 2 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.