Re: Right of first refusal
From: Sharon Villines (
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:05:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Oct 10, 2006, at 12:19 AM, Rob Sandelin wrote:

Our community passed on the right of first refusal since it seemed unlikely
we would have, or be willing to raise,  the assets in order to actually
secure the purchase, thus it would serve no real purpose.

This may in fact be true but in instances where the property may change hands without the control of the owner -- into an estate, for example -- having community control could be very important. To be legally and financially dependent on your personality (or good looks) may not be enough protection if there is a problem.

A community usually does have the ability to secure enough of a bank loan to secure the property until a suitable resident can be found or an already present resident can secure the funds to purchase on their own. There are many situations that right of first refusal gives the community the option to exercise that might not exist without it.

I agree that you never really know how a resident will function in the community for at least a year and personal family circumstances also change changing their behavior as well, but you often do know that someone is exactly not right and has stated their intentions to do exactly what you may not want them to do, so you could need the protection. When all it takes is inserting a paragraph in the bylaws, why not do it?

Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.