Re: Is communal ownership obligatory for cohousing?
From: Brian Bartholomew (bbstat.ufl.edu)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
"Michael Barrett" <mbarrett [at] toast.net> writes:

> Non-availability of Sam's compact pickup truck for sometime
> community use probably could be resolved as Brian describes. But
> what happens on more substantive issues: like the property owner
> wants to harvest the woods - needs the cash.  Or declines to spend
> $20,000 on a needed new roof or heating plant for the meeting
> hall/workshops? This might be more than merely annoying to community
> members.

My idea is to avoid common ownership wherever possible.  The woods
ownership would be sliced up into each house's lot.  The meeting halls
and shops would be small, and belong to individual houses.  If the
halls cost no more than the pickup truck, they could be replaced in
the same manner as the truck is.  Modest costs produce affordability
and sustainability, and reduce the effects of individual wierdness.

-----

Dave and Diane <daveanddee [at] verizon.net> writes:

> Shared *use* is the key thing.

I hoped for that.  I've been thinking of the community goal as
something like "home economy through cooperation", rather than any
particular ownership structure.  I'd like to cherry-pick the easy
cooperations and do them, and not try to converge views on the really
contentious issues.

-----

"Casey Morrigan" <cjmorr [at] pacbell.net> writes:

> Is it important to know whether it's cohousing?

I would like to have an accurate label to describe ourselves with.  I
get the sense that nearly all cohos have substantial communal
ownership of real estate and buildings and extremely strong
HOA-equivalents.  If so, then coho is not accurate for us.

        "Intentional neighborhood"?
        "Co-Nothing Community"?  abbreviated "CoNo" with the caps?

                                                        Brian

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.