Responding to inaccuracies about cohousing
From: Diana Leafe Christian (dianaic.org)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Hello,
Today people on the Fellowship for Intentional Community's email list got a message from a man named David who had some, in my opinion, very inaccurate ideas about cohousing.

    Here's what I wrote to him.

    Diana Leafe Christian

Dear David, and the FIC "All" list,

David, this is a response to your email of Friday, Feb. 20 to the Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC).

    You wrote:
I've been studying the ICs on your site here for a project and found that its extremely disingenuous for you to include these cohousing developments as ICs. They are nothing more than glorified gated communities. The segregation in these cohousing developments is appalling (both race, class and education wise, all of which are over the 90% rate, e.g. white/college educated/upper middle income). Their push to get listed here is nothing more than a manipulation technique to market themselves anyway they can. You are being exploited (or maybe your part of the exploitation).

I'm guessing that you care deeply about our society, and I think you're passionate about fighting injustice and advocating powerful, beneficial alternative models of living. However, I believe your statements about cohousing communities -- that they're glorified gated communities, that they're segregated, that they're pushing to be included on the FIC's website, are that they're attempting to manipulate and exploit the FIC as a marketing ploy -- are inaccurate.

I say this because I've visited nearly 80 intentional communities of all kinds in the US and Canada over the last 15 years as a guest, visitor, consultant, or workshop leader. And while most ICs, including cohousing, are primarily comprised of middle-class to upper-middle-class well-educated white people (except for Los Angeles Eco-Village), I've seen far more people of color in cohousing communities than I've ever seen in non-cohousing communities. (In decreasing order of prominence, the people of color I've seen in cohousing communities include Asian-Americans, Asian nationals from Japan and India, Hispanic-Americans, and African-Americans.)

And . . . a major theme of almost every cohousing community I've visited is to become more racially, culturally, and socio- economically diverse. I'm not kidding! I believe it's important to distinguish between the intention to segregate ("We don't want those people.") from the result of the cost of housing units in which allows only those who can afford them to join cohousing, and the fact that cohousing doesn't tend to appeal to many people of color who could economically choose it if they wanted to. Is it possible you're extrapolating what you see -- a bunch of white people in cohousing communities -- from what cohousers actually want for their communities?

    You also wrote:
Are you aware the buy-in costs of these cohousing units runs 300-500k and in many cases hundreds of dollars/month in association fees?
(4) This is accurate. Do you consider this a problem because you believe that intentional communities should be affordable to every income level? If so, this also is not a true picture of the communities movement. For a group of people to share a common purpose, values or lifestyle; to intentionally share land and/or live with or near one another; to share resources and to make decisions cooperatively, doesn't require that joining the community be free or low-cost. There is a whole range of different financial requirements for joining communities.

Some are free to join, such as Twin Oaks and other income- sharing communities, and Dancing Rabbit, which can afford to have no joining fee because much of its land is in the Conservation Reserve Program, which means the community gets annual funds from the US Department of Agriculture.

Some cost relatively little to join, such as Lost Valley Educational Center in Oregon ($1000 joining fee), which owns its land as a 501(c)3 nonprofit, and community membership there doesn't involve property ownership.

But in most IC's I'm familiar with, joining the community means buying into shared land ownership, or buying a specific lot (with a deed), or, as in cohousing (buying a specific housing unit (with a deed). In the rural ecovillage where I live (Earthaven) it's far cheaper to join than any cohousing community or to buy a regular house somewhere, but it's still buying into shared property ownership. And _then_ you've got to clear land and build a house and fund all your own off-grid utilities, be it tiny hut and one solar panel or the whole enchillada of a three-bedroom house that can run a refrigerator, freezer, and vacuum cleaner (which is a big deal in off- grid communities).

Given what you've written, I get the impression you may be unaware that joining most communities involves buying in to property ownership. I'm assuming that you are not upset by and don't object to the cost when someone buys a house in a town or city or rural area. In most cases, when someone buys a house, they pay (depending on land values in the area), the same kind of $300K to $500K costs of a housing unit (plus a share of the Common House and all the rest of the property) that cohousers pay. Though, in point of fact, many cohousers have paid less -- $195 - $250 - $295K, as have many non-IC homeowners -- depending, of course, on the size of house and property values in the area.

Also, let's say there was a gated community someplace for wealthy people which was also an intentional community. That this very fancy place had all the same things -- a membership process, a shared mission, meetings and a group decision-making method, conflict resolution protocols, etc., as any other intentional community, but you had to be a millionaire to even afford to buy in. What I'd say is "So what?" Let rich folks have community; let working class folks, middle-income folks -- we all need community. Whether we're joining Twin Oaks or Acorn and paying nothing, or joining Earthaven and paying a $4,000 joining fee and $20,000 site lease fee, or joining Happy Family Cohousing and paying $300K for a three-bedroom unit, or joining the Ritz Community and paying a million, well . . so what? What's wrong with people of all income levels trying to make their lives, their children's lives, and their neighbors' lives a better place by learning and applying the values of cooperation, shared resources, and shared decision-making?

And lastly, is it possible you're assuming that people of color want to join a cohousing community? That lots of Hispanic and African-American people are, say, dying to get in and join all these white folks? This would make my Hispanic and Black friends laugh! They'd laugh themselves silly. Excuse me for being so blunt, but most white people are just not all that interesting to most people of color. People of color that I've spoken with about community would love to live in community . . . but with each other, not white people. It's about sharing the same culture, music, food, and much, much more. Also, various people of color have told me that they surely don't want to be some kind of token Hispanic, Arab, or African American, or other culture in a mostly white community, and certainly not just so the white folks could congratulate themselves on how diverse their community is!

    You also wrote:
Not only that, but residents are saddled paying taxes not only on their own units but the property too (which they dont own).
Fortunately, the part about "which they don't own," is not true. Cohousers do own their shared property.

    You also wrote:
Frankly, I see nothing more than the same old corporate crap that will probably collapse this society. I suggest you look at some studies published in professional journal articles, and let readres know of the spatial segregation of which these cohousing developments represent.

I know the FIC well, having worked as editor of its magazine for many years. I can assure you that the FIC is not about corporate crap (and cohousing is certainly not corporate crap) but is a group of dedicated volunteers and people working at low wages putting in long, hard hours to help ICs and their members, and to share how the values and practices of community living can benefit the wider culture.

    Thanks for reading this, David.

    Diana Leafe Christian

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.