|Re: cohousing vision||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)|
|Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:29:25 -0700 (PDT)|
On 13 Jul 2011, at 3:47 AM, peterpiper [at] riseup.net wrote: > That is why our new cohousing project (www.lilac.coop) is a Mutual Home > Ownership Society. Residents don't rent or buy. Rather we finance equity > shares in the co-operative with 35% of our income. Whilst there is a > minimum income required to become a member, it is possible for over > three quarters of the UK population. When we move on we get to cash in > our equity shares. This is an interesting concept — especially because you can cash in equity when you move on. How does the project get built in the first place? How is "income" determined? What objective method do you use? > Frankly we didn't want to live with just with rich people. We wanted a > mix. So the Mutual Home Ownership Society is a good way for us to ensure > diversity, and that our cohousing is affordable FOREVER. "Forever" only if some people make enough money to make up what other people are not paying. The total cost of the project, unless you are subsidized by the state, still has to be paid by someone. Again, like our discussions of "affordable," "rich" needs definition. While everyone at Takoma Village is well educated, I wouldn't call anyone "rich." A large number of us qualified for tax subsidies when we moved in and not much has changed. Others have purposely taken low paying, non-profit jobs in order to do the work they love. "Rich," "middle-class," etc. are so often used as emotional triggers that it is hard to address the issues accurately without numbers. Sharon ---- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.