Re: Cohousing-L Digest, Vol 115, Issue 6
From: Ellen Keyne Seebacher (ellepobox.com)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:53:57PM -0700, MJWB wrote:

> I read all of your post and I understand your viewpoint. However,
> Cohousing communities could be built with 1/2 (for example) built as
> only rentals.

Really?  Who do you think would own those rental units?

There's only four options I'm aware of:

1) the people who build the community (who then have to invest twice
as much to get it built, in hopes that they someday receive the
remainder back in rental fees);

2) one or more banks;

3) some government entity;

4) some charity.

Sawyer Hill Ecovillage (Mosaic Commons and Camelot Cohousing), like
most cohousing communities, found that our construction lenders were
completely unwilling to be landlords.  So option 2 was out.

I'm unaware of any government entity or charity in Massachusetts
willing to purchase homes so they can then be rented; believe me,
we looked.  So much for options 3 and 4.

So that leaves the people who build a community (many of whom will
lose money getting it built) each buying an additional home so they
can rent it out?  In our case, after already investing extra money to
ensure that 25% of our units are affordable to income-restricted
buyers?

Too bad you're so down on the wealthy, because I can't imagine who
else could afford such a thing. :/

> I am not embarrassed by people who take opulent vacations. I think
> they should be embarrassed.  Why? because I think it's so self
> indulgent. So you see, I have a different viewpoint. Capitalism is
> the root of all problems.

Unless you want someone else to carry the financial burden, I guess.

-- 
Ellen Keyne Seebacher                   elle [at] pobox.com

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.