Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: re:Annual costs - charging residents and/or owners

[Rob Sandelin (robsan]

"andre a.n. vellino"  <netmail!vellino [at] bnr.ca wrote:

>For example, if both owners and renters are full members, do they have
>the same say in decisions that might affect the net worth of property
>(something that money-lenders might be concerned about, especially if
>the decision making process is consensus-based)?

>Should cohousing groups that have both owners and renters have two
>categories of "members" that have different responsibilities and
>obligations (w.r.t. the law)?

At Sharingwood Renters are involved in the meetings but do not have a 
"vote" (since we also use consensus it means they don't get to block 
consensus.)  We encourage not only renters but visitors to offer  ideas 
and opinions at meetings as this gives us the benefit of that much more 
experience.

One of our membership agreements that we spent quite a lot of time over 
was our rental policy.  We wanted renters to be a part of the community 
and they have the same expectations of commitments as regular members 
do. The chairperson of our most active committee (Our commonhouse 
committee) is a renter. We set a limit on renters so that the 
population of renters would not exceed 20% of the total membership.  We 
have two basement apartments which are used as rentals and expect a 
third renter in the next few weeks.  One of the problems of US 
cohousing is that ownership is expensive. By having renters we allow 
people who don't have the income to own, but want to contribute and be 
a part of a community setting.  So far it has worked out well for us.

We found out that the banking system in our part of the US would not 
accept the word "consensus" in our legal declarations as a decision 
making structure. Instead we had to use 75% majority in our legal 
documents to make the banks happy.  You should ask your local bank 
about it. Using a 75% majority in your legal documents gives you a 
built in fall back should consensus fail.