Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Affordable Cohousing

[Frank Boosman (frank.boosman]

Dan Suchman wrote:

>I think most cohousers would agree that those needing affordable housing would
>best be served by a community having a diverse socio-economic profile.  (I'll
>leave to someone else the question of whether the community as a whole would be
>served by this arrangement.)  To accomplish such a mix would probably require
>government or privately subsidized loan programs, which do not currently exist.
>I suspect that the most of the existing affordable cohousing in the US has been
>creating by one of the following methods:  (1) government coerced subsidy by
>the developer (e.g., requiring the developer to build a certain amount of
>affordable housing as a condition to building other market rate units),  (2)
>direct or indirect subsidy by the wealthier residents of the community (such as
>having the community as a whole own a few rental units), or (3) rental units
>made available (usually at a financial loss) by absentee owners.  The latter
>two forms of subsidies are much less diffuse than would be government or
>institutional subsidies, thereby placing a larger burden on individual
>contributors/donors. As such, I do not expect that form of subsidy will ever
>become widespread.  The government coerced subsidy by developers seems the most
>promising of the "private" routes, however it does not necessarily result in
>cohousing.

When you say "The latter two forms of subsidies are much less diffuse than
would be government or institutional subsidies, thereby placing a larger
burden on individual contributors/donors," you seem to be saying, "I think
affordable cohousing is a great idea, but neither I nor my group can't
afford to provide it." (If I've misunderstood you, please say so.)

Then you go on to say, "The government coerced subsidy by developers seems
the most promising of the 'private' routes, however it does not necessarily
result in cohousing." This seems to mean--and again, correct me if I'm
wrong--"I think this worthy goal of providing housing to people who can't
afford it should be made possible by the government taxing people who are
buying new homes." Remember, any fees paid by developers will be passed on
to home buyers. Therefore, what you're proposing is to make housing less
affordable for some and more affordable for others (by redistributing
wealth from new home buyers to those who can't afford to buy homes).

Is it me, or does this seem blatantly unfair? First, why should some people
be forced to pay money to others so they can purchase homes? I don't own a
home at the moment (though I did until recently). I would like to buy a
home, but if I do, I'll have to pay more in taxes to make such a scheme
possible, thereby making housing less affordable to me. Moreover, under the
scheme described above, this only applies if I buy a new home, not a
previously owned home, thereby distributing this burden on an even smaller
share of the populace.

Not only does it seem unfair, it's inefficient, since experience tells us
that government is typically the worst organization to solve any given
social problem. If the cohousing community--of which I hope to be a member
someday--believes this is a problem, then we should figure out how to solve
it ourselves. For example, a cohousing society could be formed which would
take donations from members to subsidize a certain percentage of units in
new cohousing developments for low-income purchasers or renters.

-- Frank

     Frank Boosman      |  Virtus Corporation  | frank.boosman [at] virtus.com
VP & GM, Virtus Studios | Cary, North Carolina |     919 467-9700 x18