Re: Re: Affordable CoHousing
From: Tom Ponessa (tomptvo.org)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 21:59 CST
Russell Mawby writes:

To add my two cents to the discussion on affordable
cohousing, I
mostly want to agree with Joani's comments.  The idea of
affordability has to be prefaced with the question of what
exactly it is one is trying to afford. . .

I must add, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, that it
is
interesting reading about all these subsidies that might be
available, when, from a Canadian perspective, _all_ housing
in
the U.S. looks subsidized.  We get no tax breaks whatsoever
for
our mortgages up here.  And if you want to see an overheated
housing market, consider that Toronto was for a number of
years
the most expensive city in North America to live in.  Of
course,
many people cheered that fact - world class, and all that -
but
house prices are still in the $200,000 plus range for
something
that is more deserving of a can of gasoline than a "for
sale"
sign.  Ask Habitat for Humanity about their experiences in
Toronto a few years ago. . .

That being said, we do have some really great downtown
neighbourhoods, with hardly any of the mess that many U.S.
cities
seem to be in.  That perhaps is why our (CoHoSoc) current
approach to affordable "cohousing" is aimed at developing
ways to
share ownership of houses - probably via some sort of
mortgage
instrument that allows transferability.  Demographics as
well as
economics supports the search for ways of housing smaller
house-
holds, especially when downtown neighbourhoods are
relatively
desirable places to live for most small households.  Sharing
could
take many forms, from roomates to separate apartments in a
single
structure, but regardless, all of my experiences with
sharing
ownership suggest that much more than just the structure
gets
shared, up to and including shared meals a la coho.
We are also addressing co-ownership with this project,
simply
because there are a few such projects out there (+/- 15 unit
buildings) and they seem to be a perfect model for cohousing
projects - mostly because they enable community-based
control
over (re)sales.  This not only helps shape resident
selection,
which is an important *and* dangerous issue for such tightly
knit
groups, but can also provide a mechanism for defusing
speculation,
hopefully leading to long-term affordability.

Believe it or not, the banks are very interested in all this
-
demographics and shifting markets probably being the reason,
as
are the lawyers (helpfully so, so far. . .).  Our hope is
that by
coming at it from below so to speak (sharing a house is a
relatively safe, normal behaviour) we can open the door for
more
"radical" ownership options in the future.

A spin off from this is a proposal for a Community Building
Loan
Fund that can use investors money as a seed for innovative
community development projects - yes, cohousing.  British
Columbia already has a similar animal -> Co Housing
Investment
Equity Fund (CHIEF) - contact Alan Carpenter at (604) 574-
1545
for more info.  I know that such things exist in the US, and
if
anyone could send me info. or a contact for the Northern
California Communty Fund, we'd appreciate it.

I also think that Cardiff Place Cohousing in Victoria used
outside investors buying units to rent out as a way of
introducing affordability - Alan would know more about this.

As far as Canada being a model of affordability through
government support, well, those days are numbered, and as
someone
who is quite active in non-profit housing (social housing),
I say
"it's about time".  The programs certainly got a lot of
units
built, but at about three times the cost of private market
housing (largely because of all the consultants, housing
managers
and so on, not to mention the bureaucratic delays along the
way).
We built ourselves a dinosaur that eventually was only good
at
building 300 unit highrises, but with an endless trail of
strings
attached dictating who could live in which unit, and for how
long, and so on.  I must add, however, that some of the best
housing our society has ever built also came out of those
programs, largely the small (max 50 unit) non-profit
projects
that directly addressed residents needs - usually special
needs -
in other words, the places that perhaps most resemble the
form
and process of cohousing.

So in the end, how to get affordable cohousing?  Think about
affordability as being more than just cheaper versions of
the
same old thing - affordable means many different things.  It
seems to me that if cohousers can't figure out how to
address the
particular elements that go into affording the places we
live,
then no one can.

Russell Mawby - CoHoSoc - <russell_mawby [at] tvo.org>


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.