Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing Elitism

[porcupin (porcupin]

BilodeauA wrote:
> 
> Carolyn wrote:
> 
> >This discussion is very interesting. I would like to add the >point that cost
> is very much a factor in support of the >"cohousing is elitism" argument. I
> have had to abandon my >dreams of participating in a cohousing  community
> because >everything I've learned about it so far tells me that it  >matches or
> exceeds the cost of conventional housing. I cannot, and likely never will be
> able to, afford to live in such a >community. The irony is, when I first
> learned about cohousing >I thought that, because it involved shared resources,
> it would >be less expensive.
> 
> Someone on this list had observed that the generally excessive cost of housing
> is not the fault of the cohousing movement.  That's certainly true.
> 
>  But Carolyn's situation suggests that it's not good to simply drop the issue
> at that point.  I'd argue that any movement that doesn't address the cost of
> housing is unlikely to create lasting communities. That's a heavy burden, of
> course, but one worth taking up.
> 
> Yes, I know that some communities have allowed for a few lower-income spots,
> but I'm arguing that such is not enough if lots more people feel left out.
> I'm not sure whether any communitarian ideal is worth having if it requires a
> big income.
> 
> Yes, maybe affordable housing is a different long-term goal than co-housing.
> But perhaps they can be integrated more closely?
> 
> - Anne Zieger

Aaaaagghh,

Has anyone but me ever lived close to any "Low Income Housing?"  I'm not
talking the suburban variety that houses that houses the working poor
but the kind where almost nobody has a job.  It's a disaster.  The idea
that you could clump poor people up in housing groups has been one of
the most disastrous ideas in history.
At the most cohousing groups could decide to subsidize one unit in
thirty at say, half price. That would cost about 2%.  At Valley Oaks
Village in Chico we ended up with a pricing structure that subsidized
the smaller sized units at the expense of the largest units.  This cost
some members over 6k extra in housing cost.
The result: We subsidized the housing for two single moms, one
nonprofessional working adult, one divorced couple (two houses), several
retirees from proffessional jobs, and two couples currently working
professional jobs. In short loads of money that were used to build some
peoples houses were paid for by entirely different people for little
social benefit.   Beware cost shifting of any sort that is not done with
strict attention to the actual needs of those to benefit. 
Good Luck,
John Poteet 
Valley Oaks Village
Chico