Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing Elitism

[Fred H. Olson (fholson]

"David Mandel" <dlmandel [at] rcip.com>
is the author of the message below but due to a problem it was posted
by the Fred the list manager: owner-cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org
--------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------


John Poteet of Valley Oaks wrote:

>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.


        There are some important truths here. The ghettoization of most
low-income housing in this country is exactly why it's so important to
develop viable prototypes of mixed-income housing -- low-income people
living alongside others, in comparable housing.
        This seldom occurs, precisely because of the reputation of
low-income housing that John cites, combined with the reality that housing
in capitalist America is not primarily the provision of a necessity, but a
commodity, the biggest investment in the lives of most homeowners. Thus the
visceral NIMBYism with regard to low-income housing in panicky defense of
"property values." The result: Insufficient low-income housing all around,
and its ghettoization as described by John when it IS built.
        Here is where cohousing can play an extremely important vanguard
role, in several ways:
        1) By creating even a mostly middle class community in an existing
low-income neighborhood. A group of future neighbors is likely to feel more
comfortable moving into such a place than an individual family would, given
the cultural, economic and likely ethnic/racial barriers that must be
surmounted. This was certainly true with our project, and despite some of
the ongoing stresses and problems that stem from these barriers, we are
contributing to the breakdown of ghettoization in our neighborhood.
        2) Even better, a cohousing group that involves low-income people
as well as others of moderate or even higher income demonstrates that such
a mix can succeed. It's easier for a middle-class prospective homeowner to
want to live next to a low-income household if both families get to know
each other in the process of making the community happen. Of course, any
one such community is merely a single small step, providing housing
solutions for only a few low-income families. But one such successful
community can lead to another, multiplying the impact. And if we (and other
low-income housing advocates) combine this modeling with political activism
to push mixed-income housing (inclusionary zoning ordinances, defined on a
small enough scale to avoid ghettoization), perhaps our examples will make
it easier to move the concept forward in all sorts of project, cohousing
and (mostly) not.
        If a group can follow both strategies 1 and 2 (as our project has
done), so much the better. It's a challenge in many ways, but I'm still
convinced it's the most effective way to go if cohousers want to do
something to have an impact on improving the low-income housing picture in
this country.

        As to John's second point, that internal subsidization of
lower-income members of a cohousing community is problematic, I also fully
agree, though I have heard of some cases in which it seems to have been
pulled off successfully. As I've said before here, however, I'm dubious of
a plan that requires some neighbors to visibly pay for part of others'
homes. There's too much potential for resentment when the subsidized family
may appear to be not so needy after all and when the reality of a higher
cost hits the initially generous-feeling but later financially stretched
donor household.
        A better method is to seek OUTSIDE subsidies to make some of the
units affordable. This money doesn't grow on trees for the picking, but
there is still a lot out there. Numerous existing cohousing communities
have found multiple innovative ways of locating and harnessing such funding
sources. It takes first and foremost a commitment on the part of an
organizing group to make it happen, even if it means harder work and
perhaps a longer time frame.
        But contrary to the numerous comments that have come across this
list to the effect that cohousing is only for rich people ... that is
definitely not necessarily true.

        I am working on some ways to try to make it easier to do this,
among them serving as a clearinghouse of information. I invite
communication from groups that have found innovative ways to create
affordability, and from those that want to do it and are looking for some
advice and the benefit of others' experiences.
        For anyone who hasn't seen it, a good starting place is the outline
on Strategies for Affordable Cohousing. It's in the resources section of
the cohousing web site, or I can send you an e-mail copy or a hard copy
(send a SASE, please).

David Mandel
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento