Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: affordable urban cohousing for artists?

[Patrick Hubbard (pbhubbard]

My experience is that the main driver and funding for cleanup is
commonly the developer who stands to make money from the sale of the
homes.  This is, of course, where the rise in property value is
significantly greater than the cleanup cost and associated liabilities
(and/or liability insurance).  (Other funding sources are potentially
responsible parties, but alot of their efforts are devoted to
avoidling payments and liability.)

A redevelopment agency is also interested in rise in property value.
So, if the cohousing will increase the value (ie tax base) and the
property lies within a redevelopment zone, then a redevelopment agency
will also provide funding (commonly with a non-profit developer such
as Bridge Housing in the SF Bay Area).

The hang-ups are commonly fear-based in the face of human health
liability and toxic tort lawsuits.  So, if the toxic chemicals are
relatively low risk (eg diesel compared to dry cleaning wastes), then
the regulatory agencies (and lenders and buyers) may be more at ease.

Clear knowledge and communication of potential risks are primary.
I hope this helps.

Patrick Hubbard

On 10/18/06, Philip Proefrock <psp [at] cornellbox.com> wrote:
> Quoting cohousing-l-request [at] cohousing.org:
>
> > Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:28:25 -0400
> > From: Ed Stauff <ed [at] mewsic.com>
> > Subject: [C-L]_ affordable urban cohousing for artists?
> >
> ...
> > possibility of starting a new cohousing group.
> >
> > This new coho development would target artists (both performing and fine
> > arts) and craftspeople, either part-time amateurs or full-time
> > professionals.  A primary goal would be to make it truly affordable for
> ...
> > Right now I'm looking for information regarding the following issues:
> >
> > 1. Has anyone tried this sort of thing, either successfully or
> > unsuccessfully?
> >
> > 2. Does anyone know of funding sources for removal of toxic waste?  I
> > see this as the problem most likely to kill a prospective site.
>
>
> This sounds like an intriguing project.  When I read your description of it, I
> immediately thought of Acme Artists Community in Chicago.  The program sounds
> very similar.  These links can get you started on finding out about them:
>
>  http://directory.ic.org/records/?action=view&page=view&record_id=2571
>
>  http://www.nnwac.org/
>
> As to the toxic site cleanup, there are state and federal grants for brownfield
> redevelopment abd remediation, but they can often be daunting, even to
> commercial developers.  There is a project less than a mile from my house that
> is intended to revitalize an abandoned retail plaza and clean up a plume of
> contamination in the soil from an old dry cleaner that was there many years
> ago.  This project has been sitting for more than four years because of the
> complicated nature of the project.  They are dealing with state funds as well
> as a city bond in order to do the cleanup and the development, and nothing has
> been done yet.
>
> I wouldn't think that a contaminated site would be a good choice because of all
> the additional cost and preparatory work that would be required.  Obtaining
> grants could help with some of the cost, but it will still be more expensive and
> take longer than a project without such complications.
>
> Philip Proefrock
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/


--
Talk with you soon,
Patrick