Re: Low Income [ was Affordable Cohousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com) | |
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:46:39 -0700 (PDT) |
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:04 PM, David Mandel <dlmandel [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > - Getting into a community is a great first step for a low-income > household. But expenses of upkeep and improvements tend to increase with > time, and a community dominated by market rate buyers may tend to tax > itself more and more without considering the effect on less financially > able neighbors, or to adopt policies like paying more in lieu of doing > work, ostensibly allowing choice -- but in fact, only for those who can > afford it. Consciousness of promoting affordability, therefore, must be > sustained beyond initial purchase. This is exactly why I think a community has to be built as a low income community from the start and not an economically diverse community. Diversity is like a rubber band. Wonderfully adaptable until it is stretched too far. Both middle and low income households have expectations, requirements, and interests that can cause conflict. In the long run the groups become a burden to each other when forced to live by the same rules at home. “At home” is the factor that changes the weight of equality. "It’s in my home that I have to live with things the way other people live with them." To range from affordable to market rate is a 20% range in diversity. To include low income is a 40%+ range, but is actually much more. There is a threshold of basic income that all households have to meet. Discretionary spending in a low income household is all but non-existent. There is no margin for monthly condo fee creep. A 3% increase that the typical cohousing owner expects every year is a significant burden for low income households. Their incomes only grow when they take a second or third job. > Probably the best existing means to guarantee permanent affordability is to > have individual homes be part of a nonprofit community land trust, with > ownership bifurcated between real estate and improvements -- though I > suppose it would be tricky to do this with a condominium community. The problem with non-ownership, restrictions on resale prices, and subsidies is that low income people also need to build a sustainable future. We had a family move to Takoma Village as renters from a community in California (not cohousing) that was a non-ownership model. They had physically built their home themselves and helped others build theirs. But unless they stayed, they had no financial benefit from that. In their late 50s they had no equity to purchase anywhere else. When they moved closer to a better musical education for their daughter, they had a much lower standard of living and were having difficulty providing the musical education their daughter for which they had moved. The best way to limit prices is to build to the price. Still everything that goes up, goes up. It’s called capitalism. Why shouldn’t low income people have the same ability to become self-sustaining as other households? In Manhattan there are huge numbers of rent-controlled and subsidized apartments. City-owned housing projects that are every bit as nice as market-rate housing. They not only have upper limits on income but lower limits as well—some are designed for middle income households. Many of them much larger and nicer than most of us could afford. (Mia Farrow has one on Central Park with many bedrooms and paid less than the rent for a 500 SF apartment in much less desirable neighborhoods.) The system is open to abuse and aids those who certainly don’t need it as well as those who do. Incomes are measured when you enter the system, and not checked later. Once in, you are in. But you are also trapped in the system, just like the homeless. I think there must be better ways to help people participate in the economy and to build sustainable lifestyles. Different architecture, different living standards, and understanding economics is one way to make housing more available. If the household from California had both built their house and owned it, they would have also been building enough personal wealth to establish a sustainable lifestyle elsewhere. Like the rest of the people who own houses. Cohousing developments are real estate developments that significantly create wealth. But we need to figure out how to build wealth for the low income household as well as the middle income household. Income inequality has to be fixed as well but all we can do here is focus on what we can do today. Protesting in the streets won’t house anyone right now. Sharon ---- Sharon Villines Sociocracy: A Deeper Democracy http://www.sociocracy.info
- Affordable Cohousing, (continued)
-
Affordable Cohousing Crystal Farmer, September 12 2015
-
Re: Affordable Cohousing Kerry Strayton, September 12 2015
- Low Income [ was Affordable Cohousing Sharon Villines, September 22 2015
- Re: Low Income [ was Affordable Cohousing David Mandel, September 22 2015
- Re: Low Income [ was Affordable Cohousing Sharon Villines, September 23 2015
- Re: Low Income [ was Affordable Cohousing R Philip Dowds, September 23 2015
- Re: Low Income [ was Affordable Cohousing Ann Zabaldo, September 23 2015
- Re: Low Income [ was Affordable Cohousing David Mandel, September 23 2015
-
Re: Affordable Cohousing Kerry Strayton, September 12 2015
-
Affordable Cohousing Crystal Farmer, September 12 2015
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.