RE: Limits to CoHousing | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (robsan![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 16:05 CDT |
Bruce A. Duda asked: >How are houses or residences remarketed, what kind of stresses on the >social system and the financial reserves of both individuals and the >group dose it create? >How do groups deal with these issues and how they network to find new >members? Marketing Cohousing, especially after build out, is a new area of endeavor. The Winslow Group has had some experience with this and so maybe Tom Moench <moench [at] aol.com> could share some wisdom? At Sharingwood the only house we have had for sale, sold to an associate member without ever really getting marketed. We have a number of people who come to meetings and hang out and are "friends" of Sharingwood, some of them also become associate members. I would suspect this might also be true of other groups? When an opportunity comes along to buy a home, these folks seem to be the logical first place to turn to. One of the issues which we as a movement should watch is the relationship differences between those who founded the community and those who buy in later. In discussions with a member of a well established Danish group I remember hearing that in their situation there was a definite difference in commitment and expectations between new and old members and this caused some friction. One of the things to watch out for would be soft selling the commitment requirements while hard selling the benefits. I think a clear written document which articulates both would be a good thing to hand out to prospective buyers. Cohousing which uses the condominium, FMNA approved declarations, will have little if any actual control over who can buy a home in the community. In which case, making the policies about commitment, statements of vision and values, clear to prospective buyers is what is going to maintain the community value structure. In terms of financial / social stresses, It could be a potential problem. If someone has to sell a home for financial viability they are perhaps going to want to make the best possible sale environment and may not give prospective buyers a whole truth view, especially if that works against the potential sale. In the Sharingwood declarations we actually have a requirement that the name, address and phone of the purchaser, escrow holder and realtor (if any) be delivered to the board within 48 hours of the signing of a earnest money agreement. In this way a comphrensive package which would include our internal covenants, vision, policies, etc will be sent, as well as a statement on current assessment dues. (Assessment debts survive sale). This package of information (which doesn't yet exist but is being drafted) could very well de-rail a sale if the owner-seller didn't give the whole picture to the prospective buyer. I would imagine in this case it would cause the seller to be rather upset. (although someone would have to buy a home, site unseen, to not get at least some clue about what we are about, there are bulleton boards with info scattered around the community, not to mention all the kids and other adults around doing things.) The resale marketability of cohousing homes is going to be an interesting quesiton to watch as time goes by. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood COhousing
- RE: Limits to CoHousing, (continued)
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Rob Sandelin, April 22 1994
- Re: Limits to CoHousing Frank Boosman, April 22 1994
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Joel Spector, April 23 1994
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Bruce A. Duda, April 23 1994
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Rob Sandelin, April 25 1994
- Re: Limits to CoHousing -Reply Steve Fogarty, April 25 1994
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Bruce A. Duda, April 26 1994
- Re: Limits to CoHousing -Reply Rob Sandelin, April 26 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.