Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: House Pricing in House Selection Process

[Rob Sandelin (robsan]

David Hungerford wrote:
If you vary the prices on the same model of house based on location (rather
than private amenities such as carpet/cabinet upgrades etc.) you are, in
essence, awarding the "more desirable" sites to those who make (or have)
more money.  While this way of doing things is part of our culture,  as is
paying the people who broker our mortgages more than the people who care for
a teach our children, I still find it deeply troubling.  Do you really want
to move into a community that has a pre-defined pecking order based on
income?
____________________________________________________________________


I don't get the pecking order analogy here.  Whether I have a million 
dollars, or can barely pay my mortgage has no effect on my relationship 
to the community.  One way to raise money for common elements is to 
charge more, e.g., make a profit, on some element of the housing.  As 
long as the "profit" goes into the community hopper and not some 
individuals pockets, does it really make a difference?  If my unit is 
higher priced than my neighbors because its closer to parking, or the 
commonhouse, or has a nice view of the mountains, why does that matter? 
 It means that not everyone can live in that particular unit because 
its higher priced but so what?

As long as participation is equal, that is my higher priced unit gives 
me no more say or voting power than a lower priced unit, then the 
economics of it should be used to benefit the commons.  Economic 
egalitarianism is in my opinion something which can lead a group into 
some bad decisions. For example if you make a bunch of design decisions 
based on the lowest economic denominator, in order to keep members in 
who have lower incomes, you may be unnecessarily limiting  everybody's 
choices.

If  a primary goal of the group is to provide low income housing, then 
it makes sense to create a design keep costs low. However, if it is not 
a primary goal to provide low income housing, then the design should be 
flexible enough to allow for individual income variations.  If my unit 
has direct access to parking and that is desirable, then I should 
expect to pay a little more for that.  Again, as long as what I pay 
extra goes to cover the extra costs or a higher percentage of the 
commons then that is reasonable.
It seems unreasonable to me to expect everyone to pay the same, and 
where some people get a benefit that others do not unless that benefit 
is earned in some way such as through group service (seniority itself 
is meaningless if I've never helped in any of the group work).

Rob Sandelin
Sharingwood