Cohousing-L Mailing List: umbrella groups

[Collaborative Housing Society (cohosoc]

About affordablity, Buzz said:

     "The cohousing information I've seen in the books and magazines is
     glaringly not addressing this pressing issue.  I hope the coho movement
     begins to actively pursue all strategies and possibilities, and not
     limit ourselves to what has been done in the past."

I agree, and as a couple of recent posts suggested, we, a *volunteer*
(though why that seems to matter so much I don't know) umbrella group, are
trying to do something about it.  I offer the following as a call to other
such groups - umbrella, for hire or otherwise - to join the fray.

David Mandel (75407.2361 [at] compuserve.com) has a great slide show of 
Southside
Park, in Sacramento, that has been both inspirational and helpful to us.
We've been showing these slides to various government ministries, housing
agencies (including Habitat for Humanity, who are now keenly interested in
piggy-backing with a cohousing project here), and regulatory bodies (banks,
planners, etc) as a demonstration of what can happen when housing is built
collaboratively - not just within the group, but with the group as an equal
partner in the entire process.  Our hope is that this will spur a
reexamination of how *and* why our existing housing programs and strategies
are structured, so that a more collaborative, community-building focus can
begin to prevail (as opposed the existing maximized-number-of-housing-units
focus).  So far, we seem to have had some good success at shaking things up.

David can (and has) more to say about this, but there are three mechanisms
in particular that we focus on that, IMO, helped Southside Park be
affordable (any inaccuracies/liberties are mine, based on my interpretation
of what I've read, heard and seen, as well as what I want to get across to
the people we're talking too - a bit of wishful and hopeful thinking about
how it *could* be!):

1)  the land purchase payment was deferred until the final financing was in
place - in effect, a no-cost option - that means that the money normally
spent on down payment for land and the ensuing carrying (interest) costs was
instead available to be spent on getting the project developed.  Of course,
it also gave the group control over the land, which is invaluable leverage
when dealing with developers, builders, banks, etc. to help ensure that it
is *your* project that gets built, not someone else's.

2) the purchase price of the land was made available by the vendor - a
municipal housing agency (?) to provide second mortgages for low and
moderate income residents,

3) the group established an internal equity pool to help reduce the
disparity between income levels.  Those who could "invested" into a pool
that supplemented the equity lower-income households could raise so that
everyone was able to qualify for financing.  (I believe that even with all
this, some original households had to drop out due to affordability
constraints - ask David)

The first two elements require the involvement of some benign force to
soften the impact of becoming developers and then homeowners.  In this case
it was government, but it doesn't have to be.  We are trying to set up an
investment fund and mortgage pool to do the same thing, and are getting lots
of interest from the private (banking and mortgage lending) sector.

So far, we are following the model of the Low Income Housing Fund, based in
San Francisco (Daniel Leibsohn, Pres., (415) 777-9195).  Our fund will try
to go beyond affordability and try to help any resident-based community
development project, new as well as established/retrofit.  For example, it
could help an "N-Street" type development happen by providing the money
(perhaps as a silent partner?) so that as houses become available they can
be incorporated into the group.  If we can do this here in Conservative -
literally and figuratively - Ontario, then any umbrella group anywhere
should be able to as well.

These are just three mechanisms, highlighted from the Southside Park
precedent.  We are also pursuing other initiatives, and there have been many
other good ways to facilitate affordability discussed here on this list, one
of which is perhaps the most important factor of them all:  a committed
desire to making your community open to anyone who returns the committment,
regardless of income level.  But, as I've said here before, if this bunch of
people (all of *you*) can't figure out how to make decent places to live
(which IMO = affordable, in every sense of the word) no one can.

Russell Mawby
CoHoSoc - Toronto