Re: USA TODAY article/low cost | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Robert Schrader (rms![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:52:50 -0500 |
At 04:19 AM 7/16/97 -0500, David Mandel wrote: > {snip} >But the lack of any mention of cohousing as a useful idea for lower-income >housing development -- or any mention of the many communities that have >struggled long and hard for a way to make that a reality -- leaves a sour >taste with me. {snip} I'm a refugee from a failed attempt at cohousing here in San Diego in 89/90. It was promoted partly as low-cost and partly as community-oriented. We had one member who owned several developable acres, and lots of people interested, but when the time came for all of the other members to put up money, the *majority* could not produce their share. The whole venture then collapsed. Promoting cohousing as low-cost recruits too many who are financially marginal. The whole project is then on shaky ground from the start. All it takes to collapse it is one big stumpling block -- in our case it was the 1990 recession. Please note that I am not trying to say that cohousing is not low cost, nor am I trying to disparage the efforts of those who have made it so. I simply think that we should be thankful that USA-Today did not mention it. Robert Schrader
-
Re: USA TODAY article/low cost Robert Schrader, July 16 1997
- Re: USA TODAY article/low cost Suzanne L Hirsch, July 17 1997
- Re:USA Today Article/low cost Judy, July 18 1997
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.