Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: The "Burden on Local Schools" Argument against Development

[Elizabeth Stevenson (tamgoddess]

We are in an urban area, but we were hardly welcomed with open arms! It took
years of negotiations and suffering through changing regimes to get
developed. The neighborhood didn't want us. They thought we were a commune.
It is an old working class neighborhood, with many who have been here their
whole lives. Even after move-in, there was quite a bit of hostility towards
us. We had to be here several years before things settled in.

In answer to the burden question, then, I would go with the fact that so
many cohousers don't send their kids to public schools, and if that's true
for your group, play it up.

How are you going to get around the lot size requirement? Are you trying to
make it smaller, or set aside a bunch of land and build only on part of it?
If that were the case, it would be an easier sell, IMO.

Any more info you can give us?

Liz


> From: Diana Carroll <dianac [at] alum.rpi.edu>
> Reply-To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:24:57 -0400
> To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_The "Burden on Local Schools" Argument against Development
> 
> 
> At 10:17 AM 4/7/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>> What do you have, 500 kids?? ... Also, your
>> property taxes will be added to the city coffers, and isn't school part of
>> what we are supposed to get in return for taxes?
> 
> Wow, this makes me realize how different things are in
> different areas.  In Mass. residential property taxes are not sufficient
> to cover educational expenses, so each child is an additional
> "burden" whose expense must be made up some other way (grants
> from the state, non-residential property taxes, etc.)
> 
> I think it is great that your co-housing development improved
> property values over all.  It think part of our problem is
> that people fear it will *decrease* property values.  In
> west suburban Boston, most communities are quite affluent,
> with astronomical property values, excellent school districts,
> and one or two acre minimum lot size (per house).  Cohousing,
> with its dense development, is perceived as lowering surrounding
> property values. :-(
> 
> I read your message with envy and thought: geez, it would be
> nice to be *welcomed* with open arms, as we would be if we
> could make the same sort of unequivocal improvement to the
> neighborhood you did!  Are you in an urban area?
> 
> Peace,
> D!
> 
> 
> 
> =------------- mailto:dianac [at] alum.rpi.edu ---------------- ____
> = "Some days the line I walk turns out to be straight,   __\_ /
> =  other days the line tends to deviate..." -A DiFranco  \  //
> =------------ http://people.atg.com/~dianac ------------  \/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L