Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Affordable housing with Habitat for Humanity

[Kay (Kay.Argyle]

Wasatch Cohousing (the development group for Wasatch Commons) had low-income
members from nearly the beginning, and so pursued the issue of affordable
housing.  Five income-qualified rental units were built through a state
(Utah) program called Crown.  I've written about the financial details
before, so those interested in that aspect can check the archives. 

The housing agency was probably more flexible with us than it might have
been (I'm sure having a member whose brother worked there didn't hurt).  For
starters, the program is intended for single-family houses, whereas we're a
condo.   Instead of the units going automatically to people on their waiting
list, they went first to the group's low-income members, and the agency
agreed that anyone they sent us who turned down the remaining units wouldn't
lose their position on the list for another place, and that if we sent them
additional people who qualified, our people got to jump the waiting list.

As it turned out, nobody they found panned out.  All low-income members have
come to us through the same recruiting channels as everyone else: flyers in
a coffee house or Unitarian church, ads in a local alternative journal, and
especially word of mouth - a friend of a friend*, parents whose kids attend
the same magnet school, a coworker's brother-in-law.  (*which potentially
makes cohousing an urban legend.  Hmm.  I'll have to think about that.)

The one-bedroom tenants average a year or eighteen months (currently
accepting applications, by the way).  On the other hand, the 2BR and 3BR
rentals have been highly stable - actually more so than the owner-occupied
houses!  Three of the five original renters are still here, compared to nine
of the 21 original owners, and that includes one owner who sold their duplex
and moved into crown when their income dropped.   Four of them are/were
single mothers, working while going (back) to school, and these have all
been highly active, enthusiastic, appreciative and appreciated members of
the community.   

The nonparents haven't functioned as successfully in the community; I
suspect one possible difference is the reason(s) for low income.  For a
single parent and/or nontraditional student, juggling classes and child care
puts constraints (no seventy-hour work weeks, no travelling) on what jobs
s/he can pursue, that can in turn impact income, quite apart from the fact
that they may have, with their now-ex-partner's concurrence, based their
career training on the expectation of being a stay-at-home parent and thus
don't have adequate credentials.  If the other parent is unable to pay
support for reasons of death, incarceration, or physical or mental illness,
that already meager income has to stretch to cover the kid(s) as well.  So
there's a double whammy of restricted income and additional obligations that
shoves many single parents into the low-income bracket.  By contrast, a
person with no dependents lacks those particular constraints and expenses,
and certain other factors contributing to poverty such as mental illness or
drug abuse may be responsible - in at least two cases here they definitely
were. 

The spread of incomes in the community has led to many - shall we say,
interesting? - discussions.  For years we had a flat monthly assessment,
which couldn't be raised much without putting a strain on the lower-income
members.  Finally this year, after wrestling with it for six months, we
split it, partly flat, partly square-footage. That was controversial enough,
even with spreadsheets showing that some costs directly correlate to square
footage (insurance, capital reserve, etc.).  The suggestion that a small
portion might be based on household income was received with utter horror in
some quarters.  They "didn't move here to live in an income-sharing
community." Never mind that it amounted to perhaps one-twentieth of one
percent of earnings; it was the principle of the thing.

So my advice - 

DON'T let an agency choose the people who will live there.  Neither you nor
they will be happy.  

If there is a selection process, do consider what factors may be
contributing to a person's low earning ability, how they might impact the
community, and how amenable they are to improvement.   Believe me, some
problems your community does not want to tackle.  (I have two brothers with
disabilities; one would likely do well in cohousing, one absolutely not.)

Single parents, especially of school-age or younger children*, are a good
target for your outreach as you near the end of construction.  Most of them
won't have the time or energy to devote to the planning stages.  (*Young
kids take to cohousing like ducks to water; teens not so much.)

Plan any 1BR or studio units, affordable or otherwise, to be on the ground
floor, or plan an elevator for a multi-unit building.  Our 1BRs (one Crown,
one privately owned) are each up a flight of stairs (!), and half our 2BRs
have both bedrooms upstairs, which restricts the potential market to people
with good knees and healthy pulmonary and cardiovascular systems - young, in
other words. 

And expect some educational social dynamics from time to time around money
issues. 

Kay