Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Is in-house plumbing and electric a must?

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:15 PM, R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> wrote:

> There are many avenues to less expensive housing, including ...
>  —  Government subsidy:  Rent supplements or limited equity ownership.  
> Construction cost write-downs.  Tax syndications.  Low interest loans and 
> mortgages.  Or …

One problem is this requires a lot of upfront savvy. Low income people have 
often not had experience with this because they are not homeowners, not 
lawyers, not college professors, etc. 

It has been very beneficial for cohousing groups to hire consultants up front 
to navigate this. There weren't always such people available who also knew 
cohousing. Low income people don't have the savings to pay for these services 
when they can hardly afford the housing they have. They usually can't invest in 
the future.

>  —  Reduced production cost:  Cheap land (usually rural); smaller units; 
> multi-family buildings; limited amenities (e.g., no air conditioning); 
> oddball construction (rammed earth and hay bales, for instance).

One of my arguments about mixing low income and middle class incomes is the 
drift of the middle class to more expensive amenities quickly prices out the 
low income people. It's hard for them to even sit in the same room with some of 
the discussions about faucets and countertops. They want roofs and windows that 
don't leak. I saw this happen in a local group started by a low income city 
worker. She just couldn't relate to the ideas of the middle class people who 
joined the group. They were also more concerned about their mission to 
requiring certain social values. She needed housing soon, and they wanted to 
clarify their values before they would talk about housing. "It was premature."

My often repeated refrain is "Low income is not 'affordable.'" The definition 
of affordable is usually based on a percentage of the average home price in the 
area. If that percentage is 80%, that can still be $250,000 dollars. 625 SF 
just sold in our community for $300,000.

> \ —  Modified occupancy format:  Dormitories; congregate living (you get a 
> personal bed/sitting room, plus shared access to common bath, kitchen and 
> dining).  And so on.

This is what I'm also suggesting. Look at alternative forms of architecture and 
adapt them.

In the next email I will send a picture from the Tiny House newsletter of a new 
design that I think might be more acceptable in more places. 

> if we turned in our 40± private vehicles, and instead maintained a shared 
> pool of 8± Priuses, we could all enjoy a big reduction in transport costs.  
> We are not yet, however, far down that sharing path, and I am not aware that 
> cohousing typically does anything so drastic.

That kind of sharing is hard. People really have to communicate. Many people 
don't. And in a large group, it takes too much time. We have 67 adults now. 

Our local car sharing company would have put a car here that would be 
restricted for our use. Each person who wanted to use it would have a 
membership and use the company's website to make reservations. The problem was 
that we had to guarantee $1600 a month of rentals. They needed someone's credit 
card. I was never able to get that many people to pledge hours -- almost 110 a 
month. Online, independent scheduling would have made it work.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org