[LCCH] "AFFORDABLE" and TOASTY

[Diana Sabella]

Hello All   All those options sound viable and of interest to me.  I am looking for true 'affordability' in a very warm climate.  I am flexible and adventurous about the type of  residences.  Anyone else interested in living (or wintering) in toasty places? Wishing you days of blessings and warm, joyous colors, Diana If you judge people you have no time to love them. ~ Mother Teresa

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Low Cost Community Housing" group.
To post to this group, send email to low-cost-comm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to low-cost-community-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/low-cost-community-housing?hl=en.

[Marganne Meyer]

At 4:11 PM -0700 5/4/10, Diana Sabella wrote:

All those options sound viable and of interest to me.  I am looking for true 'affordability' in a very warm climate.  I am flexible and adventurous about the type of  residences.  Anyone else interested in living (or wintering) in toasty places?

So many people do express an interest in warmer locations. I, on the other hand, would prefer to live where the climate is less hot than summertime in Sacramento. We have many long stretches of 100+ degree weather during our dry season from about now through October.

Perhaps we all need to throw out a few more examples of locations and why we think they are good or bad for establishment of a low-income project?

For instance, in addition to my climate desires, I'd like to be located somewhere where good health care is available. A university town would be appealing to me because many schools accommodate people either with low incomes or who are above a certain age. My preference also would be a location near a large body of water, perhaps the ocean.

Many people who work need to be located close enough to a commerce center to find a job. I can find work via the internet so am not tied to a city center. Some people need to be near a major airport so it's not such a big deal to drive hours to catch a plane.

One of my big concerns is budgeting for all the stuff that needs to be built besides a structure - water, sewer, electricity, land. I've read about so many excellent ideas for alternative ways to get this services going, but those cost money too. I've got no experience in estimating how much stuff like this would add to total construction costs.

Then, with the cohousing concept, there's need for a common house and facilities. I think the idea of living small also increases the need for a structure to house communal equipment which makes living in a small home more feasible. We all don't need a lawn mower or individual wood working shops. Would be nice to have a large space for yoga classes.

Just some more thoughts....

Marganne

[Ron]

I am very interested in a warmer climate. I am originally from
Wisconsin and have lived quite a few years on the east coast (mostly
Virginia and Florida). I spent the last 4 years back in WI and escaped
this last winter. Where are you thinking - I too would like a moderate
climate in summer.

I can imagine a variety of areas that could work - one I have been
considering is Asheville, NC. Another thought I have had for
affordability and warmth is Central America (possibly Honduras) and
then have a travel trailer in the US for summer. I am looking now for
an Airstream to renovate - I am planning on traveling until I find the
folks and location I want to settle (if I do).

Ron

[Teri Zipf]

I'm interested in a warm climate in the winter, but I don't have the resources to maintain two residences. My current solution is visiting friends and relatives in California and Mexico. It only covers a couple of weeks, but it's a lot better than nothing. It's a lot more expensive to fly to Central America than Guadalajara, at least from where I live, so I probably couldn't be involved in that, but it does sound exciting!

[Naomi]

Hi all,

On a toasty note. I'm in the southeast, which is warm and cheap. It's
a good climate for gardening, etc, if that's something that's
important to you. But humid, if that's a problem.

That said, "affordable" is non-specific and subjective. I do think
that it needs to be defined if you're seriously looking to forming a
group. Ideally a co-housing development would require near-equal
financial investment from its members. If not equal financial
investment, then the value of time investment needs to be defined to
ensure that everyone feels that they haven't invested more than other
members. Such feelings could be detrimental to the sustainability of
the group.

Just my thoughts. . .

Naomi

[Teri Zipf]

Naomi, I think that's an excellent point. Two excellent points. How to start that discussion?

[Marganne Meyer]

Naomi,

Prices are a sensitive subject on the national cohousing list. We did
have a lengthy discussion about 'affordable' vs. 'low-cost'. Value is
in the eyes of beholder. I haven't found any coho project yet that
set it's missions and goals based on total buy-in cost.

It was suggested that if we were serious about keeping things
low-cost, the price limit/budget had to be the most important goal,
then not let anyone talk us out of it. For the most part, the
original cost estimates made for a cohousing project get left far
behind as new things arise during the construction and development
process.

That's one reason why I consider most people who can afford to be in
regular cohousing these days has to be upper middle class making
enough money to afford to be flexible with expenses. It's also one of
several reasons why you don't see many people on a fixed income or
living anywhere near the poverty level as a resident. If prices start
to rise and most members opt to allow that, people who can't afford
it drop out. This kind of project hasn't set a price or budget as the
most important priority.

Several people have written to me privately to explain in detail what
can happen during development and construction that increases costs
unexpectedly -- not judgment calls.

Some cohousing projects let each member own a particular lot upon
which that person can construct a home that meets their own budget.
But then there is property and planning commissions and the common
house and utilities and roads and fire access.....

So, when considering something that establishes members on a 'near
equal' financial investment, things become very complex. Although it
is important to come to a consensus about finances so hard feelings
don't spoil the project.

I'm more of a mind to come to consensus about the cost of the shared
facilities so people know if they can afford to buy into the project.
Shared costs also could effect the dwelling each member may decide to
put up.

That's one of the reasons I'm leaning toward a modular arrangement.
If something unforeseeable happens that increases the cost of shared
facilities (that can't be delayed or otherwise eliminated) I could
short myself on a feature of my small house.

About value of time ... I agree there needs to be some way to allow
for this. I'm betting that someone already has invented the wheel on
a way of handling this so it works with a group. Maybe some way to
set a dollar value on one hour of time for various types of tasks or
work.

The other consideration is how do you put someone on equal footing
for expenses if they are unable to contribute physical labor? I'm
limited in that respect, but have many other valuable skills to
barter with.

I'll try to dig up that information about the tribulations of trying
to stick to a development and construction budget.

Cheers!
Marganne

At 11:52 AM -0700 5/6/10, Naomi wrote:
>That said, "affordable" is non-specific and subjective. I do think
>that it needs to be defined if you're seriously looking to forming a
>group. Ideally a co-housing development would require near-equal
>financial investment from its members. If not equal financial
>investment, then the value of time investment needs to be defined to
>ensure that everyone feels that they haven't invested more than other
>members. Such feelings could be detrimental to the sustainability of
>the group.