3 ms·
I'm a distributist, so I would prefer to see this type of system operated as a private cooperative, 100% owned by participants, rather than a government-run pro
by jawns 6y ago
I'm a distributist, so I would prefer to see this type of system operated as a private cooperative, 100% owned by participants, rather than a government-run program. Why? Because then the people who get to make the decisions are the co-op participants themselves -- the people with the most skin in the game -- and the government can instead focus on areas where the participants actually need help, e.g. at the regulatory level, to make sure these arrangements are not unjustly disadvantaged.
* If you are not familiar with distributism, see this primer: https://shaungallagher.pressbin.com/blog/distributism-for-kids.html https://shaungallagher.pressbin.com/blog/distributism-for-ki...
- InvertedRhodium 6y agoHow does that differ meaningfully from home owners associations and the like?
- mgerdts 6y agoThe one time I lived in a neighborhood with a HOA, i found it provided a private pool and and a way for neighbors to be more exclusive, not inclusive. For instance, one of the HOA rules was that you cannot have any vehicle with commercial signage or lettering (like a plumber's van) parked outside over night. If my parents were to stay the night, the rules said that their pickup with lettering advertising their small business was not welcome in my driveway. As I was writing this, the term "sundown law" came to mind.
- greggman3 6y agoI totally get how that sucks but, if I lived in such a neighborhood, for that particular problem, could I solve it by buying a car cover? Not that I should have to, just curious.
- mgerdts 6y agoThe solution, as described by a wealthy neighbor when discussing something different (placement of plants?), was to just ignore the HOA. The HOA has a shoestring budget and a $10k legal bill would bankrupt it. So, if you are wealthy enough to hire expensive lawyers, rules don't apply to you. That neighbor was a doctor that ran clinical trials. The discussion with him on HOAs and other topics left me disillusioned in so many ways. The entire point of my earlier message was to point out that HOAs of the form I've seen are not a means to encourage diversity or inclusion. Rather, they are about maximizing home values by ensuring conformity to the target market.
- wolverine876 6y agoOne difference: Each coop member owns shares in the entire organization's assets, not in their specific unit (or they own the same fraction of their unit that they own of their neighbor's). For example, imagine the cooperative owns 10 buildings totally 50 units, worth $12 million total. Each of the 50 shareholders owns shares worth $12m/50 = $240,000. For simplicity, I'm omitting the issue of the members building equity over time.
- sokoloff 6y agoIsn’t the fundamental problem that, in the starting condition, the potential participants can’t afford to buy property? If they could afford to buy property to get started, it seems like it’s a different group of people than the article contemplates. Or perhaps I dramatically misunderstand your proposal.
- refurb 6y agoSounds like an HOA
- wolverine876 6y ago> I would prefer to see this type of system operated as a private cooperative, 100% owned by participants, rather than a government-run program. My thought too. There is cooperative housing that is run this way, though not on a large scale (that I know of).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]