Talk:Dwelling equity

From EcoReality

Suggestions from Jan:

• Let's make it totally general. Take out all references to individuals. We may be adding people quickly.
• Remove the cap on labour. I don't think someone who works hard should not get free rent.
• Let's not rush to specify areas for community use. I would like to schedule a "work party" this trip (Sunday?) where we go down with tape measures and do a detailed survey of the buildings. Then we can better decide how to divide things up.
• Let's treat non-member renters as renting from the co-op, the same as members, perhaps at a higher rate. (Myles said the farmhouse should rent for $1/sqft.)

Responses from James:

• I agree with making it general. Changes have been made.
• Removing the cap on labour puts the farm budget in to deficit if all members work off the entire rent. Those who are making income should be the ones paying rent to the co-op. Those who have major investments in the co-op should not be paying rent if they are working. We need to create a minimum rent from the dwellings somehow in order to balance the budget.
• Agreed on community use calculation. It was an estimation for the sake of the proposal and will be modified accordingly.
• The residents of a household need to have the choice about who they live with. There should be some incentive for them to take in tenants to reduce their personal rent and provide the co-op with revenue. This also depends on if there is a base rent and what the labour for rent reduction arrangement works out to be.

Comments from Shannon:Shan 15:14, 19 April 2008 (PDT)

• I agree with Jan about making it general, but reading it after James made changes, I still find it does not differentiate generally. I suggest it needs to be differentiated on the basis of: (note these categories and the proposed different rent schemes are up for discussion! This is a brainstorm by one brain at this point!)Shan 16:08, 19 April 2008 (PDT)

1. resident members: they will be responsible for rental of their personal space (agreed by full membership) at 0.75$/sq foot) and a portion of communal space; they will be encouraged to work at $15/hour for the co-op beyond their required monthly labour agreement (30 hours per adult resident member) to pay down rent. (no cap for this category of member)
2. non-resident members (who reside at EcoReality 1-10 days/month average): I see a few options here:
   1. time*area*rate - time is person-days spent onsite, space - rental of personal space and a portion of communal space and utilities, and at a rate of 0.90$/sq foot.

      If space is reserved exclusively for their use, then time should not enter into it. I think this caused us some conflict in the past. If space is not available for other activities, it should be paid for full-time. --Jan Steinman

   2. same as full time resident non-member renters for rental, additionally paying into operating budget $15/hr for non-worked required co-op hours (10 h/month)
3. resident non-members (full time renters): these folks would pay $1/sq foot/month for personal space and $1/sq foot/month for communal space. Their personal space rent would be paid to the household resident members and their communal space rent would be paid to the co-op. They would be given the option of doing labour exchange for communal space rent to the co-op.
4. resident non-members part time (this includes guests, WWOOFers): should likely follow the simple suggested donation and WWOOFer schedule outlined in welcome letter at $10/adult person (over 12 yrs)/night accommodation (includes utilities), and 10$/adult person (over 12 yrs)/day food payable to household resident members. Perhaps an additional 2-3$/day could be assessed to this category of person payable to the co-op for operational costs?

• I agree with Jan about removing cap on labour. This does not work when you look at possibility of big house residents and farm house residents including more than the current 4 members.
• I suggest that to deal with budget imbalance we consider another way rather than discriminating among the members in terms of number of investment shares. According to ecovillagers and those who have written about their experiences living in community, this lack of equitability can erode relationships quickly. There has to be another way to assess fair payments from members to balance the operating budget which account for differences in investment shares, outside income-earning realities, and amount of time residing onsite full time. I'm just not clear how to create this mathematical formula! Thoughts?
• I do not agree with James' 4th point above: Yes residents of a household need to have choice of who they live with. However, residents (whether member or non-member) should pay rent to co-op in a monetary:labour balance that works for the co-op's budget and does not depend on which house but rather should follow the four categories above.

• Rather than having budget rely on rental of "private use" residence structures only, perhaps co-op budget needs to include other areas of rental income and other types of income (I have not seen budget yet)
  • E.g. Rental of Community Space (classroom space, shop, garage, indoor kitchen/living spaces) for these uses: (note that priority order needs to be established and this is just a suggestion of rough priority order in my mind)
    • EcoReality Farm Stand
    • EcoReality educational events (Permaculture, Agroecology, Sustainable Agriculture, Botanical, Farming, Biodiesel -- related directly to our mission and to Sustainability Education in general)
    • Member businesses not related to EcoReality Mission, or indirectly related as personal sustainability functions (e.g. Crafted by Carol, Bytesmiths, Shannon's Yoga business, Dance or Music classes/events)
    • Advisory or Non-member events directly related to EcoReality's mission (E.g. ING gathering or Permaculture Design Course)
    • Advisory or Non-member events not directly related to EcoReality's mission (E.g. Qi-Gong space rental)

Note that other uses could also be delineated and that this list is not exhaustive. Uses of a primarily social nature such as potlucks would not fall into the category of rental from the co-op

• The way the last para of the rental policy was written is very unclear to me: 'Should a household house and collect money from a tenant, room mate or out of town members that money will go to the member/residents' (do you mean to the household member residents?Shan 16:08, 19 April 2008 (PDT)).
• Question: Is the monthly coop hourly work requirement 30 per adult member? This would mean J&S required co-op labour is 60 hours per month at 1 hour / day for resident members? Why did the last para of the rental policy state 40 hours per month for J&S?
• James, are you suggesting that if roommate to J&S pays $350/month and J&S work their required co-op hours (60 hours?) and also work the overtime to pay down rent to a max of $400, then $175 of the roommate's payment would go to J&S and $175 to the co-op? I don't agree. As stated in my categories 1-4 above, I think that non-member residents (roommate renters) should pay their personal space rental to the household. This should account for the differing sizes of structures (Existing) and allow Jan and Carol to rent out more personal space to roommates than James and Shannon (and note: roommates can be members or non-members). Then, each renter (whether non-member or member) would also pay sq foot/monthly for communal space to the co-op operating budget.
• I think that either there is no cap on working off rent by working more co-op hours (on agreed projects)-- I'm more in favour of setting other places where payment for operations can be assessed

• My suggestions:
  • Refer to