DOCSLIB.ORG

Cooperative Housing in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cooperative Housing in the United States HOUSING COOPERATIVES UNITED STATES 1949-1950 Joint publication of Division of Housing Research Housing HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY Research Bureau of Labor Statistics UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WASHINGTON 1951 Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Cooperative Housing in the United States 1949 and 1950 Housing Research Paper No. 24 Bulletin No. 1093 HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Administrator Bureau of Labor Statistics Housing Research Division For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U . S. Government Printing: Office, Washington 25, D. C. Price 65 cents (paper) Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis P r e f a c e After the end of World W ar II the severe housing shortage in this country led to an increased interest in cooperative housing as one means of solving the problem. This gave further impetus to a movement which began in the United States about a third of a century ago among people who held that by joining together in the purchase of land and the construction of houses they could obtain dwellings of good quality at less cost than those being provided in other ways. As things have worked out, some housing cooperatives have been outstandingly successful and have accomplished everything their sponsors hoped for. Others, however, have proved to be disap­ pointing, either falling by the wayside or failing to attain the original objectives. Although this pattern of success and failure in the housing cooperative field in the United States has long been known in a general way, no comprehensive study has ever been made to show the extent and nature of the movement. There has never been available a comprehensive assembly of data which could be used to ascertain the causes of success or failure among housing cooperatives. The present study is aimed at drawing together statistical material which may be useful for such analyses. It should suggest also profitable avenues for further research in this field. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the present study was undertaken to assemble information which might help future consumer groups, planning to form cooperative housing associations, to avoid the pitfalls which have beset some of their predecessors. Consequently it would minimize the value of the study for its intended purpose if the findings also included the experience of housing associations which were originally organized by builders or real estate firms as a selling aid. Their exclusion from the study was not meant to imply, however, that such endeavors have not in many cases been highly successful from the standpoint of individuals who obtained housing in this fashion. In fact, the need for a companion study of the latter type of housing associations is readily apparent. The study is the work of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, financed in part by the Division of Housing Research, Housing and Home Finance Agency. The survey was under the direction of Florence E. Parker, the Bureau’s Specialist on Co­ operatives. She also participated in the field work, assisted by Charles J. Appleby, Donald J. Dowd, Joseph C. Furey, Robert P. Lane, Herbert H. Moede, and James E. Zenith — all on the Prices Staff of the Bureau. The section on the legal and administrative status of cooperatives under the National Housing Acts was prepared by C. Franklin Daniels, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Cooperative Housing Division, Federal Housing Administration. The corresponding section on mutual housing cor­ porations and the Public Housing Administration was prepared by Donald Landay of that agency. June 3, 1952 h i Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis C o n te n ts Page P r e f a c e ............................................................................................ ill C h a p t e r I.— I n t r o d u c t i o n a n d s u m m a r y .................................................... 1 Definition of t e r m s ....................................................................... 1 S c o p e o f s t u d y ............................................................................. 2 S u m m a r y of f i n d i n g s ...................................................................... 3 C o n c l u s i o n s ................................................................................. 5 Chapter II.— Characteristics of housing associations ................................... 9 G e o g r a p h i c distribution ......................................... 9 M e m b e r s h i p a n d i n c o m e .................................................................. 1 0 A g e of associations ....................................................................... 1 0 L a w of incorporation .................................................................... 1 1 S p o n s o r s h i p of a s s o c i a t i o n s .............................................................. 1 1 S t a g e s a t w h i c h c o o p e r a t i o n w a s u s e d ................................................ 1 2 M e m b e r s h i p ................................................................................. 1 3 Membership requirements ......................................................... 1 3 V o t i n g ................................................................................. 1 4 M e m b e r s h i p m a k e - u p ............................................................... 1 4 S o u r c e s of n e w m e m b e r s ........................................................... 1 5 F a m i l y d a t a .......................................................................... 16 C h a p t e r III.— T h e pro j e c t s ................................................................... 1 8 L a n d p u r c h a s e a n d characteristics .................................................... 1 8 P r o j e c t p l a n n i n g .......................................................................... 1 9 M e m b e r s h i p p a r t i c ipation in p l a n n i n g ................................................ 2 0 Size of p r o j e c t ............................................................................. 2 0 Size of d w e l l i n g s .......................................................................... 2 6 C o n t r a c t i n g b y a s s o c i a t i o n ............................................................... 2 6 C h a p t e r I V . — C o s t a n d finances .............................................................. 2 7 Cost to association ........................................................................ 2 7 Cost of land and its development ................................................. 2 7 C o s t of project, b y i t e m of e x p e n s e ............................................... 2 8 T o t a l i n v e s t m e n t in p r o j e c t ........................................................ 2 9 C o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s .................................................................. 3 0 Self-help b y m e m b e r s ............................................................... 3 0 O t h e r s o u r c e s of s a v i n g s ........................................................... 3 3 Financing of projects .................................................................... 3 3 Sources of funds .................................................................... 3 3 Mortgage indebtedness ............................................................. 3 5 Mortgage insurance ................................................................ 3 7 F i n a n c i a l status ...................................................................... 3 8 C o s t to m e m b e r ........................................................................... 3 9 Entrance charges .................................................................... 3 9 P r i c e of u n i t .......................................................................... 4 0 M e m b e r ’s d o w n p a y m e n t ........................................................... 4 0 C a r r y i n g cost to m e m b e r ........................................................... 4 1 Additional assessments ............................................................ 4 3 Method and period of amortization .............................................. 4 4 W h a t t h e m e m b e r g ets f o r his m o n e y ................................................ 4 4 Land space ........................................................................... 4 4 C o n s t r u c t i o n characteristics ....................................................... 4 5 C o s t of u n i t in relation to s i z e .................................................... 5 1 M a i n t e n a n c e a n d r e p a i r s ........................................................... 5 1 Evidence of ownership, and period of lease ................................... 5 3 Digitized for FRASER V http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Contents— Continued Page C h a p t e r V . — I n t e r n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s ....................................................... 5 4 Exchange of equity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cooperatives in Industrial and Service Sectors in the Asia-Pacific Region
    Cooperatives in industrial and service sectors in the Asia-Pacific region Models, work and employment, ecosystem and public policies International Cooperative Alliance Asia and Pacific & 9, Aradhana Enclave +91-11-26888067 ica-asia and pacific Sector-13, R. K. Puram International Organisation of the Industrial and Service Cooperatives New Delhi-110066 +91-11-26888250 icaapac [email protected] icaasiapacific ica-ap.coop Cooperatives in industrial and service sectors in the Asia-Pacific region Table of contents List of tables iv List of figures ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ iv Abbreviations and acronyms ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� v Synthesis note 1 Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 2 The scope of target types of the present study ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 3 Method����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 ‘Type’ and ‘model’�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Growth Ecosystem
    BUILDING the Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 INCLUSIVE Broad-Based Cooperative Growth Strategies for Financing ECONOMY Ownership Models Ecosystems the New Economy THE COOPERATIVE GROWTH ECOSYSTEM Inclusive Economic Development in Action A joint project of Project Equity and the Democracy at Work Institute Melissa Hoover & Hilary Abell, Lead Authors project Building the Inclusive Economy series: Through three groundbreaking reports funded by Citi Community Development, Building the Inclusive Economy series sets out new, cutting-edge economic development models for city leaders and community development practitioners interested in embedding equity, community wealth, and sustainability into their local economic growth plan. This series, authored by The Democracy Collaborative, The Democracy at Work Institute, and Project Equity, lays out key tools and building blocks for equitable local economic growth where all residents are able to maximize opportunities, thereby expanding urban economies where all can meaningfully participate and benefit. To learn more about the series, visit www.CitiCommunityDevelopment.com. The Cooperative Growth Ecosystem Project: This paper is the fruit of a year-long project carried out by the Democracy at Work Institute and Project Equity in 2014 and 2015. Hilary Abell and Alison Lingane of Project Equity, Melissa Hoover and Tim Palmer of the Democracy at Work Institute, and consultant Tim Lohrentz comprised the team that developed the Cooperative Growth Ecosystem framework; piloted it as an analytical and strategy tool looking at five regions around the country; hosted a national convening, in coordination with Citi Community Development, to get feedback and provide space for regions to develop actions plans; and developed this paper to share with the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Articulating Value in Cooperative Housing International and Methodological Review
    Articulating value in cooperative housing International and methodological review Louise Crabtree, Sidsel Grimstad, Joanne McNeill, Neil Perry, Emma Power January 2019 Contents CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 BOXES .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 THE BENEFITS OF COOPERATIVE HOUSING ..................................................................................... 11 1.1.1 Social capital ................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.2 Housing quality and stability ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Group Housing Cooperatives
    C O O P ! S E R V A T I O N S Group Housing Cooperatives: !e Expanding Alternative to Meet New Needs in a Changing Society By Jim Jones In recent years, the cost of housing has instantly bring a new member into a ready-made increased much more rapidly than average salaries. social group. While housing has always been problem for low Because young people seldom plan to stay in jobs income wage earners (including students who don’t for more than a few years, equity accumulation in have wealthy parents), it is becoming an increasing housing is rarely a concern. Renting is the realistic problem for young professionals. For many with alternative, and the control that comes through college degrees, entry level salaries just don’t go group ownership is seen as a value to those who Ideas and opinions as far as they used to – particularly after making have spent years suffering under landlords or in on cooperative student loan payments. university residence halls. housing Many in this group are single, unsure of what Even though the privacy of a room is important, they want to do and where they want to do it, highly the space of an entire apartment is generally not mobile, and in many ways lifestyles are still similar as important. Young, single people have fewer to those of students. Graduation from college can possessions and less need for space than those with also mean the stress of a new job in a new city far spouses, children and years of accumulated “stuff.” from friends and familiar surroundings.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Housing Bulletin
    COOPERATIVE HOUSING BULLETIN A member service of the National Association of Housing Cooperatives August/September 2008 National Affordable Housing Initiative Launched ROC USA Rolls Out Resident Ownership in owned communities. Join Us for Manufactured-Home Communities in 29 States In New NAHC’s Annual CFED, Fannie Mae, Ford Foundation, NCB Capital Hampshire, the Loan Fund has helped Conference > Impact, New Hampshire Community Loan Fund Invest $7 Million in new organization homeowners in Houston, TX 84 communities Concord, NH – The New Hampshire Community Sept. 17–20, 2008 Loan Fund (the Loan Fund), the Corporation for establish their own Enterprise Development (CFED) corporations to inside and NCB Capital Impact launched purchase and manage a new organization, ROC USA in the community. May of 2008. Beyond New Hampshire, Jerry Voorhis hundreds of cooperatives made Legacy ROC USA aims to help the 3.5 million American families living in up of owners of mobile and 3 manufactured-home communities manufactured homes have bought acquire the communities in which communities — in California, they live. ROC USA’s mission is to Florida and states in between. Members News make resident ownership a viable However, there has never been a 5 choice for homeowners in the U.S. standardized model or a coordinated strategy, so Those are the headlines. Now, how is ROC USA successes have been localized and dispersed. ROC USA aims to move resident ownership to scale. “We FCH-Assisted Co-ops LLC planning to fulfill its mission? By following achieve scale when every homeowner in every U.S. in Puerto Rico what the Loan Fund has been doing since 1984 in New Hampshire — help “homeowners” in “parks” community is presented with a viable choice as to 7 buy their communities, when they become available.
    [Show full text]
  • POLITECNICO DI TORINO Repository ISTITUZIONALE
    POLITECNICO DI TORINO Repository ISTITUZIONALE The role and management of physical space in social innovation Original The role and management of physical space in social innovation / Perello, Michelle. - (2017). Availability: This version is available at: 11583/2678524 since: 2017-08-24T16:35:09Z Publisher: Politecnico di Torino Published DOI:10.6092/polito/porto/2678524 Terms of use: Altro tipo di accesso This article is made available under terms and conditions as specified in the corresponding bibliographic description in the repository Publisher copyright (Article begins on next page) 04 August 2020 DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN SISTEMI DI PRODUZIONE E DESIGN INDUSTRIALE CICLO XXVII Phd Thesis The role and management of physical space in social innovation Michelle Perello Tutor: Prof. Alberto de Marco Coordinator: Prof. Maurizio Galetto A Giulietta, Gabriel e Alessandro. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................1 I - Research objectives ......................................................................................................................................3 II - Research methodology ...............................................................................................................................4 Chapter 1 – Social innovation IN LITERATURE ................................................................................................6 1.1 The evolution of innovation .......................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Organization and Management of Cooperative and Mutual Housing Associations
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR L. B. Schwellenbach, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS A . F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner Organization and Management of Cooperative and Mutual Housing Associations Bulletin No. 858 (Revision of Bulletin No. 608) For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 20 cents Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Letter of Transmittal U nited S tates D epartm ent of L abor, B ureau of L abor Statistics, Washington, February h 1946. T h e Secretary of L abo r: I have the honor to transmit herewith a pamphlet setting forth the proper methods of procedure for the organization and management of cooperative and mutual housing associations. The present report is a revision of the Bureau’s Bulletin No. 608, bringing the subject matter into conformity with present practice. Many persons within and without the cooperative movement, qualified by experience and training, have contributed to this manual. Their number includes housing experts, architects, and attorneys, as well as cooperators who have participated in one or more housing projects. In addition to Florence E. Parker and Alexander Findlay of its own staff, the Bureau wishes especially to acknowledge the valuable contributions and suggestions of Dale Johnson, Huson Jackson, Dorothy Kenyon, and Udo Rail. A . F . H in r ic h s, Acting Commissioner. H on. L . B . SCHWELLENBACH, Secretary of Labor. iii Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Cooperative Enterprise As an Antimonopoly Strategy
    ART 1 - COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (DO NOT DELETE) 10/22/2019 4:02 PM Articles Cooperative Enterprise as an Antimonopoly Strategy Sandeep Vaheesan* & Nathan Schneider† ABSTRACT After decades of neglect, antitrust is once again a topic of public debate. Proponents of reviving antitrust have called for abandoning the narrow consumer welfare objective and embracing a broader set of objectives. One essential element that has been overlooked thus far is the ownership structure of the firm itself. The dominant model of investor- owned business and associated philosophy of shareholder wealth maximization exacerbate the pernicious effects of market power. In contrast, cooperative ownership models can mitigate the effects of monopoly and oligopoly, as well as advance the interests of consumers, workers, small business owners, and citizens. The promotion of fair competition among large firms should be paired with support for democratic cooperation within firms. Antitrust law has had a complicated history and relationship with cooperative enterprise. Corporations threatened by cooperatives have used the antitrust laws to frustrate the growth of these alternative businesses. To *Legal Director, Open Markets Institute. †Assistant Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of Colorado Boulder. The authors thank Lauren Bridges, Michelle Meagher, Sanjukta Paul, and Ganesh Sitaraman for thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this Article. 1 ART 1 - COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (DO NOT DELETE) 10/22/2019 4:02 PM 2 PENN STATE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 124:1 insulate cooperatives from the antitrust threat, Congress has enacted exemptions to protect cooperative entities, notably a general immunity for farm cooperatives in the 1922 Capper-Volstead Act. As part of an agenda to tame corporate monopoly, all three branches of the federal government and the states should revisit these ideas and seek to protect and enable the cooperative model across the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Combatting Inequality Through Employee Ownership
    COMBATTING INEQUALITY THROUGH EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP Worker Cooperatives and Employee Stock Ownership Programs in Buffalo-Niagara Kristin Ksiazek and Annabel Bacon Introduction Communities across the United States are grappling with income inequality. Since 1979, earnings of the top one percent of Americans have risen by a staggering 157%, compared to an increase of just 22.2% for the bottom 90% of workers.1 Today, 44 percent of American workers earn less than $18,000 per year, while the CEOs of the largest 350 companies earn, on average, $18.9 million per year.2 From 1978 to 2018, compensation for CEOs grew 940.3%, but wages for typical, nonsupervisory workers grew by just 11.9%.3 Wealth gaps between the most privileged and marginalized social and demographic groups have widened by even larger amounts—to the point where, in 2015, for every dollar in wealth owned by white households, black and Latinx households held just six and eight cents, respectively; and women owned only 32 cents for every dollar held by men.4 Equally as troubling, present generations are far less likely than their parents and grandparents to experience upward economic mobility,5 and they are burdened by much more student debt.6 Job seekers of all educational backgrounds are faced with fewer choices in the American labor market, where much of the recent job growth has come in the form of low-wage work.7 This trend means that low income workers do not have the option to simply “find better paying jobs.” Rather, the data show that “there are not enough living wage jobs to go around.”8 The lack of living-wage jobs disproportionately affects women and workers of color.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Land Trust Co-Housing Cooperative Corporations (Co-Ops)
    Overview of Co-Ownership Legal Models & Structures The main ways you can hold property together Community Land Trust ● Nonprofit corporation (501c3) org that develops and co-stewards land and housing. ● Permanent affordability: Sets resident income ​ limits to center low/moderate income residents ​ (80% or below to 120% of Area Median Income) ● Receives funding / access to public subsidies for ​ affordable housing ● Has Board of Directors that represent community interests ● Various co-ownership structures are compatible ​ with a CLT, esp. Limited-Equity Co-ops ● Has relationship with banks and can help with financing for new resident groups. ● CLT is typically the larger umbrella land-owning entity whereas a co-op, condo, tic etc is the way individuals are sharing ownership in the improvements (structures) on the land. Co-Housing ● Cohousing communities consist of private, fully-equipped dwellings ● Common amenities including recreation areas and often a common house—aka the “living room” of the community. ● Shared green space is also a key feature – whether for gardening, playing, or Socializing. ● Cohousing communities depend on cooperation and collaboration, from start to Finish. ● Legal ownership & property structures can vary from single family detached homes, to condos, co-ops, Tenants In Common, etc. Cooperative Corporations (Co-ops) ● A Housing Cooperative is a corporation with the purpose of providing affordable housing for its members. ● Residents are member-owners: ownership share gives members decision-making power and a right to occupy a particular unit. ● Together the residents own the coop and the cooperative can either own the property and land on its own or lease the property and land from another entity, like a land trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Housing Cooperatives: Would a Housing Cooperative Benefit
    University Honors Program Ivy College of Business May 1, 2019 Nathan Herold Advisor: Dr. Keri Jacobs, Dept. of Economics Student Housing Cooperatives Would a Housing Cooperative Benefit Students at Iowa State? Introduction Student Housing Cooperatives Iowa State University draws many students to Ames. Students who Cooperative Principles Laws come to Ames have the option to live on campus and contract through • User Owned • Cooperatives are incorporated under state law the university or off campus and contract through a private market o Do not directly own the housing, but own a o Student housing cooperatives in Iowa follow Chapter 499A landlord. What if students had another housing option in Ames where share in the cooperative o Laws state how cooperatives operate, members responsibilities, voting students had more control over the housing? A student housing rights, governance and sweat equity cooperative would offer that solution by allowing students to take • User Controlled User User ownership, control and receive benefits. As Iowa State University o Control of governance Owned Controlled grows, there is a need for housing in Ames. A housing cooperative o Serve on the board of directors Sweat Equity model option for students would provide community, leadership o Voting rights (elections and decision making) • Sweat equity is contributing back to the cooperative opportunities and cost benefits to students. o Control of one’s living environment • It is shared responsibilities for the members • Sweat equity could be required or optional • It could be in the form of running the front desk, grocery Objective • User Benefits User Benefits o Reduced housing costs shopping, cleaning, maintenance, or even gardening.
    [Show full text]
  • With Or Without Class: a Comparative Study of Union-Worker Cooperative Relations in the U.S
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2016 With or Without Class: A Comparative Study of Union-Worker Cooperative Relations in the U.S. and South Korea Minsun Ji University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the International and Area Studies Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Ji, Minsun, "With or Without Class: A Comparative Study of Union-Worker Cooperative Relations in the U.S. and South Korea" (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1230. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1230 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. With or Without Class: A Comparative Study of Union-Worker Cooperative Relations in the U.S. and South Korea ____________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies University of Denver ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ____________ by Minsun Ji November 2016 Advisor: Dr. George DeMartino Author: Minsun Ji Title: With or Without Class: A Comparative Study of Union-Worker Cooperative Relations in the U.S. and South Korea Advisor: Dr. George DeMartino Degree Date: November 2016 ABSTRACT This dissertation examines to what extent union-cooperative partnerships in the U.S. and S. Korea might revitalize labor movements and to what extent class-based narratives (or their absence) shape labor movements.
    [Show full text]