eliotmarkman

Eliot Markman

Peter Allen

ILS 252, Sec 001

23 November 2011

Cooperatives and Sustainability Introduction

The decline in the desirability of public housing has been an ongoing problem in the U.S. We see more and more public housing buildings being demolished in major U.S. cities every year. As these older forms of government-subsidized housing have largely failed, I propose that the United States invest in sustainable cooperative housing programs. Cooperative housing is a style of living where people in a building complex share ownership and responsibility of the property. Widespread cooperative housing would be a sustainable policy, because cooperatives are cost-effective, and give residents a stake in their community.

In contrast to this claim, Michael Schill believes that state funded housing cannot work in the public sector in the U.S. He explains, “Congress should …encourage the demolition of physically distressed projects and, in most markets, replace the lost units with demand-oriented subsidies such as housing vouchers” (Schill). He advocates for programs such as Section 8 housing, a program where people are given vouchers so they can live in a private apartment or house at a reduced fee or at no cost. He makes a compelling argument for Section 8 type programs. Schill describes how vouchers allow people to live in better homes than if they lived in housing projects. Also, he claims, that because low-income people are mixed in with those that are economically better off, those on Section 8 vouchers are in a better position to escape the cycle of poverty.

Schill makes a compelling argument against purely public housing projects. He views the failure of public housing over the last half century from a traditionally conservative viewpoint. He values self-reliance, and believes people should lift themselves out of poverty and that this rise can best be facilitated in the private sector.

Many Americans would probably agree with Schill on how best to house low-income Americans. The capitalist and Protestant values that dominate American popular thinking teach that the worth of a person is based on their economic success. The founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, believed that ownership of single-family homes encouraged good values (Carroll 433).

I agree with some of Schill’s interpretations, especially his conclusions on why traditional housing projects failed, but I certainly do not agree with all of his opinions or evidence he gives. His basic assumption that low-income people can lift themselves out of poverty is irrelevant in this debate, because public housing, compared to projects, is no better at alleviating the number of people in poverty. There will always be poor people. Therefore, the first problem that needs to be solved is how to get the greatest number off the street as possible. After that problem is solved, the U.S. can worry about how to put low-income people in a position where they do not need government assistance. Furthermore, Section 8 housing is significantly more costly than purely public housing complexes and other forms of providing housing. Not only are single-family homes inefficient, the cost of Section 8 housing makes the program unsustainable.

Jim Gray, Jay Marcus, and Jolie Marie Carey explore how cooperative housing offers an affordable option to low-income peoples and strengthens communities. They provide examples of how cooperative housing projects are more cost-effective, and report a higher quality of life compared to other forms of public housing (21).

The authors of this article claim that these positives arise from the fact that cooperative residents own their property. The residents’ money goes to their cost of living rather than a landlord’s profits, as is the case in Section 8 housing. Gray, Marcus, and Carey believe in and value communities. They realize that people who have ownership in a community are more likely to be valuable members of that community. In their opinion, a society that is able to house their citizen’s is a good community. I agree with the authors’ interpretation of the evidence that cooperatives strengthen communities. I live in a cooperative and can see from my own experience how cooperative housing strengthens my community. Everyone in our house has a vested interest in the upkeep of our house and neighborhood.

I believe the government should allocate funds to give people cooperative shares and set up cooperatives in more low-income areas. Unlike section 8 housing, in cooperatives people have a voice in how their building is run and have an interest in the sustainability of that community, not profits. Unfortunately, in many cites, housing cooperatives do not even exist, including Milwaukee. Therefore, we should set up small-scale cooperatives first so that communities can get used to them, then expand from there. One of the problems with traditional housing projects of the mid-20^th century was that they came into existence all at once and communities did not have the time to be comfortable with them. Although cooperatives are not for everyone, I believe that if more people knew about them they would be popular. Many people would flock to the idea of being their own landlord.

Cooperative living is a much more sustainable way to live than other conventional styles such as single-family homes or single person apartments. Not only do cooperatives generally save on space, they also generally save on food, because they buy in bulk instead of smaller portions of food that use more packaging. Many coops have sustainability initiatives like green renovations, urban gardening initiatives, car-share programs, and home energy efficiency improvements (Ballerstein and Palmer 2011). Also, most co-ops are keen on recycling and composting.

Unfortunately however, not all people interpret or see evidence about cooperatives the same as Jim Gray, Jay Marcus, Jolie Marie Carey, and me. There is great deal of ignorance, cynicism, and skepticism that surrounds cooperatives. There are little if any arguments written that oppose cooperative housing purely on a utilitarian basis. In my personal experience, many times when I have told people I live in a cooperative they respond with something like, “oh you live in that commune” as if I lived in a communist cult. Cooperatives are not often taken seriously. However, had Schill or others thought about or been introduced to the cooperative system seriously, they would have seen that cooperatives do a better job at making people self-reliant than even Section 8 housing. Cooperative housing gives a direct path to self-sufficiency, because cooperative members partially own their property.

The second article is a case study from 1993, and is also from the Journal of Housing and Community Development. The case study explores a Denver cooperative system that received federal funding and offers affordable housing for low-income peoples.

In the article, the President of the Upper Lawrence Cooperative Corporation, Nefertiti Ben-Egypt, explains, “Residents continue to benefit from the co-op. The 44-unit coop has a very low vacancy rate and is professionally managed” (238). Authors John P. Helm, and Sanford M. Horvitz interpret Ben-Egypt’s description to mean that cooperative residents not only get a first rate place to live, but they also are making a smart financial decision by living in cooperative housing. Cooperatives are generally well known in their communities, and where landlords often have to waste money on advertising, cooperative living is competitive.

Similar to the authors of the 2005 article, Helm and Sanford value communities. Particularly, they value communities that have affordable housing options for all their residents. They critique the American Dream of a single-family home, because this model of homeownership is not feasible for everyone. The authors provide evidence that by living cooperatively people can share the burden of taxes and utilities.

However, opponents of federal funding going to government housing might argue that Ben-Egypt’s experience in Denver contrasts a number of failed housing policies that started in the mid-20^th century. In the past, other forms of government funded housing, like the “projects”, were known to be hotbeds of crime, drug abuse, gang violence, bad tenants, and filth. They might group cooperative housing with these failed housing solutions. Grouping failed government policies together and calling them a collective failure is unfortunately far too common in American politics today. Despite what critics may think, I agree with Helm and Sanford in their analysis of the 1993 case study. Their case study shows that the cooperative model can work.

Cooperiatives are also more stable that other form s of low-income housing. In Karine Shellshear’s article about sustainability, she says, “Security of tenure, affordability, a capacity for continuity and stability within identified locations of choice form a vital link to ongoing sustainability and a commitment to that community”. What Shellshear is describing is that because cooperatives involve people who are living closely together, their communities are more sustainably because cooperatives are stable and secure. Unlike projects, which are often crime beds where people are constantly moving in and out, people in cooperatives tend to spend a long time living in them.

As American’s continue to struggle in the current recession, millions of American’s need an inexpensive place to live. Cooperative housing offers a cost-effective and sustainable solution to this problem. The United States should research and set up test cooperative housing units for implementation on a large scale.

Works Cited

Carroll, Mary. “American Dreamscape: The Pursuit of Happiness in Postwar Suburbia / from the

Puritans to the Projects: Public Housing and Public Neighbors.” The Booklist, 97.4 (2000): 395-396.

Gray, Jim, Jay Marcus, and Jolie Marie Carey. “A Model Worth Considering for Affordable

Homeownership and Strengthened Communities: COOPERATIVE HOUSING.” Journal of Housing and Community Development 62.6 (2005): 20,20-24. ProQuest. Web. 9 Oct. 2011.

Helm, John P., Sanford M. Horvitz, and Nefertiti Ben-Egypt. “Cooperative Homeownership: An Affordable Alternative.” Journal of Housing and Community Development 50.6 (1993): 238-. ProQuest. Web. 9 Oct. 2011.

Shellshear, Karine. “How Can We Make Affordable Housing Work: How Co-operative Housing Can Create Sustainable Mixed Communities.” ARCH. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.

Schill, Michael H. “Distressed Public Housing: Where Do We Go from Here?.” The University of Chicago Law Review, 60.2 (1993): 497.

I recently changed my project from making medications available to third world countries to making co-ops a more affordable form of low-income housing. My new topic is an issue closer to me. Cooperative housing is a form of housing where people live together in a house and share ownership and responsibly of the property. We see more and more public housing buildings being demolished in major U.S. cities every year. I propose that we as a society invest in cooperative housing programs. Cooperative housing is a style of living where people in a building complex share ownership and responsibility of the property. Widespread cooperative housing would be a successful policy, because cooperatives are cost-effective, and give residents a stake in their community.