Re: All-Rental Community

David Oesper

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:08 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:

It would be very difficult to get and maintain buy-in when residents are both paying money and providing labor to develop the community.

I can imagine that some retirees and wealthier members of our community won’t want to work at all. Those folks will pay full rent. The amount of monthly rent will depend on the type of unit they live in—the four-bedroom house in the cohousing community will cost the most, while the sharehouse and RV park would be the least expensive.

Most will want to work part-time for the community. Their monthly rent would be reduced according to the number of hours they work and perhaps the type of work they do.

Some will want to work full-time for the community. Their monthly rent would be reduced the most, again perhaps depending upon the type of work they do. In some cases, they will be able to live at Mirador rent-free. Basic living expenses in addition to rent might be covered as well.

Everyone will have the freedom to have income sources outside the community, and the community will have no involvement in that.

You could find out how many people are willing to live in such places — no equity, pay rent. I suspect it is a temporary situation for people who have enough money to live elsewhere.

Certainly some of the folks living at Mirador will be living there only some of the time—RVers, snowbirds, and the like. But I think many others will want Mirador to be their one and only home, and will be OK with renting. Many are currently renting (and that number is increasing). Many current homeowners will sell their homes before moving to Mirador, and will like the flexibility that renting offers. This will be especially true for retirees (see

I have owned four homes in my life as jobs and locations changed, and currently have 25 years remaining on a 30-year mortgage (at age 64), so not a lot of equity, anyway. I’ve owned homes in towns of 50,000, 6,000, and 4,500, so no large cities or metro areas. The first two homes were older ones that we poured a lot of money in to improve. I’ve never owned a home in a real estate market that has appreciated appreciably. So moving from owning to renting doesn’t bother me. I don’t know how common this experience or sentiment is for others nearing retirement who would be considering Mirador.

There will probably be more people who are willing to work instead of paying rent.

I agree, and that’s a good thing for the community. Might help attract some younger folks, too. Another good thing for the community.

Is there a city around the area you are interested in? How remote is it?

There would certainly be advantages to living reasonably close to a city with decent medical facilities and other amenities. From an astronomy standpoint, it would be best to locate southeast or southwest of the city. There, no celestial objects would be impacted by the light dome of the city when they’re highest in the sky and the generally more interesting half of the sky south of an east-west line wouldn’t be affected. Due south of a city wouldn’t be too bad either. Due north of a city would be the worst, where the light dome of the city washes out southern objects when they’re highest in the sky.

Locating too close to a city or metropolitan area would jeopardize the dark-sky community in just a few short years due to urban sprawl and the lighting encroachment that inevitably comes with it.

Locating southeast or southwest of a smaller town wouldn’t be as risky, and would still offer some amenities less than a half hour away.

The best place to locate an astronomy community in terms of minimizing light pollution both now and in the future would be a remote area, far from any cities or towns.

The best resource I know of to find suitable locations for a dark-sky community in terms of light pollution is here:



Join to automatically receive all group messages.