|Re: Limits to CoHousing -Reply||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Steve Fogarty (SFOGARTYWordPerfect.com)|
|Date: Mon, 25 Apr 94 18:10 CDT|
Mr Boosman states: "If groups of people wish to form cohousing communities which go beyond these precepts--for example, to adopt a strong environmental preservation policy, or to adopt a no-smoking policy, or promote recycling, this is NO different--it is merely an extension of the basic association concept of cohousing." I must disagree. One of the most appealing aspects of CoHousing is that it need not submit its members to an ideological litmus test. Communities that do are called Communes, or Ashrams, or <fill in the blank>. The authors of the book that brought this living concept to us all (CoHousing) state very clearly that the least successful European CoHousing communities were those that bore an ideological flag - "we are Green" or "we are Orange". Mr Boosman is perhaps confusing his personal / political comfort zone with the very simple and basic concepts of CoHousing. But these are very different things. The CoHousing community I want to live in will - hopefully - be home to liberals and Anarchists and John Birchers and gun owners and pacifists and personally strident vegetarians and nudists and Mormons, etc. Amid this vivid ideological tapestry will run the common, simple thread of CoHousing: architecturally promoted community, shared meals, the small town. Indeed, this ideal may be the *only* shared precept. As soon as other required thoughts are established such a place would cease to be a CoHousing community and would instead begin to resemble something else. An example that comes to mind is the supremely well-intended, but unstable and unhappy, commune I visited once in central virginia. They required much ideological conformity of their members (give up your career, give up your income, live on $45.00 per month, work in a furniture factory, sign your possesions over to the Community...), and consequently were as mobile and unsettled as the average American suburb. People left every 3.5 years. These ideological requirements have a place and, for some, are good. But that place is not in a CoHousing community. Steven Fogarty SLC, Utah >>> Frank Boosman <frank [at] news.internet.net> 4/22/94, 08:06pm >>> [I would attribute the following if I could, but I didn't see a return address.] >I don't want to have to choose among gun/no-gun, smoking/no-smoking, >Green/non-Green, nuclear-free/pro-nuke, recycling/bicycling, >Left/Middle/Right/Green/Red/Brown/Black/Statist/Libertarian groups. >I want to live in a cohousing group! To be blunt, this is absurd. By choosing to live in a cohousing community, one is, in effect, saying, "I wish to live in close proximity to people who believe certain things: namely, that people should live more closely than is typically practiced today; that people should group together to form quasi-extended families; that meals are meant to be shared on a regular basis;" and so on. So, therefore, by choosing to live in a cohousing community, one is already choosing to live with people who believe in certain precepts, and who wish to live their lives based on these precepts. If groups of people wish to form cohousing communities which go beyond these precepts--for example, to adopt a strong environmental preservation policy, or to adopt a no-smoking policy, or promote recycling, this is NO different--it is merely an extension of the basic association concept of cohousing. Now, you might choose not to live in a cohousing development which bans firearms. I would. I, on the other hand, wouldn't want to live in a development which promoted or was focused around a religion, whereas someone else might. This is just fine. This is the way cohousing is meant to work. If you don't like a given group, keep looking, or start one of your own. But why worry about what other groups do? -- Frank PS -- Perhaps you should start a cohousing group which specifically takes no position on gun ownership, smoking, nuclear issues, recycling, or any other such issues. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you found others who were looking for the same kind of group. If you do, I wish you all the success. (I wouldn't be among them.) | Frank Boosman | This week's book pick is a trilogy: "Big Secrets," | | Morrisville, NC | "Bigger Secrets," and, naturally, "Biggest | | frank [at] internet.net | "Secrets," all by William Poundstone. Lots of fun. |
- Re: Limits to CoHousing, (continued)
- RE: Limits to CoHousing Bruce A. Duda, April 26 1994
- Re: Limits to CoHousing -Reply Rob Sandelin, April 26 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.