Cohousing, Communes, Community--Not for Profit! Please
From: Jean Pfleiderer (pfleiderer_jWIZARD.COLORADO.EDU)
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 14:17 CDT
Rob, I wrote to you saying,

>Did you READ the ad that Dave Adams objected to, and that caused you to read
>him the riot act about being accepting of other viewpoints?

And you replied:

>Yes and I did call. I got the impression from the message that it is 
>not  a for profit development, the vision is not cohousing, but is 
>community of sorts.  My point of rebuttal was to say, lets not be exclusive.

Fine.  If you called, what did you find out?  What does it mean to say "I 
got the impression from the message that . . ."--do you mean the original 
message posted here, cause that's sure not the impression I got from it, or 
do you mean some recorded message you heard when you called?  If the latter, 
just what did it say to give you that impression?  Did it say "not a for 
profit development" or didn't it?  ANY place where more than one person 
resides can be described as a "community of sorts" but that's hardly the point.

I saw this message as a cheap shot by some land speculator/developer.  Maybe 
I misread it, or maybe the author was careless in presenting it.  Either 
way, if it's not that, perhaps the person who posted it would clue us in.  I 
don't want to get into flaming, and I apologize if I came on too strong 
before. I think we are in agreement about the underlying issues.  In fact, I 
too am concerned about the way cohousing seems almost to require at least a 
middle class economic status, so that this potential for class division 
arises within the group of those interested in alternative housing and 
community.  But that's a situation which can only be further aggravated if 
we aren't on the alert for a mainstream business mentality that will be only 
too happy to "co-opt" the whole "cohousing" scene and turn it into a 
buzzword for developers.


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.