|RE: Cost Apportionment of Infrastructure (FWD)||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Fred H Olson WB0YQM (fholsonmaroon.tc.umn.edu)|
|Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 01:08 CST|
John Willson Cascade Cohousing JOHN [at] EPCORPORATESERVER.DELM.TAS.GOV.AU is the author of this message but due to a listserv problem it was posted by the COHOUSING-L sysop. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The questions and answers to the problems below are not entirely new and there are some existing models in place for other structures. In Australia the voting role for local government is made up of owners and residents. Each owner is entitled to a vote (this may be more than one vote per household) and each resident who is not an owner is entitled to a vote. If you own more than one property you get more than one vote. There are arguments about why non resident owners can vote and the useuall answer is that the taxes are paid by the owners not residents. Several hundred years ago the Ilse of Man had a similar voting system. The island is semi autonomous and has its own legal structure an parliment. The voting was once one vote per household. Most household were a normal family, ie mother, father and kids. The rules did not state who in the household voted, and if the household was entirley women they still got one vote. This was at the time in England, just over the water, where only male land owners were allowed to vote. The common way of resolving these issues is to ask: who pays the bills, who is affected by the decisions. Every voting system has problems, in fairness on who votes etc and even on the voting method. Acknowledge the problems and be open about the problems with any system you propose. John Willson Cascade Cohousing. >Rob Sandelin wrote >> At Sharingwood we chose an egalitarian decision structure and an >>egalitarian funding structure. One home, one vote, one equal share of >>all the costs. >> >At Cascade cohousing we also sought an egalitarian funding and decission >making structure (along with other goals) We have a fairly even mix of one >person households and two or more person households. Our one person >households tend not to see a per home share of costs as egalitarian and our >two person households do not see a one vote per home system as egalitarian. > >I guess the relevant questions are what is the economic unit, the household >or the person? and what is the decsion making unit the household or the person? > >The answers are likely to vary from group to group and even between >households within one group. So what is egalitarian is not absolute. >Different groups trying to be egalitarian are likely to come up with >different solutions. >
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.