Re: Neighbors' opposition to Terra Firma retrofit cohousing
From: Fred H. Olson (fholsoncohousing.org)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 15:11:30 -0700 (MST)
Note: when I suggested sending replies to Rachel about this topic I meant
to send a *copy* to her *and* one to the list.  Rachel reports that
she's had two replies that have not showed up on the list.

Please share your thoughts with the rest of us.



My thoughts on dealing with opposition.

I dont think there should be are any basic conflicts of interests.  I
think most reasonable people would agree.  But when there are
misunderstandings, projections of problems based on lack of information,
people can adopt a stance of opposition.  

Tho not relevant to Terra Firma I suspect one question is how and when to
approach neighbors.  I lean toward being as open as possible and take the
initiative to approach neighbors to defuse opposition before it has a
chance to develop.  I would expect most people who understand what is
proposed would be supportive or at least tolerant.  Deal with any concerns
that people do have; make changes to the plan and compromise if needed.

After writing the above I went and reviewed Rachel's message and Paul
Weber's 6/99 update which sure makes my words sound irrelevant.
Determined opposition which is not open to rational resolution of
differences makes it difficult.  The anti abortion movement comes to mind.


Regarding the common yard and proposed common house serving off site
members...  I guess it would be interesting to know what restrictions
there are in general on "visitors".  Are there limits on the number of
guests?  Limits on how often they can visit?  Parking can be a problem in
some places.

Whether to postpone building a common house.  Are they planning a new
separate building?  I would expect using some existing space (a
basement, garage, part of an existing unit) might be less controversial.  
Also the needs of a retrofit community change as the community grows.  In
this case with 6 on site and 6 off site househols, it would seem like the
eventual size common space might already be substantially reached.  But
if and when the 6 off site households move on site a larger / different
common space might be desireable.  And there is the possibility that the 
group might grow beyond 12 hh and need different common space.  It would
seem like some more temporary interim common space arrangements may have
advantages in addition to avoiding current controversy.

I wish I could be more helpful.

Fred

--
The WTO must change! , Turtles and Teamsters -- United At Last

Fred H. Olson  fholson [at] cohousing.org    Minneapolis,MN   55411
(612)588-9532  Amateur radio: WB0YQM          List manager of:
Cohousing-L and Nbhd-tc (Twin Cities Neighborhood issues list)
More info:   http://www.mtn.org/~fholson/sig-details.htm



> 
> In this situation, I seem to be the only neutral individual: I do not belong
> to the group opposing the project, nor to Terra Firma. I was thus asked to
> prepare a talk for January 11th, to tell City councillors and community
> members where I stand on the issue. Obviously, I would like to support
> cohousing and I want to do it fairly: answering  honestly the objections
> brought forth by the angry neighbours is crucial to me. 
> 
> Since I am no expert in the field, I am coming to you to ask if you could
> give me pointers on how to resolve our contentious issues. There are two
> main ones:
> 
> 1- SIZE:
> 
> At this point, six families  - out of the 12 families that constitute Terra
> Firma - have purchased six units of rowhousing. They have renovated
> beautifully and their now-common backyard is adjacent to that of 8
> non-members. Terra Firma's pratice is to have the 6 off-site families use
> the common backyard, and there is a plan to build a commonhouse on site that
> would accommodate the 12 families. Personnally, I have no problem with this.
> Terra Firma is ecologically minded and the members are very careful not to
> disrupt the neighbourhood. However, the Concerned Citizens - as the group
> opposing the project calls itself - claim that it is too noisy and that the
> City should limit access to the 6 on-site families. 
> 
> So my questions are:
> 
> How did similar situations get resolved elsewhere? 
> 
> Do you know of any city regulating the process and, if so, how? 
> 
> Should Terra Firma wait to have more members on-site through gradual local
> expansion prior to undertaking the construction of a commonhouse? 
> 
> I would truly appreciate advice or references on this.
> 
> 
> Of lesser importance is the property value issue:
> 
> 2- PROPERTY VALUE:
> 
> Our Concerned Citizens state that properties next to cohousing projects see
> their value dwindle over time. People choosing not to be members lose out in
> the end. I know that cohousing properties increase in value, but do you have
> any data about the neighbourhood? I've read somewhere that, on the contrary,
> all properties increase in value with the advent of cohousing. Am I wrong?
> 
> 
> So, there it is. I suspect that my presentation will have an impact on how
> cohousing will be integrated, or not, within the City of Ottawa. And Ottawa
> being Canada's capital, it could set a trend for the rest of the country. I
> sure want to do it right!
> 
> Again, I would be very appreciative of any kind of help you could provide. I
> also realize that this is the holiday season and that my deadline is quite
> short, but our local bureaucrats would not allow for more preparation time.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing from you,
> 
> Happy Holiday Season,
> 
> Très sincèrement merci,
> 
> Rachel
> 
> 
> 


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.