|Re: Levels of membership||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: George and Rosannah Stone (gnrstoneeasystreet.com)|
|Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:06:01 -0700 (MST)|
During its development phase, Cascadia Commons had only two levels of "membership." Members were those who had responded to all capital calls, which ramped up to $15,000, and then required signing a "risk sharing agreement" that committed them to equal shares of any additional obligations of our Limited Liability Corporation. The other level was "Associate" , which entitled people to come to meetings, take part in discussions, and to indicate their views in straw polls and decisions in our consensus process. They could not , however, "block" consensus. The costs of attaining this level were nominal -- something like $25 for 6 months. Now that construction is complete and control is being turned over to the Home Owners Association, the picture is more complicated. Owners of a home have full rights to participate in all consensus decisions; renters can be designated by owners of their home as having full participation in all decisions except those that have significant financial implications for the HOA; renters of homes who have not been so designated have rights similar to those of Associates in the development phase. We have found this system to be viewed as fair and workable by persons at all levels. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katherine Fugitt" <kfugitt [at] purplebear.com> To: <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [C-L]_Levels of membership > At 08:57 AM 11/28/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Our Chesapeake Cohousing Group is in the site > >finding-close-to-acquiring-land phase. It has been mentioned often to > >create different levels of membership. I would like information from other > >neighborhoods as to how this works or doesn't work, if time of creating > >this is important ( now or later), benefits, etc. > > The "easy" answer is that at the point when the group starts needing lots > of cash, you need different levels of membership for the people who have > put in serious money (thousands of $) versus the people who have "merely" > put in hundreds of $. The way people make decisions and the compromises > they are willing to make (or not make) is often very different depending on > how much money they have on the line. It can be helpful for people to put > this "serious" $ into the group kitty before a site is actually acquired, > but I don't know that it is necessary. Having an Associate membership level > also lets people get involved gradually and find out if the whole idea > works for them before they make a big financial commitment. > > Our Seattle-area group has been in-and-out of this stage several times in > the past two years. In our experience, people who hadn't put in > equity-level $ were a lot less willing to compromise on what they thought > was absolutely essential in a site. > > Two cents from a lurker, > Katherine > > > ---------- > Katherine Fugitt > kfugitt [at] purplebear.com > Lake Washington Cohousing (at Forbes Creek Commons we hope) > It Takes A Village. We're Building one. > www.rosehillcohousing.org > > ---------- > > _______________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list > Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: > http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l > _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- Levels of membership Dennis Jay, November 28 2001
- RE: Levels of membership: economic burdens Rob Sandelin, December 1 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.