|RE: Rules & Regs Violation||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: truddick (truddickearthlink.net)|
|Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 05:27:51 -0700 (PDT)|
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:59:11 -0700 From: "Fleck" <foam4u [at] worldnet.att.net> Subject: [C-L]_ RE: Rules & Regs Violation "...Part of the question deals with why we had the rule - mainly aesthetics. We're urban town homes and dishes look really unsightly. (The rules includes solar panels, ham antennas, etc.) We've got access to loads of other delivery systems for media. Our high speed internet access is built into our HOA dues." I'm conflicted about chiming in here, but like others, I'm hungry for more insights. Has anybody in this cohousing group talked to this violator in an attempt to figure out the reasons for a satellite dish? If so, why aren't we being provided with any attempt at a fair representation of those reasons? If not, it seems to me that it would be the first step to resolving the issue. I'm also a little confused at the "media is media" conclusions. You have "loads" of delivery systems? Most of us have one cable provider, telephone, broadcast, and satellite-does your city provide more choice than that? Satellite and cable (including digital cable) are not the same, there are clear differences in programming and operation. Restricting access to media has the potential of preventing residents from accessing a range of information sources, which in some cases could compromise an education or career. There's also the question of the provider. If your cable monopoly treats a resident shabbily, under your rules, the only recourse would be broadcast-or quitting your community. Forbidding dishes automatically endorses Time-Warner or Comcast or whoever owns your city at this time-the same way that your ban on solar panels contributes to the profitability of your local electric company by requiring your members to stay "on grid" entirely. A member of your community has two choices if conscience chafes at the social irresponsibility of multi-million-dollar golden parachutes for the CEOs of these companies, or at issues regarding pollution, nuclear waste, censorship, or the dumbing-down of American media. Those choices are to live with it, or move out of cohousing. (A brief nod toward option three, petition for a rules change; doesn't sound to me like your group would be open to that thought). Your co-house, your co-rules (to co-opt a phrase popular among parents in these parts). But, offered for perspective: personally, I find the homogenized, designed-by-committee look of many cohousing projects reminiscent of Pete Seger's "Little boxes on a hill." If you want to discuss aesthetics, I'd much prefer to live in a place where colors clashed a bit in exciting ways, where a variety of materials and treatments (all earth friendly!) were visible, where some real visual diversity might creep in. Moreover I would find a small satellite dish on the side of a home less visually offensive than the tangle of wires that snakes through a neighborhood. That's not to say that cohousers should reject all rules about appearance-but beyond basic notions of scale and upkeep, I personally would prefer a much less restriction. "De gustibus non est disputandum" but here we are, not only arguing taste but regulating it. ___ ! _ Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick ! !_) Nunquam Vadis Levis! ! \
- RE: Rules & Regs Violation, (continued)
- Re: Rules & Regs Violation Fillard Rhyne, April 11 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.