|Pet policy and sharing policies,||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Becky Weaver (beckyweaverswbell.net)|
|Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT)|
I have been struck by the overwhelmingly negative reception that the recently posted pet policy has gotten. Mostly I've thought, whew, see if I ever let any of my community's policies get posted here. Why did people rip something to shreds that was posted with a note saying hurrah, we did it, it's done, we're happy with it, thank you for your help? Most of us don't know the history of this policy, the people who wrote it, why it took them years to write it, or what caused it to be written this way. Why didn't we ask about those things first, rather than immediately jumping to "this is a bad idea, and this, and you should've done it this way?" Do we really think that nobody at Trillium Hollow thought about those points in the years they took to write this policy? Funnily enough, I think the reason for the policy's tone is clearly illustrated by some other reactions it got on the list, ranging from "if you are advocating treating pets this way you must be awful people" to "if you are treating the allergic this way you must be awful people" (Of course I'm exaggerating, nobody says "awful people" on Cohousing-L and gets away with it <g>.) The only other issues that routinely get this kind of reaction are parenting and sex. Maybe we could think about that fact for a bit, before we jump in and denigrate how other communities are working with this emotional, personal, and sensitive topic. I for one am interested in the experiences Trillium Hollow residents must have gone through, to find such a detailed and complicated policy necessary. Maybe we'd learn something from hearing the story. Becky Weaver Kaleidoscope Village/Central Austin Cohousing Austin, TX (currently in Belfast, ME) Where our development is proceeding apace and we are almost half sold out
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.