|Re: Workshare||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)|
|Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:54:57 -0800 (PST)|
On Feb 3, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Jenny Guy <jenstermeister [at] gmail.com> wrote: > We made the decision to give people with young children a break in an > (unsuccessful) > attempt to attract people with kids. Personally, I'm fine with being part > of a... what's the phrase... de-facto senior cohousing, but some of our > members really long to have the little ones around, and I'm fine with that, > too. If your experience is anything like ours, the kids and families show up toward the end after move in. The younger the children, the less time parents have to "iffy" ventures like cohousing. We had so many children at one point that some of us were in fear that one household with 3 under 6 was actually going to purchase a unit. We had more than 1/3 of our residents under 12 and it was overwhelming. We had only 4 in our pre-move in phase. One key, which has been discussed here many times, is to include a playground area and a kids room in the common house. Don't plan these for when you have the money. Even building the playground as soon as you have the property. When parents and potential parents see that, they know that children are really welcome and the community will have a resource they need. We had a number of people who moved here because they were ready to have children and many did 1-2 years in. (Several adopted.) As wonderful as it can be to have them around, children are also extra work, money, and stress for the community. We pay sitters for membership meetings, for example, and buy things for kid's use that are not added only to the condo fees of parents. They also cause conflict over their behavior. Should they be allowed to jump on the furniture or run around the room during meals? How young can a child be allowed out with no supervision? Whose responsibility is it to watch that child? So breaks for parents do add up. The burden will already be big. > So, should the sweat equity be by household, since investment is by > household? We could break the 20 hours up into 10 hours of community > activities (meals, meetings) and 10 hours of property management, and say > property management is by household... This is a hard issue. At one point I had given up on this one because we had households in which one person was very interested in living in cohousing and the other was not at all. Pressure on the uninterested would have resulted in neither being in cohousing. And the one who was interested was usually a very active member of the community if only to ensure that it was a good place and justified their interest. Over time, almost all of these households have balanced out. The reluctant member has become much more active. And in some cases, they reversed their roles. After move-in, things change. Allowing people to work for others, meaning donate hours, can relieve this a bit. Also consider what are the hours for. Usually they are for things that are unrelated to the size of the household and much more related to common elements that everyone either uses or profits from having. The common elements add to the commercial value of the houses and to the richness of the community. The hot tub is not used by very many people at all but when potential buyers are looking a the property, they are very impressed. I don't like watching the SuperBowl particularly, but I like watching the people who do like watching it. (They care so much about teams!) So having a big screen TV and a big dining room for them to gather in is a benefit for me. Each person has such things that are important to them. In the end, I think workshare should be per person. Sharon ---- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
- Re: Workshare, (continued)
- Games & Outreach Sharon Villines, January 28 2013
- Re: Games & Outreach Jenny Guy, February 3 2013
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.