|Per Household or Per Person||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Thomas Lofft (tloffthotmail.com)|
|Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 04:15:15 -0700 (PDT)|
RPD from Cornerstone Cohousing in Cambridge, MA wrote:"If you are [a community] in formation, you might not know very much about future unit sizes. A per member, rather than per unit, assessment, might make sense during the formation period. Interestingly enough, our community does consensus on a per unit (per household) basis, where each of our 32 units has equal standing. Other communities do consensus on a per member basis, excluding (usually) dependent minors. Then there is always the tenant / renter controversy: In America, all citizens have an equal voice (so we say) in public affairs and decisions ? but at Cornerstone, only people with their names on a deed have a voice. ???" I reflect, If you are seeking consensus, how will it matter if a household is counted as one household or two (or more) member voices? Actually, a household of multiple members may have multiple opinions, one (or more) in accord, one (or more) in disagreement. A true search for consensus should seek to have every opinion expressed, not to force a supression of contradictory opinions. So much for determining policy. When it comes to tallying up and sharing the bills, only the property owners may be assessed for fees through the typical condiminium laws of every state. Should renting tenants who have no capital investment at risk in their lodging be able to force an assessment to create benefits for themselves at the expense of the property owners? As to public policy of our non-democratic federal republic, property owners don't get any vote by virtue of property ownership. Every citizen (or other human who manages to get themselves registered) gets to vote, except those excluded by felony conviction (in some states?) or by lack of verifiable citizenship (in some other states?) In my personal opinionTom LofftLiberty Village, MD
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.