Re: Communes and Survivalists
From: R Philip Dowds (
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 07:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
But selective enforcement is its own problem.  If they're doing drugs, bust 
them on drug charges.  If they are undocumented aliens, then we have laws about 
that too.  But don't roust them for excessive cohabitation or a broken backflow 
preventer on their water main.

In any event, the big problem with excessive cohabitation is that it's 
extremely hard to prove that someone "lives" someplace, or does not.  Look at 
all the politicians who claim to live in one district, while sleeping most 
nights in another.  Do we now need laws against excessive visitation, or 
bedroom abandonment?

Moreover, state and local codes heavily regulate the construction of "dwelling 
units", and the characteristics they must have, and cannot have.  To be sold in 
the real estate market, recorded at the Registry of Deeds, and taxed at an 
assessed value, all these units must comply with the rules.

My point is that all cohousing projects known to me (setting aside 
"eco-villages" as some other model) are fully compliant with all state and 
local rules and regs.  Architecturally, they are just single family homes, or 
duplexes, or apartments in condominium ownership, or perhaps cooperatives (a 
different form of ownership).  There is absolutely no way to deny them all the 
rights and privileges of any other residential property allowed in the same 

Maybe we'd have more fun if we were a commune.  But we are not.  State and 
local governments can regulate how we build, but not how we live.


Sent from my iPad

On Jul 2, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Diana Carroll <dianaecarroll [at]> wrote:

> The two situations where I've heard about them being used are in "crack
> houses" and in immigration situations. :-/.

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.