Re: Members and rentals (was Short-term Rentals)
From: Diana Carroll (dianaecarrollgmail.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 04:43:09 -0800 (PST)
On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, R Philip Dowds wrote:

>
> Clearly stated and interesting, but ... this isn't quite what I was
> expecting.  Can I buy a unit, but choose NOT to be a member?  That is, not
> pay the dues, not contribute to the work, and let you make the decisions?
> Such questions may sound specious, but (1) it is not unknown for a coho
> unit to be occupied by somebody who's not really with the program, and (2)
> few of us have yet figured out how to make the desire for equal
> participation into an enforced requirement.  At Cornerstone, we have a
> Bylaws phrase about "members in good standing", but we're not sure what it
> means.


Yes in theory someone could live here and not be a member - not pay dues,
not work.  Regarding dues: If they own they are legally required to pay
condo fees, and those are much higher.   Our cohousing dues are on a
sliding scale with the min being about $5 a month so that's never been a
deal breaker for anyone.

In terms of work...yeah it could happen.  It seems membership is not
relevant...some people contribute more than others...thus it has always
been, is, and always will be, right?  I've never seen value in coercing
people who don't want to be involved into doing s.

Everyone who owns and most of those who rent are here because they really
want to live in our community, so their motive to work comes from within --
because they value the health of the community.  If that, combined with
general peer pressure, is not enough t make people participate, I don't
imagine group membership would be.


Of greater significance:  We seem to have trouble discerning the bright
> line between boring condo stuff, and community stuff.  How much
> maintenance, at what quality and how often; how much insurance (and for
> what, like earthquakes?); self-performed bookkeeping (or hire an
> outsider?); do our own plowing and yard maintenance (or hire an outsider?)
> ... for us, these are all matters of great communal interest, and
> sometimes, of personal financial interest and time prioritization.


 In terms of finances we have a pretty bright line about which group pays
for stuff: anything mandatory, anything that affects our physical ability
to continue living here, falls into the HOA budget.

In terms of decision making, we have rarely had a need to draw a line.  The
two groups meet at the same time; we discuss as a group; people with
concerns and opinions state them; we craft a decision that attempts to
address all the concerns and reach consensus. The process is the same
whether it involves plowing (HOA) or planning work days (cohousing).

Like many groups we have a policy of attempting to reach consensus, and
falling back to a vote if we can't.  If we vote, then indeed only members
of the relevant group would be allowed to vote...but that hasn't happened.
 When it does I imagine it will be up to our steering committee to
determine whether a particular decision is HOA or cohousing...and it will
probably come down to which budget it affects.  our strictly HOA related
decisions have so far not been the controversial ones...but that may be
because our physical community is so new that we have not yet had to deal
with major expenses for maintenance so we will see.

Diana

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.