Re: associate membership policies | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: R Philip Dowds (rpdowds![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:26:15 -0800 (PST) |
For me, the lesser issue is that of fit and role of people living offsite, but interested in cohousing, and perhaps candidates for buying in. It’s certainly to our communal advantage to maintain a favorable image in our region, and to have a list of households who see themselves as possible future neighbors. But I don’t care a lot, one way or the other, whether such parties are “associates”, or coming to help on workdays, or participating in revising our pet policy, or paying us money. What’s more interesting to me is, What do we do about renters? That is, those residents who live with us on our site, sometimes for years — and who often have valuable skills and/or real interest in trying out intentional community — but whose names are not logged in at the Registry of Deeds. Do we really want them to have fewer rights and responsibilities than absentee landlords (of which Cornerstone usually has a couple, sometimes more)? Do we really want them meddling in our long-term plans and policies, when they might pick up and flee at any moment? Are the expectations different for someone who rents a room in a member’s unit, as opposed to someone renting the entire unit permanently vacated, but not released to market, by a former member? What? What are others doing about this? RPD On Mar 1, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Elizabeth Magill <pastorlizm [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > I'll add that I've been chatting with some of our associates who are NOT > happy with our policy. > > Essentially "have the same rights and responsibilities as members" does not > feel good to folk who try to live up to the letter of the law. > > Despite very active involvement they feel guilty for not coming to meetings, > don't WANT to be allowed to speak to "what its like to live here" issues, > feel they should not have equal role in consensus decision making, and don't > think they should have to do the same level of work. > > So we still have some work to do. > > -Liz > (The Rev.) Elizabeth M. Magill > www.worcesterfellowship.org > www.mosaic-commons.org > 508-450-0431 > > > On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Diana Carroll <dianaecarroll [at] gmail.com> > wrote: > >> At Mosaic Commons we do have associate members, meaning in this case >> non-resident members. >> >> We spent a lot of time and energy working out a much clearer policy. >> *MEMBERS* must be residents (http://www.mosaic-commons.org/membership); >> others are *ASSOCIATES* (http://www.mosaic-commons.org/associates) >> >> (All this is separate from our HOA, in which membership is clear: it's for >> owners, period. After all, that's what the "O" is HOA stands for :-) >> >> Diana >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > >
-
associate membership policies Martha Wagner, February 27 2014
-
Re: associate membership policies Diana Carroll, February 28 2014
-
Re: associate membership policies Elizabeth Magill, March 1 2014
- Re: associate membership policies R Philip Dowds, March 1 2014
- Re: associate membership policies drmaryann49, March 2 2014
- Re: associate membership policies Philip Dowds, March 2 2014
- Re: associate membership policies Sharon Villines, March 3 2014
- Re: associate membership policies R Philip Dowds, March 3 2014
-
Re: associate membership policies Elizabeth Magill, March 1 2014
-
Re: associate membership policies Diana Carroll, February 28 2014
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.