|Re: Eugene Cohousing (Lynn Dixon)||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: T G (triciamill9gmail.com)|
|Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT)|
I guess the bottom line is that this sounds like a very horrible toxic environment for all that seems to offer no amicable solution. Not a place I would want to live out my retirement. I hope to find a community that is living in peace with its surroundings. Very bad energy surrounding this whole situation. Good to know before buying in. > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 15:00:51 -0700 > From: Lynn Dixon <ld61069 [at] gmail.com> > To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org > Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Eugene Cohousing > Message-ID: > <CAN1bcJgHUA2oVXyqVzogrCg3QZad_XjU8dBU7KUwnH7bhYUWGQ@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > in response to : > T G triciamill9 [at] gmail.com via > <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> cohousing.org > Aug 1 (3 days ago) > to cohousing-l > Katie, > Maybe you could explain some of the things that the Eugene cohousing group > did to try and work with the neighbors, types of compromise that were > offered that they were unwilling to accept? This could be beneficial to > other groups facing this type of opposition. Maybe others could talk about > things they did to address the concerns of the existing neighbors when they > built their co housing communities. > > I do think it is important that groups moving into an already established > neighborhood need to respect the concerns of the established neighbors. It > is a bit self centered to not think you will need to work together with > people that will be your future neighbors, people you will see on a daily > basis. Ideally it would be great to be in a situation where they can become > a part of your community. > > TG, > > > Before there was any opposition, we made decisions with neighbors in mind > regarding backyards facing the lane needing to be "front yard" & > neighborly, landscape screening, etc. After there was opposition, we had > two meetings: one "mediated" dialogue, which quickly moved away from > dialogue and into name-calling and threats without mediator intervention; > and what was supposed to be a "fish-bowl" conversation, which got set-up as > a panel instead, that again became a session of blame and threats, rather > than a modeled conversation (the purpose of a "fish-bowl"). After those > attempts, we met with local multi-family builders/architects to explore > making it smaller without pricing out members, and were told (again) that > it wasn't possible. After that, conversations with neighbors who opposed > the project happened one-on-one, with a variety of different outcomes. > > > One of the concerns in our situation was that there is no emergency vehicle > turn-around on the street and we have provided that which is beneficial to > those living on the street now. + for everyone. > > The issue around widening of the street is a conundrum. Most people on the > street currently do not want to give up front yard to widening of the > street and/or sidewalks. When that topic has come up in the legal process, > I am caught between wanting that to happen so those who feel that would > make it safer would be pleased, and not wanting it to happen because those > who want to retain their yards and see no need for curbs would be pleased; > and also knowing that once a road is widened and with sidewalks, drivers > tend to be less mindful of potential dangers than when it is a more narrow > road. Conundrum. > > > Honestly, there is no way to win here. Members of OMC are in no way people > who have no care for others, and ?refuse to negotiate?. Conversations we > have had with individuals or groups throughout this process have made it > very clear that there is not complete agreement about solutions that would > be acceptable to those in opposition. Agreeing to one thing for one person, > makes another upset. So there is always a moving target for a definition of > what?s reasonable. And it does feel like hypocrisy- we do training in NVC > and we strive in building and sustaining relationships in community, and > yet we are stuck when it comes to the very neighbors who will live closest > by. Watching arguments come through in legal docs for things that we know > some neighbors don?t want feels like their goal is just shutting the whole > project down, rather than finding a solution to making it work for all. So > we contemplate solutions for after the build - shared cars and carpooling, > volunteer pool for crossing guard and street monitoring at school traffic > times, off-site parking away from Oakleigh, and on and on. No one wants to > talk about those things now, but perhaps those conversations and shared > ideas can grow into something that feels beneficial to everyone. > > > Lynn > > > >
- Re: Eugene Cohousing (Lynn Dixon) T G, August 6 2018
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.