Re: Eugene Cohousing (Lynn Dixon)
From: T G (
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]>
> To: cohousing-l [at]
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Eugene Cohousing
> Message-ID:
>         <CAN1bcJgHUA2oVXyqVzogrCg3QZad_XjU8dBU7KUwnH7bhYUWGQ@mail.
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> in response to :
> T G triciamill9 [at] via
> <>
> 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

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.