RE: Diversity, what diversity?
From: Rob Sandelin (Exchange) (
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:12:56 -0500
I find this whole thing very amusing for some reason.  I met some folks
from a mennonite church who bought a retirement complex, and are
remodelling into what they call cohousing. It will have a commonhouse
room, and they will share a garden and some other common elements, hold
individual titles, etc.  However, their little development is ONLY open
to members of their specific church.  The commonhouse will also serve as
a place of religous study.  

When I mentioned the word religous, in the same paragraph as cohousing
some folks go ballistic.  This is amusing to me too.  I also get great
amusement from folks who are currently living in a cohousing development
who claim loudly that "we aint no intentional community, were cohousers,
as if cohousing was somehow unique or separate.

As time goes on, the models of how we live together will increase. Some
folks will choose their neighbors based on whatever criteria they find
important.  I have done some consulting work with a group of women who
want to create a lesbian cohousing group....No men, not even boys,
allowed.  I also had a conversation with a very wealthy white male who
was interested in a republican country club sort of cohousing. 

So, maybe someday, cohousing will come in more flavors than ice cream.
I for one think that's great.


Original Message-----
Sent:           Tuesday, July 02, 1996 2:53 PM
Subject:        Re: Diversity, what diversity?
At 04:15 PM 7/2/96 -0500, Tony G. Rocco wrote:
>Greetings, cohousers:
>I just wanted to relay an interesting experience I had 
>last night talking to the hopeful founder of a new 
>cohousing community in San Francisco.
>Here are some of the conditions being considered for 
>the cohousing community:
>* A committment to not having any children, ever.
> first thought is, "here's an organization that won't outlive
founders".  The second is perhaps a little less than complimentary, and
to do with removing certain traits from the gene pool.

It "ain't my thang", and I'm not sure I have a whole helluva lot in
with people who are intolerantly "fundamentalist anything".  Usually
haven't thought through *all* the consequences of their core premises,
one level or another.  So I'll vote with my feet, and in spite of the
it's in my area, not involve myself with them.

One thing positive I have to say for them is that they're honest about
agendas.  I don't agree with them, but I admire their honesty.

I say let the market decide.  If they can find enough militant,
vegans with sufficient capital to buy housing in San Francisco, let 'em.
Personally, I think they're taking "market segmentation" a bit too far
to be

Just my $0.02, as always.

Loren Davidson
loren [at]
The First Amendment went too far.  It should have said, "Congress shall 
make no law".

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.