RE: private use of commons | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Alexander Robin A (alexande.robiuwlax.edu) | |
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:54:55 -0700 (PDT) |
The one disturbing thing I hear in your post is the "not willing to discuss it" aspect. If that is true (and I have no reason to believe it's not) that is very troubling. We are fortunate at EC that this kind of problem hasn't arisen at least since I've been here. For instance, we have a community garden, but it is maintained by some wonderfully dedicated volunteers. The community pays for plants, seeds, etc. but all get to pick and enjoy. Common facilities are approved and paid for as capital projects by the whole community. Robin Alexander Eno Commons Cohousing alexande.robi [at] uwlax.edu -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Nadeau [mailto:welcome [at] olympus.net] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 10:43 PM To: cohousing L Subject: [C-L]_ private use of commons RoseWind Cohousing, Port Townsend WA. (24 households, built and running for years now). On our 9 acre site, about half the land is in commons, including the common house and its site. There is a large central field, and various "local commons" areas which are among the home sites, ranging from walk-through/view-through areas between homes to pocket-park areas. My vision of commons use has always been that it would always and only be for community projects, equally accessible to all members. A trend is emerging which I find disturbing. Is this "privatization" or simply an efficient way to get more happening on the commons and satisfy various members? What do you think? Example 1: Chickens. A group of about 10 decided they wanted to have chickens here. The community supplied a surplus wooden tool shed for the coop, and a plot of common land on the central commons, where the chicken group built a fenced run around the shed. The chicken club pays for the food and materials, cares for the hens, and gets the eggs and occasional meat. We're all free to "enjoy" the chickens, but they are in effect a private club: to join you need to pay. When they proposed this, last spring, to get the proposal through it was framed as a pilot/demo project, with reevaluation for feasibility as a budgeted community project, this fall prior to budget setting. Now it turns out they really want it to stay a club, and are not willing to discuss it. We were left with either deciding to do away with the chickens (which would have been foolish, as they are starting to lay now and the project is going well) or allow them to continue for another year as is. Nobody wanted 30 dead chickens on their conscience, so it passed. Example 2: Garden. We have a sizeable deer-fenced vegetable garden on the central commons. As an interim way of using it (I thought) we have had individual patches farmed by members for their own use or giveaway decisions. This year, a group of families decided to pool their patches and pay one member for 40 hours a month of farm work, plus they pay a monthly fee, like a CSA, and then get vegetables for that. Some additional families, who didn't have plots, have joined the paid plan. Could the whole community pay the farmer and get the benefits? The farmer is adamant that this could never work and that he wouldn't have anything to do with it. No discussion. Example 3: The most private. A member household, having used all of their 5400 sq ft lot for their house, gardens, storage, etc, is requesting to put up a 10x20 Costco tent-like shelter for a workshop on the commons adjacent to their house. Dad is a carpenter who has wanted a shop here for a long time. Nominally, the shop is for their young-adult son to learn building skills. They say temporary, but speak of 18 months. The family is a mainstay of the community, and everyone wants to be supportive of one of our few 19-year-olds. Presented as a way of showing support for youth here, it's hard to say no. But putting an entirely private, closed off, tarp building on commons feels inappropriate to me. Does everyone now have an equal right to put on commons a greenhouse, bicycle shed, workshop, garage, etc? Would that be good or bad for community? Those who advocate such private and semi-private use of commons see it as logical, efficient, and satisfying. Much quicker and easier than group process: the most extreme advocates of this approach hate all meetings and consider group process burdensome, irksome, and ineffective. Even a single discussion circle and proposal at one meeting. Does satisfying individual needs rank high as building community? To be happy here, I need to do what I want, where I want, when I want? If I can't, you are squashing my spirit, my creativity, and the community will suffer? In what ways have communities let individuals use the commons for private or semi-private projects, and how has it affected your group? Lynn Nadeau, RoseWind Cohousing Port Townsend Washington (Victorian seaport, music, art, nature) http://www.rosewind.org http://www.ptguide.com http://www.ptforpeace.info (very active peace movement here- see our photo) _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
-
private use of commons Lynn Nadeau, October 1 2004
- Re: private use of commons Sharon Villines, October 2 2004
- RE: private use of commons Susan Sweitzer, October 2 2004
- RE: private use of commons Alexander Robin A, October 1 2004
- Re: private use of commons Eris Weaver, October 1 2004
- Re:private use of commons Sandy Thomson, October 2 2004
-
Re: private use of commons Fred H Olson, October 3 2004
- Re: private use of commons Racheli Gai, October 3 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.