Re: COHOUSING-L digest 447 | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Bob Morrison (bomorriscisco.com) | |
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:02:16 -0600 (MDT) |
cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org wrote: > COHOUSING-L Digest 447 > > Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) Re: Cohousing/Guest Ranch > by Berrins [at] aol.com > 2) Re: Intentional Community Types > by MMM100fold [at] aol.com > 3) Re: Intentional Community Types > by Sharon Villines <sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net> > 4) Re: Cohousing/Guest Ranch > by MMM100fold [at] aol.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:36:10 EDT > From: Berrins [at] aol.com > To: cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org > Subject: Re: Cohousing/Guest Ranch > Message-ID: <f3.141f549.26b24b9a [at] aol.com> > > No, I don't know any cohousing group who has operated any kind of > retreat/ranch on their site. Nor do I know of any cohousing community that > has operated any kind of large-scale business on or off site as an integrated > part of the community. > > I think that a community owned and run business could work, but it would have > to be clear that there is absolutely no pressure for anyone in the community > to work at the business and the proceeds would have to go to the community > (people working at the business could be paid money or get work team > credits). [I interpret this to mean that it would not be OK for one member or > a > small sub-group of members to get the profits. I agree, all profits should go > into the community treasury. If the business must not have a profit on paper, > to > avoid the community losing its non-profit status, there must be safeguards in > place to prevent a privileged few from pocketing the profits.] But if the > business decisions are made the same as any other community decision, and if > the > success or failure of the business does not > have any impact on the viability of the community as a whole or independence > of those members not wishing to participate, then why not give it a shot? > [I agree. This raises another issue. The business must be sufficiently > separate > legally from the community that if the business fails, it doesn't imperil the > community's financial health.] > We need to be careful about confining the definition of what constitutes > cohousing. Cohousing is quickly becoming the most visible kind of > intentional community and the term "cohousing community" will be the most > likely one used to attract members to a project. As the number of > communities grows, we need to be open to ever-increasing variations in style. > If we define ourselves too narrowly, we run the risk of turning away some > really interesting people and ideas to intentional community living. [I > agree. I > can think of several variants that can properly be called cohousing, one of > which > is cohousing with a conf center or guest ranch on site.] > > Of course, having a cohousing group running a business gives new meaning to > the term "business community." Oy! > > Roger Berman > Pathways Cohousing > Northampton, MA > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:30:06 EDT > From: MMM100fold [at] aol.com > To: sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net, cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org > Subject: Re: Intentional Community Types > Message-ID: <be.7340795.26b2583e [at] aol.com> > > In a message dated 7/27/00 2:17:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net writes: > > << The R**** (a great Jewish > dynasty I forget the name -- brain sludge) even married within the family. >> > > Rothschild perhaps? > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:46:39 -0400 > From: Sharon Villines <sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net> > To: Multiple recipients of list <cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org> > Subject: Re: Intentional Community Types > Message-ID: <B5A67A5E.61CD%sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net> > > on 7/27/00 10:26 PM, MMM100fold [at] aol.com at MMM100fold [at] aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/27/00 2:17:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net writes: > > > > << The R**** (a great Jewish > > dynasty I forget the name -- brain sludge) even married within the family. > > >> > > > > Rothschild perhaps? > > This is the one. The Rothschild family. [Interesting. I didn't realize what a > close-knit dynasty they were.] > > Sharon. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:47:29 EDT > From: MMM100fold [at] aol.com > To: floriferous [at] msn.com, cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org > Subject: Re: Cohousing/Guest Ranch > Message-ID: <d3.7b8a35f.26b25c51 [at] aol.com> > > In a message dated 7/27/00 1:53:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > floriferous [at] msn.com writes: > > << Operating a community business does indeed change your realtionships so > that > you rely on each other a great deal more, and might even, Gasp!, share > income! This notion is perhaps unsettling to the image of cohousing as a > respectable, middle-class endeavor? >> > > Has anyone ever heard the term employee stock ownership. United Airlines > for instance, this business is owned by the employees. [Is this a true ESOP? I > heard that a large part of the company was owned by the union. Most airlines > have > several unions. Are all union and non-union workers part of this ESOP?] So > they > are "sharing > income" because they collectively own the business in which they work. Just > don't happen to live together, except when they share hotel rooms during > overnights and hang out in staff lounges at airports. > [Interesting comparison, but I don't consider this income sharing. In fact, > this > would be a good model for an on-site business, especially if they want to > allow > outsiders to invest in a small percentage of the company.] > I object to ideologues, those who want to "fix" any phenomena, not with the > intention of understanding and elucidating but for purposes of exclusion and > orthodoxy. We shouldn't fail to recognize that while experience is > transferable, every community's circumstances are unique and original. > > Mark Knight > Hundredfold Farm > Gettysburg, PA > ------------------------------ > > End of COHOUSING-L Digest 447 > *****************************
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.