Re: COHOUSING-L digest 447
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.