RE: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Racheli&John (jnpalmeattglobal.net) | |
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:59:01 -0600 (MDT) |
** Reply to note from "Rowenahc" <rowenahc [at] cs.com> Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:44:44 -0400 >From Racheli The following is the exact description of what happened with us (Sonora Cohousing, Tucson), too: Even though we were an urban infill project, the choice of a specific site caused a few households to drop out. R. > One reason I moved over the CCH was that I wanted to be close to the City > and so did all the others who joined - we built commitment to the City into > our vision statement. It meant that we had to compromise on space and > particular location but at least geography was not a major issue. Even so, > when we finally settled on our small site in a "transitional" neighborhood > we lost some people. I think that is bound to happen when you start the > group without a site. _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- RE: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site, (continued)
- RE: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site Rowenahc, June 9 2001
-
Re: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site Elizabeth Stevenson, June 8 2001
- Re: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site Brian Baresch, June 8 2001
- Re: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site Diane Simpson, June 9 2001
- RE: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site Racheli&John, June 13 2001
- RE: "have kids" "have nots" fighting over site Fred H Olson, June 20 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.