Cohousing-L Mailing List: Umbrella group (WAS dues and an experimental structure)

[Becky Weaver (becky_weaver]

I like George's breakdown of when an umbrella group makes sense. I think
Austin umbrella group is working well because there is a clear division
of focus between the umbrella group and groups trying to build actual
communities. 

In my brief experience, having an umbrella group (whose function is to
promote cohousing and help groups share knowledge, NOT to decide on a
project and build it) is helpful for two main reasons:

1) When Central Austin Cohousing formed, we spent the first six months
trying to create a sense of direction. This turned off a lot of people
who would have been valuable members of a focused and functional
organization. And I am sure it happened because there were no other
cohousing groups in Austin at the time; so while the group formed,
theoretically, around a very specific location with very definite
characteristics, 2/3 of the people who came to the initial meetings were
actually interested in something quite different. Since there was no
other networking venue, a (very polite and low-key) power struggle
ensued, where different people wanted to take "the group" (a nebulous
creature) in widely different directions. This whole six-month muddle
would not have happened had there been a clear way to spin off these
other ideas, instead of "rejecting" them. 

So one way CACTUS (the umbrella group) functions is as a networking
venue - people contact us with their ideas, and we either match them up
with groups already working on a substantially similar project, or help
them create a new project based on their vision. I used to hate getting
calls from lovely, enthusiastic people who wanted to build straw-bale
cohousing in the country ... I would have to say, "great idea, we're not
for you. Good luck." Now I can say, "great idea, call so-and-so." This
started happening informally before CACTUS, but the umbrella group's
made communication much easier. Every month I get an update on what
other folks are doing around the region.  

2) When Central Austin Cohousing was the only game in town, we spread
the word about cohousing by spreading the word about our group. Which
makes sense, but we got the attention of a lot of people who were
enthusiastic but not aligned with our vision (see #1). We also got the
attention of development professionals, several years before we were in
any position to look like we knew what we were doing. This has, in
retrospect, damaged our credibility. More than once I've heard people
say, "Oh, you guys. Didn't you split up?" Somewhat like a celebrity
being told, "I thought you were dead." CACTUS, on the other hand, can
spread the word about cohousing as an idea,  to potential cohousers,
development professionals, the media, and local government. Since its
function is NOT to build a particular development, its failure to do so
doesn't make it look bad. Groups can develop at their own pace, (sharing
information so each group's learning curve is shorter than the one
before), out of media attention which can, at certain stages, do as much
harm as good. 

My suspicion is that areas with lots of successful cohousing that do NOT
have umbrella groups, frequently have cohousing professionals who
perform some of the functions CACTUS aims to perform - directing media
attention, looking credible, helping information flow. 

Becky Weaver
CACTUS (where we're holding our first open house - four cohousing groups
represented - this afternoon)
Central Austin Cohousing (looking for land)
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l