Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Discrimination (for any reason)

[sbraun (sbraun]

Interesting comments, Racheli, thanks. And the following is all IMO. :)

I think the groups you are using as examples don't actually sell
housing, though I can't be sure. I believe that most growing cohousing
communities do sell housing. It is the sale of housing on a
discriminatory basis that I am objecting to, not the practice of forming
intentional communities--which, by the way, I have no problem with.

I could easily believe that commune (and some intentional community)
members are "married" to each other, but in a cohousing situation I see
it differently, precisely because of the higher value placed on
individual ownership in cohousing communities. Cohousing neighborhoods
are close-knit neighborhoods, and that can take many forms, from really,
really close to basically friendly and tolerant with a variety of
cooperative activities for members to choose from. After move-in these
trends & characteristics have a chance to emerge--and they are all good
options.

But I continue to assert that selling houses to people on any basis
besides ability to afford the house is illegal (except, as somebody has
pointed out during this discussion, in the case of *legal*, and narrowly
defined, communities for older folks [<--thanks for the correction,
btw]). This practice of overtly or covertly denying people access to
housing is wrong and it is wrong for very good reasons. The fact that
the neighborhood is a cohousing neighborhood (as opposed to a suburban
one where the people maybe aren't so enlightened) doesn't excuse the
practice. In fact, we should set a higher standard of acceptance for
ourselves. At the very least we shouldn't bemoan the lack of
"diversity." There's a good reason for not having enough diversity in
cohousing: many cohousers don't really want it. They want to live with
"like-minded people."

I won't even go into the logical consequences of sorting people because
of the values they hold at a certain time in their lives, except to say
that peoples' values change, even in cohousing neighborhoods, and then
where does the community find itself? Expelling the changing member?

Better to concentrate on a single value: the wish to *cooperate* enough
to tolerate parking at the periphery, extensive common facilities,
shared responsibility for running the community, and full participation
in designing the community.

Sheila

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org [mailto:cohousing-l-
> admin [at] cohousing.org] On Behalf Of racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:05 AM
> To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> Subject: RE: [C-L]_Discrimination (for any reason)
> 
> 
> Sheila,
> I looked into it at some point, because there was a woman
> who wanted to join our group who was obviously not fit
> to live on her own.  We wondered whether to not let her
> join could be seen as discrimination.  That's when I found
> out that we need to uphold certain standards because
> of how the project was financed.
> 
> If you look in the intentional communities directory, you'll see that
> there are communities which are just for gay people; some lesbian
> communities, some with a religious base of some kind or another, some
> environmentally oriented, etc.
> Many communities, especially ones which operate by consensus,
hand-pick
> new members (usually after a trial period, but some probably aren't
> accepted to begin with).
> 
> There is a small intentional community in Tucson which I've
> been familiar with since its inception - they never screened
> members, and as a result they never succeeded to establish
> themselves as a stable, healthy place.  (Since they all live in  one
> house, the necessity for compatibility is much stronger).
> 
> There is another community (of sorts) near Tucson where
> only women are allowed (to rent, or build houses), and I know of
others.
> 
> I guess where I differ from you is on the point of whether not wanting
to
> live near "everyone" necessarily consists of discrimination, or
> necessarily indicates that I'm intolerant or prejudiced: I think that
it
> depends, perhaps, on what kind of traits one rejects: If I refuse to
live
> near anyone with a dark skin, then this is obviously objectionable,
> because I'm assuming that all people with dark skin are alike (and are
> alike in an objectionable way) - it means I'm  generalizing and
> "essentializing" (I'm not sure here, I'm kind of trying to find my
way).
> On the other hand, not wanting to live with certain people because
their
> philosophical outlook predisposes them to reject values which are
> essential for me, is that the same?  (example: fundamentalists of
every
> ilk).
> A facilitator who came and worked with us last weekend, said
> that in a sense we are all "married" to each other.  Should I be open
to
> "marrying" anyone? - Is being willing to "marry" certain people and
not
> others entails "Discriminating" in an objectionable sense?
> 
> Still pondering,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >> Sheila,
> >> I think you are quite wrong on the issue of legality:
> >> There are many communities who choose their members
> >> quite carefully.  They can do it because they don't take
> >> loans from banks, and don't use govt. money.
> >>
> >> R.  (who is too tired right now to deal with the rest of the issues
> >> you've brought up).
> >[Sheila]
> 
> >I don't think it is legal for them to do so, even if they don't take
> >loans from banks or government money. Can you back up your assertion
> >(when you're more rested)?
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L