RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Sue Pniewski (SPniewski![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:59:06 -0600 (MDT) |
Elizabeth- Why would any community with any common sense throw a gift into a willing giver's face? This isn't laziness, this is common sense. No community is going to be able to fund 100% of the projects they have a desire for. But if it's something that the community decided was on the want list, and some person or family is willing to foot the bill, what's the problem??? This seems like a hypersensitivity to income to the extreme. If you want to encourage income diversity in a community, then you should be prepared to encourage the diversity. If it manifests in the form of a gift to the community, how could a GIFT be a bad thing, especially if it's something the community had wanted anyway? Or is it better just to sit around an bemoan the lack of amenities so we can suffer in our dignified poverty. There is nothing dignified about selfish pride being given a higher priority than community good. With that mindset, nobody should be able to donate a new library wing to the local college and get their name on it, just because it makes them happy, when the college needs new chairs in the lunchroom more. Shooting yourself in the foot just doesn't make sense. ------------------------------------- Susan Pniewski, Esq. -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Stevenson [mailto:tamgoddess [at] comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:48 PM To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org Subject: Re: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? I'm sorry, but I still don't see how allowing people to contribute what they want to specific projects is fair. Those with more money have more say. Period. Doesn't this bother anyone else? Why is this necessary? If your process is working, the community should be getting things paid for that need paying for, and anything that is not a priority for the whole community shouldn't be paid for. To me, this just seems like a lazy way to avoid having to do the work of living in community. -- Liz Stevenson Southside Park Cohousing Sacramento, California tamgoddess [at] comcast.net > From: Joe Nolan <jnolan [at] adobe.com> > Reply-To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org > Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:32:14 -0400 > To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org > Subject: Re: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community > property? > > > > We use a discretionary spending system that seems to work pretty well > for us. The group priorites are determined by a "vote with your dollars" > process. > > The annual budget contains a certain amount for discretionary spending. > A portion of that is reserved for larger projects (over $1K) and the > rest for smaller projects. (If I remember correctly it is currently > budgeted at $4800/yr for small projects, $2400/yr for large projects.) > We have a quarterly discretionary spending meeting (part of that month's > business mtg) to fund the small projects. Individuals submit their > proposals by a specific deadline, and they are approved/rejected by the > group prior to the allocation mtg (almost never is something rejected - > it would have to be detrimental to the community). At the allocation > meeting, each family allocates its portion of the available money (e.g. > $30 for the quarter) to the approved projects, however they see fit. > Fully funded projects go forward. Sometimes partially funded projects > come back multiple times for more donations. Note, some projects may be > approved but never get funded. People are allowed to kick in extra cash > for items they really want, so that one family could in theory > completely fund a given project (rarely happens this way). Households > are also allowed to withdraw their portion of the discretionary funds at > the allocation mtg. > > The big project fund (aka "Cookie Jar") works a little differently - it > just builds up for an indefinite period until someone brings a proposal > to the group for spending some or all of it. > > Joe Nolan > Ecovillage at Ithaca / FROG > <http://www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L
-
RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? Sue Pniewski, September 24 2003
-
Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? Elizabeth Stevenson, September 24 2003
- Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? Joe Nolan, September 24 2003
- Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? Racheli Gai, September 24 2003
- RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? Sue Pniewski, September 24 2003
-
Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property? Elizabeth Stevenson, September 24 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.