Cohousing-L Mailing List: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community property?

[Racheli Gai (racheli]

Hi Sue,
Regardless of where I stand on the issue, I'd like to note that your post
below contains a number of derogatory terms.  
I think it would be much more useful (as well as effective) to avoid such
terms as "hyper sensitivity"; "selfish pride" and the like. Thanks,
R.


>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.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com (Racheli Gai)
-----------------------------------------------------------


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