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

[Elizabeth Stevenson (tamgoddess]

We are probably not as far apart on this issue as you think, but you won't
engage in meaningful dialogue about it.

Many foolish decisions have been avoided because someone in our community
who is "hypersensitive" had the guts to speak up about something we were
about to do which would have been bad for the community. I am thankful for
these people and for the fact that I live in a community where they feel
unafraid to speak their minds without being insulted or condescended to.

-- 
Liz Stevenson
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento, California
tamgoddess [at] comcast.net
> From: Sue Pniewski <SPniewski [at] Habijax.com>
> Reply-To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:08:15 -0400
> To: "'cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org'" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> Subject: RE: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community
> property?
> 
> 
> Joe- 
> I think your system seems very fair, and to put my viewpoint in perspective
> for Elizabeth's sake, what we are discussing is not random gifts of swimming
> pools, but a person or persons gifting something that the community has
> already agreed is desirable.  It is not possible that a community could
> obtain everything they as a group decide is desirable, it isn't generally
> economically feasable.  We are not talking about a person deciding he wants
> red paint on the common house, so he pays and everybody suffers.  THis is
> about things which have already been decided are desirable.  So if it isn't
> in the budget, but everybody wants it, what is the problem?  I'm sorry if I
> fail to understand how that makes the decision making process invalid, since
> it was already DECIDED AS A GROUP that it was desirable.
> Elizabeth, nobody is attacking the idea of group decision making, this is
> post decision making gifting.  But your hyper sensitivity is self evident in
> your tone, and the cop out about hyper sensitive groups like gays is way off
> base, like if everybody doesn't adhere to your strict interpretation of how
> consensus is supposed to work they are gay bashers and feminist haters.
> Hyper sensitive is assuming everybody must adhere to YOUR interpretation of
> a process.  Consensus is about learning together, and working together, and
> growing together, and if some people have more cash to offer, well others
> may have more time to offer, so would you throw in their face the offer to
> spend an extra 5 hours weeding because they might not weed the area YOU want
> weeded?  This is just plain silly.  A gift is a gift.  I can't imagine that
> if our community decided that we really wanted a computer, and Apple just
> called and decided they would give us one, but it would be an iMac, and we
> decided on a Dell, we should say no way, because Apple was getting to make
> the decision on what kind of computer we used by their greater economic
> power?  Worse, if one of our members engineered the gift because they like
> the iMac, shoud we reject it because he, the holder of powerful friends and
> beneficiaries, got to override the decision making process?  Or should we
> accept the gift with grace and dignity, say thank you, and then decide if
> WE, as a group, want to spend the money to buy the Dell we had decided on,
> or just live with the freebie.
> I suspect that is group interaction that flexes with the varying situations.
> Of course, from now on when anybody in your community wants to give
> something to the community, and you don't want to take it because it's
> circumventing your process, you can just send them our way because all gifts
> are gratefully accepted with prolific thanks and well wishes.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> Susan Pniewski, Esq.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Nolan [mailto:jnolan [at] adobe.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:30 PM
> To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of
> community property?
> 
> 
> 
> Elizabeth Stevenson wrote:
> 
>> 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?
>> 
> I'm just putting out what seems to work well for us (a system that has
> evolved over 7 years) - YMMV.
> 
> If someone kicks in an extra $40 because they really want those cherry
> trees, then I personally don't experience that as unfair. For me it's a
> wonderful example of a "gift economy". If they were doing something
> objectionable with the money, the proposal would have been rejected. I
> guess it comes down to how you see your neighbors - loving benefactors
> or self-serving capitalists.
> 
>> Why is this necessary? If your process is working, the community should be
>> getting things paid for that need paying for,
>> 
> I don't know if it's necessary, but we have found it desirable and
> efficient. Part of the issue, I think, is that the system saves us from
> having many hours of discussion trying to prioritize relatively trivial
> projects - everyone allocating their portion in parallel makes for a
> very speedy process. You could use the same system & get this benefit,
> but disallow the extra contributions if you wanted.
> 
> (If you really want an egalitarian community, you need to equalize
> incomes, not just spending, yes?)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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