Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: M.Studer (mstudersssnet.com) | |
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:13:07 -0600 (MDT) |
Can you please clarify? : Is there an assumption here that if I (me, as an individual) have X amount of dollars free (over and above what my set "obligation" to the community is) that I would be willing to use to buy a hot tub for the community, and the community has decided that an arbor is more important - then I will graciously give my hard-earned money (remember this is money I have to spend at-will out of my personal household - not my dues or whatever that I have already paid into the general fund) to the General fund instead of spending it on myself for a trip to tahiti if I can't get the hot tub? Is this an accurate assesment of the thought process? Thanks. Michelle Studer Canal Fulton, OH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elizabeth Stevenson" <tamgoddess [at] comcast.net> To: <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community > > > > I understand what you are saying, but I guess what I don't understand is: > > The things in your hypothetical story: > > > >> What I would object to is that other projects would be left undone. If, for > >> instance, everyone also wanted an arbor for shade, but there was nobody > >> willing to pay for it out of pocket, and the three poorest families really > >> wanted it, it would still not get done. Those three families did not get > >> what was really important to them, because the group never prioritized it, > >> and they don't have the resources to gift it to the community. > > > > What I don't understand is that if nobody donated things, the poorer people > > still wouldn't get their arbor. > > Why not? If people put their money into the general fund as a gift, the > arbor might actually get built, if it were higher on the priorities list. > > >So what's the difference? Either way they > > don't get the arbor, but at least they get a hot tub. > > Something for which I'm sure they would be grateful. But as the French will > tell you, nobody wants to be grateful forever. Making decisions about what > is important for the group to have builds community. Making decisions based > on who can afford to pay builds resentment. > > >Something is better > > than nothing, but I guess the neighbors who were going to gift the hot tub > > could just put it in their backyard instead, thereby making everybody > > beholden to them every time they came over to "borrow" it. We have gifting > > all the time in my community, which is more closely knit than cohousing per > > se, and everybody recognises that a gift is a gesture, it doesn't give > > anybody more power or less compassion, we all understand that I might be > > afford to buy the big screen TV, but I sure don't have time to mow the lawn > > an extra time. My gift is no more valuable just becasue some corporation > > has attached a price tag, than the gift of another member of homemade dolls > > for the children, who spent 20 hours working on her beautiful creation. > > (which, BTW, were immensely popular for a while with some members, but > > others enjoyed more the TV) > > In my mind the giving of a gift shows caring and love for the receivers, and > > the acceptance of said gift both honors and responds with love to the > > givers. > > Gosh, I can hardly argue against something so incredibly warm and fuzzy, now > can I? This certainly is a different tactic, however I find myself not > distracted by it. I have not been talking about homemade dolls (although > accepting a big screen TV would certainly be something my community would > talk about beforehand, and has), and I've taken pains to state that at least > twice. > > -- > Liz Stevenson > Southside Park Cohousing > Sacramento, California > tamgoddess [at] comcast.net > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Berrins, September 25 2003
-
RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community Sue Pniewski, September 25 2003
-
Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community Elizabeth Stevenson, September 25 2003
- Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community M.Studer, September 25 2003
- Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community Elizabeth Stevenson, September 25 2003
- Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community Racheli Gai, September 25 2003
-
Re: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community Elizabeth Stevenson, September 25 2003
-
RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community Sue Pniewski, September 25 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.