Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re:private use of commons

[Sandy Thomson (sandy]

Here at Heartwood Cohousing in rural Colorado we have many of the same group
use of land that you do.  We have chickens raised by a group of 10 or so who
pay for their upkeep and get to keep their eggs,  We have a big garden that
a few maintain and everyone is entitled to pick, except for a small crop of
pumpkins that some of the boys in the neighborhood grew to sell.  We have a
workshop that is available to all except you must be  a member of the guild
(with dues ) to use the more expensive equipment.  This fee covers upkeep
and allows the guild to purchase more machines or tools as they see a need
for.  We have a yurt put up on the land that is primarily for a homeschool
coop. We also have a large irrigated pasture that some people have animals
in.  They pay a fee for this.

I feel all these things greatly enhance the community.  I am part of many of
these projects and there is a lot of community interaction that goes along
with them.  These projects would never get funded if people that don't want
eggs, have animals, or use the workshop had to finance them or do the work
of taking care of the chickens, animals, workshop or the other community
enhancing projects I mentioned.

I agree with the other post about this that the unwillingness to discuss the
issue is more of a problem than what happens on common land.

Sandy  
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 04 10:43:11 +0800
> From: Lynn Nadeau <welcome [at] olympus.net>
> Subject: [C-L]_ private use of commons
> To: "cohousing L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> Message-ID: <20041001174616.6485D3FC081 [at] fry.tigertech.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> 
> RoseWind Cohousing, Port Townsend WA. (24 households, built and running
> for years now). 
> On our 9 acre site, about half the land is in commons, including the
> common house and its site. There is a large central field, and various
> "local commons" areas which are among the home sites, ranging from
> walk-through/view-through areas between homes to pocket-park areas.
> 
> My vision of commons use has always been that it would always and only be
> for community projects, equally accessible to all members. A trend is
> emerging which I find disturbing. Is this "privatization" or simply an
> efficient way to get more happening on the commons and satisfy various
> members? What do you think?
> 
> Example 1: Chickens. A group of about 10 decided they wanted to have
> chickens here. The community supplied a surplus wooden tool shed for the
> coop, and a plot of common land on the central commons, where the chicken
> group built a fenced run around the shed. The chicken club pays for the
> food and materials, cares for the hens, and gets the eggs and occasional
> meat. We're all free to "enjoy" the chickens, but they are in effect a
> private club: to join you need to pay.
> 
> When they proposed this, last spring, to get the proposal through it was
> framed as a pilot/demo project, with reevaluation for feasibility as a
> budgeted community project, this fall prior to budget setting. Now it
> turns out they really want it to stay a club, and are not willing to
> discuss it. We were left with either deciding to do away with the
> chickens (which would have been foolish, as they are starting to lay now
> and the project is going well) or allow them to continue for another year
> as is. Nobody wanted 30 dead chickens on their conscience, so it passed.
> 
> Example 2: Garden. We have a sizeable deer-fenced vegetable garden on the
> central commons. As an interim way of using it (I thought) we have had
> individual patches farmed by members for their own use or giveaway
> decisions. This year, a group of families decided to pool their patches
> and pay one member for 40 hours a month of farm work, plus they pay a
> monthly fee, like a CSA, and then get vegetables for that. Some
> additional families, who didn't have plots, have joined the paid plan.
> Could the whole community pay the farmer and get the benefits? The farmer
> is adamant that this could never work and that he wouldn't have anything
> to do with it. No discussion.
> 
> Example 3: The most private. A member household, having used all of their
> 5400 sq ft lot for their house, gardens, storage, etc, is requesting to
> put up a 10x20 Costco tent-like shelter for a workshop on the commons
> adjacent to their house. Dad is a carpenter who has wanted a shop here
> for a long time. Nominally, the shop is for their young-adult son to
> learn building skills. They say temporary, but speak of 18 months. The
> family is a mainstay of the community, and everyone wants to be
> supportive of one of our few 19-year-olds. Presented as a way of showing
> support for youth here, it's hard to say no. But putting an entirely
> private, closed off, tarp building on commons feels inappropriate to me.
> Does everyone now have an equal right to put on commons a greenhouse,
> bicycle shed, workshop, garage, etc? Would that be good or bad for
> community?
> 
> Those who advocate such private and semi-private use of commons see it as
> logical, efficient, and satisfying. Much quicker and easier than group
> process: the most extreme advocates of this approach hate all meetings
> and consider group process burdensome, irksome, and ineffective. Even a
> single discussion circle and proposal at one meeting.
> 
> Does satisfying individual needs rank high as building community? To be
> happy here, I need to do what I want, where I want, when I want? If I
> can't, you are squashing my spirit, my creativity, and the community will
> suffer? 
> 
> In what ways have communities let individuals use the commons for private
> or semi-private projects, and how has it affected your group?
> 
> Lynn Nadeau, RoseWind Cohousing
> Port Townsend Washington (Victorian seaport, music, art, nature)
> http://www.rosewind.org
> http://www.ptguide.com
> http://www.ptforpeace.info (very active peace movement here- see our
> photo)
> 
>