Re: Affordability? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Brian Bartholomew (bbstat.ufl.edu) | |
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:29:01 -0700 (PDT) |
Sharon Villines <sharon [at] sharonvillines.com> writes: > What happens at the very end of the process, particularly when you > are doing multi-household buildings built at once, is that push > comes to shove. In all probability you have to cut this in order to > get that because things change. There are unexpected price increases > or that model isn't available any more or it rains for 40 days and > you are way behind on all your contracts and paying for time in > which builders can't build. > > When that something happens, items that are less structural or > affect fewer people will get cut. It may be done by consensus but it > won't feel like consensus. It will feel like majority vote. If you don't mind my asking, in the countertop example, according to the rules you were operating under at the time, did you actually have the option of holding everyone to either provide the other color or go bankrupt attempting to deliver on a contractual promise? Or could this have been formally voted away? How strong is the requirement for consent in consensus? If when push comes to shove consensus decisions are merely political promises, then you're right back to standard politics to protect the vital stuff, like affordable transportation to jobs if you're in a distant location you wouldn't otherwise have chosen. If a builder promises to provide double pane windows and he installs single (a real, local example), you can go after him to hold him to his word. But if a majority-voting coho agrees to provide a van and you count on it, is there any recourse? Unfortunately, the message I'm getting here is that consensus can't be trusted for interior decoration, much less things impacting personal financial survival. Brian
- Re: Affordability?, (continued)
- Re: Affordability? Brian Bartholomew, March 15 2007
- Re: Affordability? Becky Weaver, March 15 2007
-
Re: Affordability? Sharon Villines, March 15 2007
- Message not available
- Re: Affordability? Sharon Villines, March 16 2007
- Re: Affordability? Brian Bartholomew, March 16 2007
- Consensus (was Affordability?) Becky Weaver, March 16 2007
- Re: Consensus (was Affordability?) Becky Weaver, March 16 2007
- Re: Consensus (was Affordability?) Brian Bartholomew, March 16 2007
- Re: Consensus (was Affordability?) Becky Weaver, March 16 2007
- Message not available
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.