Re: Affordability?
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

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.