Re: FIRST POST Opinion on "Not-rule" #7
From: Naomi Anderegg (naomi_andereggyahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Hm . . . I don't smoke, but don't think that I would ever think about banning 
it 
completely, but I also don't want to have people smoking, say, at the table 
while I'm trying to eat. So, maybe rule 7 should contain something about 
mutually agreed upon rules, or a flexible rule-system that members can come to 
by means of consensus and that might change over time depending on the how 
group 
changes. Your one smoker would be a hold out on an all-out smoking ban, but 
likely to be willing to compromise by not smoking in group spaces and around 
children. In that case, there's still a rule, or regulation, in place.

In another way, I'm not up all night, and I don't have a problem with you 
staying up all nght, but I do have a problem you staying up all night and 
waking 
me up by being loud in the middle of the night. I'm pretty sure that a group of 
reasonable people who want to come to a consensus about something could come to 
a consensus about guidelines for noise at night, or smoking, or whatever comes 
up. But, you do need to be able to come up with solutions for problems as they 
arise, other than just pretending they aren't there or confronting them on a 
one-on-one basis. Because if you have problem-people (who are wonderful people 
in other respects) that say, sit down with a group of kids while smoking, or 
wake up their neighbors in the middle of the night, then you'll end up losing 
kids and their parents and neighbors who don't want to be awoken in the night, 
and not the problem-people. Or, instead, you might just end up with neighbors 
who resent one another. Still, this is much less than ideal. 


Just my 2 cents. :)

Naomi


________________________________
From: Wayne Tyson <landrest [at] cox.net>
To: lcamundsen [at] shaw.ca; Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Thu, September 2, 2010 12:15:45 AM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST  Questions and sort of statement


Camilla and Honorable Forum:

Yes, these comments are likewise very valuable. I quite agree that 
"leadership" should shift amongst the group. Still, I wonder if there needs 
to be some initial stimulus for the group to mull over, and, as is happening 
here, become a living "document" with a life of its own. Synergy?

My own thinking about rules, say, smoking, is that smokers will bend over 
backwards to avoid offense, and that the community at least has the option 
to become a support in helping the addicted individual get well. One of our 
potential group is addicted to tobacco (nicotine, actually, courtesy the 
tobacco manufacturers and their "formulation" of their increasingly 
addictive product). I, for one, have passed through the prohibition stage, 
realizing that nicotine addiction is really not the addict's "fault," but 
that of the pusher, in this case of a "legal" yet criminal (in human terms) 
enterprise. Neither do we need to be enablers, but this particular addict 
has much, much to contribute to the community. Hence item 7.

However, please do not interpret these remarks as justification for the list 
of items; we continue to welcome continued discussion of the relative merits 
of all kinds of ideas in our attempt to put together yet another 
alternative. Power, we hope, will not be an issue, nor should egocentrism in 
any form. That's the central characteristic of the coercive culture that 
drives us into a kind of gentle exile, to some form of mutualism as free as 
possible from coercive law and toward a more social/cooperative mode of 
living.

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <lcamundsen [at] shaw.ca>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement


>
> Hi all,
> Wording of first principles is tricky to say the least. The fact is we are
> governed by whatever rules are in place wherever the project is created.
> That being said, our cohousing group is one that prefers to avoid formal
> rules wherever possible. The "wording" issue always must be given time and
> energy and sometimes it is just too much.We choose to have one simple set 
> of
> bylaws as required by our provincial law.These would cost money in legal
> fees to change.Then we have guidelines regarding other stuff that can be 
> and
> has changed by community consent. Policy on smoking  is an example.Then we
> have some understandings that are pretty flexible and change according to 
> on
> going consultation. One example of this is use of common areas for 
> scheduled
> individual projects, such as a meditation class.
> I think this structure is fairly common among cohousing groups.
> Ideas have to start somewhere with someone so it seems, Wayne, you are it.
> We had a similar beginning . It did not last long because that person
> realized early on that the enterprise needed a group to bring it to 
> reality.
> At that point the one has to give over power to the whole group to work
> through the process of getting started. It is important to have clear
> structures to ensure equity and fairness . There are good getting started
> guides that will help to set up such structures free on line available
> through the coho network.
> Keep on keeping on!
> Camilla
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "James Kacki" <jimkacki [at] mts.net>
> To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement
>
>
>>
>> Hi WT,
>> All the seven principles are obviously based on a lot of thought and
>> a commitment to doing the right thing for the planet and  for your
>> community.  However, honestly,  the tone of the way the 'principles'
>> are worded makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  The tone
>> seems dogmatic in the extreme.   I can imagine the person who wrote
>> those words getting really angry about anyone in the community who
>> deviated in their lifestyle or actions from the writers intentions.
>> I personally would stay far away from a community that had such a
>> dogmatic set of principles, worded that way.  Each one of us is
>> different and 'community' is by its nature made up of people with
>> different attitudes and ideas.  Of course, there has to be some
>> common bond or understanding by all the individuals in order to make
>> the community thrive, but my advice would be to keep your intent, but
>> relax a little in the framing of the  statement of principles.
>> Just one persons opinion.  I'd be interested to hear what others think.
>> James
>>
>> On 1-Sep-10, at 1:16 PM, Gerald Manata wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A lot of this stuff sounds good, but I  question number 7. Are you
>>> talking about
>>> anarchy here? How can that work? You are building what will be a legal
>>> condominium. You will be legally required to have a huge amount of
>>> rules in your
>>> CC&R's.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Wayne Tyson <landrest [at] cox.net>
>>> To: Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org
>>> Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 4:08:38 PM
>>> Subject: [C-L]_ FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement
>>>
>>>
>>> Honorable Forum:
>>>
>>> I am and long have been interested in the subject of co-housing and
>>> related
>>> matters, and have read "all" the informational material I could
>>> "find."
>>>
>>>
>>> I am especially interested in building upon the ideas and
>>> experience of others,
>>> and will always welcome all kinds of responses to my questions and
>>> ideas.
>>>
>>>
>>> At present, I am investigating the possibility of developing a
>>> variation on the
>>> themes I have investigated, both theoretically and actually. We
>>> plan to
>>> investigate Oregon for possible sites in early September, 2010. We
>>> expect our
>>> "project" to be rural, but near towns and cities; we expect that it
>>> will take
>>> years, if not generations, for the transistional process to occur.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would appreciate any tips regarding legal procedures (zoning,
>>> changes,
>>> building codes, requirements for establishing a town) and obstacles
>>> (how to
>>> overcome them or the feasibility of overcoming them).
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a brief description of the something of the sort of
>>> alternative
>>> community we are exploring.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Facilitating trends toward reconciling the needs and works of
>>> humankind with
>>> those of the earth and its life.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Diversity and integration of skills, personalities and lives.
>>>
>>> 3. Concept of "frugal luxury" and adequacy in all aspects of
>>> fulfilling life
>>> potential--an alternative to both poverty and greed.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. Trends away from egocentrism as a presumed normal function of
>>> cooperation
>>> rather than intentional displacement-competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. Leaving the land and its life alone as much as possible,
>>> integrating with
>>> nature, in the sense of staying within the energy/nutrient cycle as
>>> much as
>>> possible, but without pressure for rapid change--gradual transitional
>>> transformation, but complete tolerance of all versions and degrees
>>> and rates of
>>> such a process without active peer pressure or other coercion.
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Innovative, original, efficient ways of providing sustenance and
>>> comfort such
>>> as through highly functional, economical architecture rather than
>>> aesthetic
>>> style.
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. No rules, and no rules about no rules. Deception and other
>>> manipulation
>>> simply will not work because of the nature of the citizens.
>>> Dominance is not
>>> concentrated, but shifts according to context.
>>>
>>>
>>> These are thoughts quite open for discussion, and we welcome other
>>> thoughts and
>>> discussion on the implied specifics. Each of these "topics"
>>> probably have an
>>> infinite number of subsets, and we welcome all kinds of comments
>>> and suggestions
>>> as we cycle through our learning/understanding process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your responses and for allowing me to participate.
>>> Specific
>>> suggestions about modifications to this brief list are especially
>>> welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> WT
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3106 - Release Date: 09/01/10 
06:34:00

_________________________________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/


      

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.