Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Allowing "block" creates vetoes

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 21 Oct 2011, at 7:16 AM, Brian Tremback wrote:

> I wonder if the basis of a valid block would not be better conceived as
> "detrimental to the community" rather than "negatively affect a member's
> ability to participate". 

The problem with "detrimental to the community" or in the "communities best 
interests" is that  unless the community has a clear and comprehensive aim 
statement, it becomes a definition defined by the majority. What is detrimental 
to the community or in the community's best interest is in the eye of the 
beholder.

The tension points in our community are not wanting to spend money on anything 
that is not required to keep the buildings functioning, and wanting to paint 
the walls and buy new furniture because the look of the CH is just as important 
as the heating system. We have to spend money on both.

Reserves are for emergencies and big things; they are not savings accounts 
intended to be used on a regular basis for the items included in them.

This is a child-friendly community, not a child focused community, and it is 
not friendly to have any events at which children are not welcome.

We've never worked out those opposing aims. And no one seems to have energy for 
it.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
"Nothing exists without order. Nothing comes into existence without chaos." 
Albert Einstein