Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Eugene Cohousing

[Lynn Dixon (ld61069]

in response to :
T G triciamill9 [at] gmail.com via
<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en> cohousing.org
Aug 1 (3 days ago)
to cohousing-l
Katie,
Maybe you could explain some of the things that the Eugene cohousing group
did to try and work with the neighbors, types of compromise that were
offered that they were unwilling to accept? This could be beneficial to
other groups facing this type of opposition. Maybe others could talk about
things they did to address the concerns of the existing neighbors when they
built their co housing communities.

I do think it is important that groups moving into an already established
neighborhood need to respect the concerns of the established neighbors. It
is a bit self centered to not think you will need to work together with
people that will be your future neighbors, people you will see on a daily
basis. Ideally it would be great to be in a situation where they can become
a part of your community.

TG,


Before there was any opposition, we made decisions with neighbors in mind
regarding backyards facing the lane needing to be "front yard" &
neighborly, landscape screening, etc. After there was opposition, we had
two meetings:  one "mediated" dialogue, which quickly moved away from
dialogue and into name-calling and threats without mediator intervention;
and what was supposed to be a "fish-bowl" conversation, which got set-up as
a panel instead, that again became a session of blame and threats, rather
than a modeled conversation (the purpose of a "fish-bowl"). After those
attempts, we met with local multi-family builders/architects to explore
making it smaller without pricing out members, and were told (again) that
it wasn't possible. After that, conversations with neighbors who opposed
the project happened one-on-one, with a variety of different outcomes.


One of the concerns in our situation was that there is no emergency vehicle
turn-around on the street and we have provided that which is beneficial to
those living on the street now. + for everyone.

The issue around widening of the street is a conundrum. Most people on the
street currently do not want to give up front yard to widening of the
street and/or sidewalks. When that topic has come up in the legal process,
I am caught between wanting that to happen so those who feel that would
make it safer would be pleased, and not wanting it to happen because those
who want to retain their yards and see no need for curbs would be pleased;
and also knowing that once a road is widened and with sidewalks, drivers
tend to be less mindful of potential dangers than when it is a more narrow
road. Conundrum.


Honestly, there is no way to win here. Members of OMC are in no way people
who have no care for others, and “refuse to negotiate”. Conversations we
have had with individuals or groups throughout this process have made it
very clear that there is not complete agreement about solutions that would
be acceptable to those in opposition. Agreeing to one thing for one person,
makes another upset. So there is always a moving target for a definition of
what’s reasonable. And it does feel like hypocrisy- we do training in NVC
and we strive in building and sustaining relationships in community, and
yet we are stuck when it comes to the very neighbors who will live closest
by. Watching arguments come through in legal docs for things that we know
some neighbors don’t want feels like their goal is just shutting the whole
project down, rather than finding a solution to making it work for all. So
we contemplate solutions for after the build - shared cars and carpooling,
volunteer pool for crossing guard and street monitoring at school traffic
times, off-site parking away from Oakleigh, and on and on. No one wants to
talk about those things now, but perhaps those conversations and shared
ideas can grow into something that feels beneficial to everyone.


Lynn


On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:45 PM, T G <triciamill9 [at] gmail.com> wrote:

> Katie,
> Maybe you could explain some of the things that the Eugene cohousing group
> did to try and work with the neighbors, types of compromise that were
> offered that they were unwilling to accept? This could be beneficial to
> other groups facing this type of opposition. Maybe others could talk about
> things they did to address the concerns of the existing neighbors when they
> built their co housing communities.
>
> I do think it is important that groups moving into an already established
> neighborhood need to respect the concerns of the established neighbors. It
> is a bit self centered to not think you will need to work together with
> people that will be your future neighbors, people you will see on a daily
> basis. Ideally it would be great to be in a situation where they can become
> a part of your community.
>
>
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:52:21 +0000
> > From: Kathryn McCamant <kmccamant [at] cohousing-solutions.com>
> > To: "cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org" <cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org>
> > Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Eugene Cohousing
> > Message-ID:
> >         <A01851C7-E3C9-49ED-962E-EA61CC6E12CA [at] cohousing-solutions.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > I would not be so quick to jump to conclusions.
> >
> > It is hard to compromise with people who are unwilling to compromise and
> > see reason. The project fit within the existing zoning and density for
> the
> > property. Fewer homes would have significantly raised the prices and
> priced
> > most of the community members out.  The fact that Oakleigh Meadow
> Cohousing
> > has won these repeated appeals, and that the City has repeatedly
> > re-approved the project should tell you something about the nature of the
> > opposition.   While the delay has been hard for the community, it was
> still
> > the least expensive option for them.  Once it's built, I have no doubt
> that
> > the community will be a great asset to the neighborhood.
> >
> > This type of useless neighborhood opposition, and the American resistance
> > to any reasonable density (afterall, we are just talking 2-story
> townhomes
> > with plenty of room for gardens) within established cities is only adds
> to
> > keeping housing prices high and cities car dependent.
> >
> > I hope the larger cohousing community will support those communities that
> > run into unreasonable neighbors..... unfortunately, this kind of
> > unreasonable fear has killed or lessened many a good project.
> >
> > Katie
> > --
> > Kathryn McCamant, President
> > CoHousing Solutions
> > Nevada City, CA 95959
> > www.cohousing-solutions.com
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://l.cohousing.org/info
>
>
>
>