Cohousing-L Mailing List: Self-Selection vs Objective criteria for selling a lot to build in a cohousing community

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Jan 1, 2022, at 8:33 PM, Martie Weatherly <mhweatherly [at] earthlink.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> Our cohousing community has a lot to sell and a builder who will contract 
> with the buyer to build a house. We have two families interested in doing so.
>  
> How does the development partnership that owns the land provide objective 
> criteria to choose which family will build without being open to a charge of 
> discrimination?


When we had to elect our first board, some of us had been involved heavily and 
knew each other before joining cohousing and others had much recently become 
involved and knew no one. Not everyone was even moved in at that point.

With a total lack of ideas on how to choose a secretary, the nominating team 
called a meeting of all the interested parties to decide what to do. There were 
4 people on the nominating team and several people who had nominated 
individuals, individuals who had volunteered themselves, and those nominated. 
We discussed What does a secretary do? Since the Board doesn’t rule the 
community, does it matter? What are the tasks and expectations that we think 
are important? Who enjoys doing what? etc.  It was a very informative and 
positive meeting. 

Over the course of the discussion, it became clear what the best choice was. 
Some withdrew realizing they didn’t want to do those tasks and others spoke in 
favor of one candidate or the other for stated reasons. Or spoke in favor of 
several for different reasons. 

Obviously things that turn out well are good memories. But if there had been 
competitive feelings when we walked into the room, the tone was such that those 
feelings went away. It felt like whatever happened in designating a secretary 
that we all understood more clearly what we expected from governing ourselves. 
And more importantly had just had the kind of decision-making discussion that 
we expected to continue.

In early cohousing, I very much liked the ethos of people themselves deciding 
if they would join the group. The group did not approve people. It didn’t 
select. The process itself actually does much of the selecting. If everyone is 
engaged with the development process, doing the work, and participating in 
decision-making, it becomes evident to people whether this is for them or not. 
They  can self-eliminate or decide to join later or whatever.

When units are offered for sale often have bidding wars. In one of the first 
sales, a selling member had to choose between 3-4 buyers. Rather than have a 
bidding war, the member sold the unit for less than other buyers would have 
offered because one buyer represented diversity in nationality, skin-color, 
position in society, education level, income level, etc. It was a good lefty 
liberal decision that promised to be a good example for others who might sell 
their units. 

That chosen buyer, however, became one of the least involved households in the 
community and when occasionally involved was totally self-centered with little 
interest in even discussing the concerns of others. No participation in 
governance at all. Interaction only when it involved getting something — the tv 
room (everyday at the same time), “borrowing” CH furniture, relatives using the 
CH kitchen to cook large meals (we knew not what for), etc.

It wasn’t a horrible experience by any means. It just wasn’t the community 
building choice we assumed it would be.

A question about your choice of two households: How much do you know about 
either? How much could you know? People change when they move into cohousing — 
how much do they know about themselves in this context? 

Are there any objective criteria that assure that a household will be an 
engaged member of the community? If you find some, who is qualified to measure 
them.

If you choose one household and that household doesn’t follow through, what 
will become of the other? How will you feel about yourselves?

I don’t know what would happen if both households and a number of other 
households got together to discuss what building and belonging might mean, but 
it seems to be very much worth a try. Yes, it brings up fears of bad things 
being said, but that can happen no matter what you decide. And the possibility 
of engaging in a growth experience only comes with engagement. The engagement 
needs to be on real issues and concerns and interests. People are pretty good 
at self-monitoring in these situations. 

Having everyone discuss this together provides a good opportunity to put all 
the available information in front of everyone and to facilitate the best 
decision that can be made at that moment. Which is pretty much the gold 
standard. Otherwise you and the households will be making decisions based on 
partial information.

Sharon
——— 
Sharon Villines, Editor & Publisher
Affordable Housing means 30% of household income
Cohousing means self-developed, self-governed, self-managed
http://affordablecohousing.com