Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Zero Tolerance Policy

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

Think about this differently. A key word here is “triggered”. Think in terms of 
the community. It’s a solution many people resist but do some rounds. Talk to 
each other in a context of equal listening.

Let everyone hear how the actions are affecting everyone else. Some people will 
be upset by the idea of a Zero Tolerance policy. Some will be upset by the idea 
of excluding a community member. The round doesn’t have to focus on this one 
person — that will fail. Focus on how each person feels and why they react the 
way they do. Bring out all the circumstances of the situation. 

We did have one situation that, for some, triggered violent reactions. There 
was a central person I’ll call Dixon, a member with a dog who was resisting any 
limits on “his child.”  Several people who had had experiences of being 
attacked by dogs or having friends attacked by dogs and being seriously 
disfigured had an intense fear of dogs. Just seeing a dog was an alarm.

Dixon regarded any efforts to require dogs to be on leashes outdoors and not 
allowed in the common house as personal attacks on him and his dog. He refused 
to consent to any policy that limited him and treated his dog as nonhuman. His 
dog was actually very old and had many infirmities and did pretty much nothing 
to cause problems except be a dog. A large dog. But in one instance when a 
teenager had taunted him, he did attack him. Dixion considered that the 
teenager’s problem, not the dog’s.

More than one small meeting was held in which people talked about these 
experiences and how seeing an unrestrained big dog affected them. These rounds 
gave members an opportunity to share with each other events that had influenced 
their lives. It was an opportunity for everyone to understand each other’s 
fears. 

In the end the success of getting consensus on a policy was backed up by the 
law. The city code required dogs to be on a leash in public space or under the 
immediate control of the owner. The condominium grounds are public space. If 
the dog had bitten anyone, he would have been put down legally. If the 
community allowed the dog to roam the property unleashed, and he bit someone, 
we would have to pay any fines or court judgments. That was the final decision 
point, but I think that would not have led to a pet policy without the 
discussions between members so everyone understood how everyone else — not just 
Dixon — felt about the issue.

In other words, the law helped get the policy written down and applied to all 
pets, including restrictions on outdoor cats, but without the rounds we would 
never had gotten a policy. If we had been limited to the law, we would have had 
to wait until a dog bit someone and then called the police. That’s not a 
community-enriching situation.

I would also share that the police are not stormtroopers. They are trained to 
be peace officers, not the Gestapo. They can be very helpful in convincing 
people that their actions are serious and will lead to unfortunate 
consequences. Some people listen to them in ways that they don’t listen to 
other people.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org