Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: pet policy (was: Gun policy ...)

[BARANSKI (BARANSKI]

> This sounds like *you're* the one being 'ideological'...

  I suppose so, but not about the guns or pets.  It's the obstinacy in saying
  that "I want my guns or I want my pets" without really considering the impact
  on community members that bugs me.  We could probably throw in loud stereos
  and musical instruments, car repairs, waterbeds, and all those other
  potential threats and nuisances, and my answer would still be the same:

Do you mean that you would want to ban loud stereos, musical instruments,
repairing cars, waterbeds, and all other potential threats and nuisances?

I *much* prefer to be as unrestrictive as possible, and address individual
*actual* problems as they come up, rather then being restrictive, and making
the assumption that every instance of XYZ is going to be a problem that can't
be dealt with, and must be banned at all costs.

  Personally, I wouldn't want somebody telling me I could _never_ crank up Yes
  until the rafters shook, or that I could _never_ have a drum circle with 30
  African drums.  But I don't think I'd ever want to insist on my "right" to do
  either of those things at 3am on Tuesday.

This is exactly my point.  You can't ban Yes albums or African Drums.  But you
can say that there's a time and place for everything.  The drum circle is at a
particular time and place where it is least likely to annoy anyone.  Simply
having it planned out in advance, that you know about, can make something which
would normally be a big annoyance, acceptable, or at least tolerable.  If
someone if bothered by by your rafter rattling Yes, they have a right to ask
you to turn it down for now, and you may have to wait, and find a better time
for it later.

  There is a point at which obstinacy about one's "rights" begins to overshadow
  whatever the other issues might be.  If someone's attitude is that one should
  be able to do exactly as one pleases, that person may not be a good candidate
  for cohousing.

This is not a question about rights.  Nor about doing exactly as one pleases.
Living in a Co-Housing community requires consideration of the other people in
the community.  But Co-Housing does not *have* to be unduly restrictive, and
have blanket restrictions.  I find blanket restrictions to be much more
"obstinant" in effect stating 'XYZ is always a problem, and I don't ever want
to deal with it, so 'we' won't ever allow it'; rather then simply being
considerate, and dealing with any individual problem when and if it arises.

  I agree.  My point is that condos are _less_ of a community, and provide
  fewer community benefits than cohousing, and yet they often have restrictions
  of this sort.

If you run your community like a condo, and do not have *trust* *and* 
*consideration* for the other people in the community; then eventually you will
not have a community, you will merely have a glorified condo.

  The value of cohousing is in being in a close and supportive community.  The
  price for that is that you have to do a lot more negotiation and compromise. 
  You just don't get the former without the latter.  People sometimes forget
  that.

I'm sorry, I just don't see any support, negotiation, or compromise in
advocation of blanket restrictions, rather then dealing with individual
incidents.  Blanket restriction show no respect for individuals within the
community; communities can and do become quite oppressive this way.  I prefer
to deal with individual problems as they arise.  Granted, you need the
commitment to find a win-win solution to any conflict, but I find it much more
in the spirit of coimmunity.

  If a group of gun aficionados decides to form a cohousing community, they can
  swap gun stories and even install an indoor firing range if they want.  I'd
  have nothing to say about that.  However, if someone later joined that
  community because the price was right, and then went on to insist that the
  range had to be closed because it was too noisy, and wouldn't settle for any
  reasonable compromise, in my view the newcomer would simply be out-of-line. 
  Someone behaving like that should simply be overruled until such time she or
  he shows a willingness to work things out.

Of course.  However, this is totally unrelated to what I am advocating.  It's
irrelevant.  

  I realize that this is a hard stand.  I recognize that there have been times
  when I have been troublesome due to my own obstinacy on certain points.  But
  working things out in a group is hard enough when everyone is willing!  And
  it's really important to screen for that willingness.

I'm glad that you can see your own obstinacy on these issues.

Jim.