Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Coho & LIFESTYLE CHANGES--> Sustainability?

[Rob Sandelin (robsan]

Rob Said:
> 3. There are population concerns so we limit the number of renters to
> 25% of the total owners population.

Stu said:
>Hmmm.  Don't want too many poor people running all over our gorgeous
>acreage, huh?  Look at N St or Southside Park - 40 or 50 people on an acre
>or an acre and a half.  I'm not convinced that you guys have a "population
> problem."

Rob replies:  Our population concerns were not related to the total 
amount of people we could house on the land, our concerns were how many 
total people we WANTED on the land.  We don't want more than 100, 
therefore figured that 75 owner/residents should be balanced by no more 
than 25 renters.  Several of the concerns people had dealt with 
traffic. The County would have let us clear cut the whole 40 acres and 
put 100 houses on it.  We chose to put 29 houses and leave 25 acres of 
native woods.   "Too many poor people..."  That's kind of a bogus 
comment Stu.  Our population concerns have nothing to do with income.


Stu sez:

>You're painting a picture that you (collectively not you personally) would
>be more sustainable if only if it weren't for the hardships of modern life.
>This is not so - your situation is the result of your *choices*.  You have
>high paying jobs and big houses because that's the lifestyle you want,
>and that's more important to you than having gardens or than spending
>time trying to be sustainable.  If you had wanted to be sustainable and
>do cohousing and live cheaply, you would never have done a big real
>estate development in the woods - you would have bought (or rented) some
>grungy neglected piece of Seattle to live in.

Rob replies:  Sustainability never was, and still isn't much of an 
issue at Sharingwood. Basically Sharingwood (phase 1) is a traditional 
neighborhood design  appealing largely to the values of home ownership, 
cooperation, and security in a pleasant site.   The group just finished 
the site design for the next twelve houses and sustainability pretty 
much went out the window, along with the community garden site.  
Basically only a couple of folks who live here, or plan to live here, 
seem slightly interested in being sustainable, it is just not on the 
agenda for the majority of people who live here.  And that's OK.  
People didn't move here to save the world, at least I have never heard 
that from folks as a reason why they live here.  If your goal is to 
live sustainabily, then I agree, don't build new cohousing units at all 
and you live where you work.

However there is a very valid argument that goes like this: The 
property that we live on would have been bought by someone with a 
profit motive, and would have been developed into a typical 100 home 
development here of even larger homes, removing all the woods.  So in a 
sense, by underdeveloping the property, putting the greenbelt into a 
land trust, we are, in some small way, living more sustainabily.  Not 
the ultimate, tiny, super energy efficient, methane heated, solar 
powered off the grid, grow your own food, sort of place, but in terms 
of regular middle class people, what we are doing is pretty amazing.  
Every time I walk into a regular neighborhood where people are 
strangers and suspicious of each other I realize what we have going is 
great.  Not perfect.  But still pretty amazing.

  The very act of living cooperatively can offer some small benefits in 
terms of sharing of resources, but   if sustainability is an issue for 
your group, be sure to put it in your vision statement and clarify what 
that means so that everyone who joins is on the same page.

Rob Sandelin
Sharingwood