Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Neighbor-members

[David L. Mandel (75407.2361]

Jim Snyder-Grant of New View wrote about:

"... a potential 
adjacent land owner who wants to be integrally involved with as much of the 
community as possible..."

and asked how others deal with it.

I asked a similar question some months ago when the issue arose here at
Southside Park. The most interesting response I recall was one from Australia, I
believe, or perhaps New Zealand. The community there apparently had a
significant number of non-resident members who were officially allowed to
participate in all community activities and paid a pro-rated monthly fee
determined by their own evaluation of how extensive their participation was. Do
check the archives.

Anyway, here's how it's played out with us:

The issue first arose long before we moved in. On the other side of our
contiguous city block are a dozen or so mostly small houses with tiny lots. As
we came to know the N Street (Davis, CA) model (tear down back fences and create
community among existing neighbors), some of us thought it would be neat if that
were to happen someday, adding other existing homes on our block to our newly
built community if any of their present or future owners wished to do so. I
recall a favorable reaction to the idea back then, especially as it was
suggested as a possible means of enhancing the ethnic diversity of the group,
integrating with longtime neighborhood residents, etc. But it was very
theoretical. We hadn't gotten to know any of these houses' residents, let along
asked whether they wanted to join.

Then, shortly after we moved in, a couple down the street (and across a busy
street) asked whether they could join as associate members of some sort. They
were friends with a couple of our resident members. The response was a
resounding no. Some expressed a hard-line opposition to any expansion beyond our
25 households. Hard enough to learn to live with the ones here, they said, and
also correctly pointed out that dining space in our common house was already
pretty maxed out for many meals. (Unfortunately it was too late by the time we
realized that our architect had ignored our strong request to make the common
house easily expandable.) Others, while open to the idea, wanted any such
expansion to enhance diversity and the prospective semi-members were white
professionals like most of us.

The issue was dormant for a long time but then arose when one member, who had
bought a fixer-upper across the same street and fixed it up, decided to move
into it in order to qualify for a better loan as owner-occupant. He rented out
his large unit in the project to a number of single individuals. And he asked to
be allowed to continue participating in the community in every way except living
quarters.

Some hard-liners were still opposed. Others were OK with the idea in this
particular case and sought to approve it only as a highly exceptional case. Both
these factions tended to be unhappy about the absentee rental, to the point that
it was understood that the owner should try to sell the unit. I personally liked
the idea and wanted to let it lead us to a comprehensive discussion, since I
thought it was unrealistic to expect this never to happen again ... and I still
had hopes of including some of our more immediate neighbors (there are some
suggestions after all for expanding the common house.)

Now, the person who moved has returned to his original cohousing unit due to
personal reasons and the house across the street, which has three units, is
rented. Interestingly, however, the three residents of the largest unit were all
previously renters in the same owner's cohousing house. They too, now want to be
participants in the community -- more than just guests, who are always welcome
if someone reserves a spot for them. This has been approved, but still without
reaching consensus on any policy. We seem to have carved out a niche of
consensed acceptability for former residents who are well-liked.

A parallel issue that arose was whether, and if so, how much, such associate
members should pay in monthly dues for their use of the common facilities along
with everyone else. A surprisingly large (to me) number said they thought there
should be no charge; it's enough that these are people we've agreed are assets
to the community. (So are we all, I rebutted, but no resident is exempt from
monthly dues (or eligible for a discount) by virtue of contributing mightily to
the work of the community, as many of us do. I and others argued that of course
there should be: the associate members' presence causes more gradual wear and
tear on our common property, and if they are benefiting, they should share the
cost of upkeep.

The result so far has been a compromise: When and if any outsider is approved
for regular participation, he or she is to be told how things work in the
community, including the costs of maintainging common facilities. The person is
then asked to declare a commitment to a monthly payment, anywhere from $1 up.
Calculations had led us to a conclusion, to which both sides agreed, that a
reasonable assessment of expenses to the common property for outsiders would be
$10 a month per person. But as of now, anything over $1 is voluntary. We'll see
how that works.

We have one other regular outide diner, resulting from an unusual situation. She
was a member of the original core group but decided along the way not to move
in. Her pre-construction investment $about $1,500) would have eventually gone
back to her, but instead she preferred to keep the funds invested and to be
allowed to partake of any common meal she wishes. We all agreed. 

David Mandel, Sacramento.