RE: The fewest number of agreements? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: bdsullivan (bdsullivan![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 21:09:03 -0500 |
(I'm sending this message twice because I'm not clear on the correct mail address, sorry if it clogs up the mailbox) Rob said earliar >Where this can cause problems is when people join your community based >on the written agreements, then they find out they are not honored, or >that what's written as agreed to isn't what actually is. What happens >then is a HUGE undermining of ALL the agreements you have in writing, >because if you can't trust one, can you trust any? Again, this is >primarily when new people come in, they don't have the history of the >why things are, so they take the written agreements at face value and >expect everyone else does too. That's why keeping these up to date is >good idea. I found Rob's letter and others in this area very thought provoking. And the basic thought provoked was..".How few rules are needed for a co-housing community to exist?" While it may seem many rules about the # ofcats , spaiding pets, crash helmuts etc are all commendable, it seems to me that when one moves into a regular old fashion community, these rules are not necessary for the community to function successfully. Plus, the more rules of this kind in a community, the more discussions needed to maintain or enforce them and the more difficulty it is to maintain them as new members join or visitor come to stay. But are they needed for the basic concept of cohousing?? To me, it seems the basic legal and financial responsibilites of a cohousing community must obviously be clearly spelled out and adhered to (just like a condo association.) Next level would require participation in meeting and running the place,,,again like a condo association. The next level of agreements come to the community sharing of diners, the common house, and other shared functions like a childcare group. But as hard as I think, I can't see the need for any other rules. People can diagree about how to raise kids, pets, the type of car you drive, etc, but aren't these normal things we cope with in any neighborhood. Why do we have to agree on these areas in order to eat together, enjoy each others company, etc. I would love to sit at diner with a neighbor and argue over having pets on or off leases is a good idea, but if I don't have to reach consensus with that person and everyone else in the community over what our policy should be, the conversation takes on a wholly different tone. No hidden agendas. To me a community that communicates easilly, resolves the most of the everyday issues. And the big issues are probably going to pop up anyway with or without the initial agreements. Then the advantage to less rules may be several. Less rules mean less rules to understand and then everyone knows them. Less rules means less rules to break, enforce and to argue over. Less rules means greater tolerance of your fellow man. My goal in moving to cohousing (still looking) is to communicate on a more regular basis with neighbours and to form strong bonds with them, share activities with them , and to benefit from their differences. I want to live in area where my actions are one of choice not stipulated. This makes them seem more real, sincere, or fun to do. Also, If there are too many rules, then maybe everyone in the community will be too much the same and maybe they'll be burned out from trying to set up rules. Rob mentions that when a group choose to not enforce a rule, it becomes disfunctional and other the integrity of other rules is in question. I believe he is right. But when a community chooses not to enforce a rule, maybe that rule is not appropriate fot the community. It should just be dropped. Therefore, it would be intereseting to rank rules by their order of importance. If everyone agrees that it is important to have a rule that addresses an issue...than make the rule. But if only half the group feels it is important, then that may be a sign that there is no need for a rule. When I work with resident groups that are trying to set up rules I play a game with them. First we list out the categories of rules: pets, play, etc. There is no need to agree on the list, so anyone can add any item they want to. Then I give 100 points to each person to distribute to the rules. If I believe no parking of cars in the development is an important rule I can place 50 points there, and 10 points for pets, etc. Then add up the points. If one category has very little points, then that is a clue there should be no rule. Not having yet lived in cohousing I realize this is argument has no foundations. So I would like to put it back to cohousing residents. If you have now lived in your community several years, How many and which of your rules are UNNECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE COMMUNITY. (I highlight this phrase because I bel;ieve community is one of the main goals of cohousing.) If you are just formulating your community , Do you wonder if some of the rules you are discussing ARE NECESSARY FOR THE FORMULTION OF A COMMUNITY? Think of the best aspects of your community and then ask yourself what led to that happening. Was it a rule or something else. Then ask yourself if those rules you have really contruibute to community. If not, why not let them go away? I vaguly remeber a saying "the only rule in Caledonia is that there are no rules in Caledonia." Brian D. Sullivan, Lecturer Department of Architecture Chinese University of Honk Kong email bdsullivan [at] cuhk.edu.hk
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.