Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Provision for Exclusion

[Eleanor Chandler (ejc]

On 4/5/98 at 11:04 am, nsquared [at] gn.apc.org wrote:

n> Exclusion is not something to which we subscribe but it is possible
to
n> envision circumstances

 Does anyone have
n> experience of such an instance and/or contingency safeguards?

A friend of mine was in such a situation - not in cohousing actually
but she shared a courtyard and common land with two other houses. 
Fortunately when they had first set up the arrangement, their solicitor
(lawyer to those of you across the Atlantic!) had suggested that they
each sign a contract with a clause undertaking not to do anything which
would cause nuisance to the other two.  When one of the householders
did then start something which the others found antisocial they were in
a position to use the law of the land.  I don't think they actually had
to take the offender to court - as far as I know he finally stopped the
activity when it was pointed out to him that it was in breach of his
contract.  But the other two later sold up and left.

Personally I feel that it is important to have such a safeguard in
cohousing in the form of a contract.  However I would hope that it
would never have to be brought into use, as it would mean that all
conflict resolution procedures would have failed.  And by that time
there would be so much bad feeling it could destroy any sense of
community and wellbeing.  I am very interested to hear what existing
cohousers have to say on the subject!

Eleanor
Devon Cohousing, UK
Where we are building community but have no site yet