Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: COHOUSING-L digest 462

[Ruth Chaet (rchaet]

> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 10:50:19 -0700
> From: "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] msn.com>
> To: <LScottr2go [at] aol.com>,
> Subject: RE: Could I ask about dogs in your community?
> Message-ID: <LPBBLHKKBOKJBHOFMFDPOEGACCAA.floriferous [at] msn.com>
>
> It might be useful, as a preamble to your discussion to ask the question:
> Why have any rules about pets at all?  This will generate some conceptual
> goals, such as Pets should not unduly annoy others, cause damage, hurt
> people, kill and drive away wildlife. From the concepts of "Why have rules
> about pets" it will be a bit easier to get agreement on specific controls,
> if any, that meet the conceptual goals. This kind of hot topic is a good
> place to go carefully, start slowly, don't be in any huge hurry, let
people
> talk and listen well. Start from goals you can all support down to
specifics
> that support the goals. It also seems to have a lot of parts, are all
these
> necessary at this time? Maybe start with 3 main issues, than add others
> later?
>
> Our Pet Policy at Sharingwood is pretty restrictive, and yes, people have
> come through here and chosen not to live here due to the pet policy. So
for
> us, as a greenbelt steward community, this is actually a good thing, since
> our goals for restricting pets, especially cats is to preserve and protect
> the abundant wildlife. Your goals may be different and your agreements
> should reflect your goals. (Our pet policy, which has stood since 1991 is
> being rediscussed for the first time next week, and it will be an
> interesting mixture of long time residents and new comer opinions)
>
> Also the agreement below reads to me like it was written by a lawyer. I
> would suggest you Humanize the language so its not so formalistic. Maybe
> include a goal statement at the top. The agreements that you make amoung
> yourselves, that guide how you want to live together should reflect the
> spririt of your group.  Remember as you move in you are moving away from
> building legal things and structures and building relationships between
each
> other. Let your meetings and agreements reflect the kind of relationship
> building you want to have. It may take awhile for your relationships with
> pets to clearly emerge and so be willing to examine how pets effect your
> relationships and how you live together at some future time as well, to
see
> if in fact, all the issues are real, or just unrealized fears being
> projected. Culture can transmit actions  and values  much better than
> written legal agreements. For example, our pet policy does not say a word
> about poop clean up. However, when people walk their dogs, they carry
> little plastic bags and use those to clean up after their dogs. Nobody
every
> said the dog owners HAVE to  do this, they do it as a common community
> courtesy, they understand that nobody wants a bunch of poop around and so,
> without any rule at all, take care of the issue. This sort of culture
builds
> from comments at meetings, over dinner, converstations and reactions which
> form the web of relationship.
>
> So perhaps, once you have a disuccsion about some aspects of this, you
only
> need to formally agree to those things not obviously reinforced by the
> community culure. Then if the culture fails, you can make the agreements
you
> need.
>
> Rob Sandelin
> Community works!, group process training for social change non-profit
groups
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 01:49:20 +0800
> From: "Robyn Williams" <zen [at] iinet.net.au>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org>
> Subject: Pets
> Message-ID: <003301c00485$a5745540$c94a3bcb@zendo>
>
> A few years ago, re the pet issue I think, Rob mentioned addressing
people's
> needs.  Addressing 'wants' (or 'not wants') can produce long lists usually
> called rules.  Ask people what they need, I mean REALLY need, not want.
> When we applied this to the pet issue we were able to come to agreement
> without too much fuss because the needs tended to be universal.  eg,
> despite our individual positions re dogs we all acknowledged: 1) need dog
> poop cleaned up, 2) need commonhouse and food to be dog free, 3) space is
> tight, 4) dog lovers love dogs.
>
> And what Rob says: ditto.
>
> Robyn Williams
> Pinakarri Community
> Fremantle, Western Australia
>
> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 14:46:22 -0400
> From: Sharon Villines <sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net>
> To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] freedom.mtn.org>
> Subject: Pet Policies
> Message-ID: <B5BB13BE.6909%sharonvillines [at] prodigy.net>
>
> With no authority at all I'm posting a draft of a proposed police for
Takoma
> Village because I think it is a very good one and illustrates how clear
one
> can be by stating goals and using plain English. Because we are dealing
with
> allergy issues, we need to agree on a policy before we move in so the
common
> house doesn't get contaminated and the pets can be trained from move-in to
> change their behaviors if necessary.
>
> > Guiding principles:
> >
> > a) members have the right to have pets
> > b) members should be responsible for their pets
> > c) people should be free to not be affected by other's pets
>
>
> > Draft Policy Statement
> >
> > TVC welcomes pets in private units and outside.  Owners are responsible
for
> > their pets, including cleaning up after them, repairing any damage they
cause,
> > and minimizing annoyance to others.  No pets are allowed in public areas
of
> > the Common House except service animals (such as seeing-eye dogs). TVC
reminds
> > its members that DC code forbids free roaming animals. TVC asks that dog
> > owners accompany their pets outdoors at all times. TVC residents with
> > conflicts or concerns about pets are asked to bring these issues to the
> > conflict resolution team for assistance in reaching a solution to the
problem.
>
>
> Sharon
> --
> Sharon Villines, Editor
> The MacGuffin Guide to Detective Fiction
> http://www.macguffin.net
> Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington, DC
> http://www.takomavillage.org
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 22:21:49 EDT
> From: RowenaHC [at] cs.com
> To: LScottr2go [at] aol.com, cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org
> Subject: Re: Could I ask about dogs in your community?
> Message-ID: <7e.8e6eba9.26c7603d [at] cs.com>
>
>
> --part1_7e.8e6eba9.26c7603d_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Attached are some "pet rules" that were proposed but never consensed upon
> because there is a vocal group of people in Cambridge Coho who do not
think
> there should be "rules" about anything.   In practice, however, all but
the
> recommendation for indoor cats are (more or less) followed voluntarily.
The
> outdoor cats find the garden beds irrisistible when they have been dug and
> raked for seeding - but that's life!
>
> Our current dogs are friendly and socialized and generally regarded as
> acceptable community members.  There have been occasional issues with dogs
> relieving themselves where they shouldn't and leaving brown circles on the
> lawns, but this has been dealt with by bringing it to the attention of the
> owners.
>
> RowenaHC