Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus and ideology

[pattymara (pattymara]

Back in the days of Tierra Nueva's early move-in and intense landscaping
by the group, we were faced with a troubling choice of landscape
material:  redwood mulch called "gorilla hair".  It was the most cost
effective material to use on our slopes....All of the group except for
two of us (I was one) opposed the use of redwood forest products because
of the heinous destruction of old growth redwood (I'm preaching here).   
The two of us got a chance to speak our minds.  The landscape committee
researched other options (bless them) and found no alternative.  Eva and
I decided to "stand aside" so the mulching could begin.    But then, when
the playground equipment committee began to research play structures,
they deliberately avoided redwood products, because they knew about Eva's
and my feelings about redwood.....and they were able to find a cedar
structure that fit the bill and was environmentally friendly.    I felt
both relieved and "heard".   It represents a give and take in the
consensus process that feels encouraging to those of us who take stands
against the majority because of ideology, and have the gumption to stand
aside.  

coheartedly,
Patty Mara,
Tierra Nueva, central CA coast
where we are still rocking from the first live (biker/bar) band in the
common house last night.    Wild.  



On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 09:53:19 MST Racheli&John <jnpalme [at] attglobal.net>
writes:
> ** Reply to note from Sharon Villines <sharon [at] sharonvillines.com> 
> Sat, 22 Dec 2001 11:31:31 -0500
> 
> From Racheli
> 
> I can add a few details to Becky's questions, since we live 
> in the same community (Sonora Cohousing), and I've been 
> on the task force where the battle regarding a choice of
> a playstructure has taken place (I'm using the word "battle"
> intentionally, because it got pretty ugly).
> 
> What happened was, that some people promoted a redwood
> structure, since it was the cheapest and offered (in the eyes 
> of some) the most "play-value" .
> Other people (myself included) opposed using redwood, for
> environmental reasons.  We got attacked because we were
> seen as pushing our own "ideology" on the community.
> 
> I'd like to add to Becky's question: Have other communities
> faced such conflict, and how they resolved it?
> 
> R.
>   
> > > So my question is, What does it mean - for the good of the 
> community?  Does
> > > that phrase refer to the 36 households that live on our 4 and 
> 3/4 acres?
> > >  I could also see that someone else might make a
> > > legitimate argument by saying that it goes against the good of 
> our community
> > > to support a company which exploits their workers.
> >   
> > The opposition between "this" community and the larger one is a 
> false one.
> > Any decision which is a detriment to your community is a detriment 
> to the
> > larger community because you are a part of the larger community. 
> And the
> > reverse.
> >   
> > My first reaction is that the swing set decision (as presented) is 
> reduced
> > to too few factors. If the options have been fully explored there 
> will be
> > more than two options or variables for the decision.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l