Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Re: [C-L] Committee in Trouble

[Grant McCormick (grantmc]

From Grant
Sonora


Below are some clarifications in contrast to those Racheli has offered in a 
few recent posts.  Also, at the end of this note I have a few specific 
questions, incluidng some about the play areas you may have built in your 
community.  If you don't feel like reading this entire note,  I would still 
appreciate hearing any responses you may have to the questions at the end. 
You can respond to me privately or on the list. I'll compile and post 
responses in a week or so. Thanks.

So, following is "the other side of the discussion" from my vantage point.


Racheli Gai wrote:
"YES.  This is what some of us attempted to do.  The way I see it, there
were people who were totally attached to the idea of a wall,  and saw any
attempt to open up the discussion as an expression of disrespect towards
them."

This statement can largely reflect the "other viewpoint" on the matter with 
the following changes inserted in CAPS:

> ".........there were people who were totally attached to the idea of NOT 
> HAVING a wall,  and saw any attempt to open up the discussion WITHIN THE 
> TASK FORCE as an expression of disrespect towards them."

While Racheli was willing to look at alternative forms of 
screening/softening the play area, I disagree with her reporting on the 
viewpoints of others on the task force - no one insisted on having a wall, 
and a number of the alleged wall-lovers had actually gone on record 
suggesting using an alternative to a wall.

From my point of view, the genesis of the friction was one person's 
attachment to the idea that there be no visual blockage whatsoever. This 
then presented a dilemma for those of us that saw a need for some visual 
screening (not necessarily a wall) and some visual softening of the play 
area.

So, one question is how to reach compromise when one "need" is framed in a 
way that categorically prevents another need from being met?  In my view, a 
compromise between  "totally open" and "totally screened" is something 
along the lines of  "some level of screening"........  In my view, not 
budging from a position that begins with "totally" creates an impossible 
situation.

The other clarification I would like to offer to one of Racheli's recent 
posts is that many on the play area task force felt there was indeed a 
sufficient mandate and community input needed to create a design.  There 
had been a community consensus decision directing the task force to design 
a perimeter wall, and multiple iterations of the plan - all including 
various configurations of a wall - had been posted, presented, discussed, 
etc. for at least a year.

Having added these bits of clarification, I'd like to hear responses to the 
following questions (first is a process question, then some questions on 
actual play areas in other cohousing communities).


1.  When things became "stuck", my preference was to go to the entire 
community for "process guidance" (i.e., do we continue on the current 
decision path with the current design, or, do we start over by having a 
workshop to brainstorm goals and set a new mandate, etc.?). Those that were 
dissatisfied with the design wanted to "go back to the community" for a 
workshop, brainstorming, and mandate, but weren't interested in laying bare 
to the whole community the major process issues that had come up (which 
would then, IMO,  allow the *community* to decide which path to take.)

So my question is,  when a state of  stuckness occurs,  would it be more 
useful to FIRST go to the whole community for input on the content of the 
issue (e.g., do you want a wall, what type of wall, etc?), or would it be 
more useful to FIRST go to the whole community for help with overall 
process issues?  Or is there something in between/else you may have to 
suggest?  I would like to hear insights that may be useful in revising our 
process manual.


2. In your community, how many:
        - Kids total? (Sonora: about 35)
        - Non-teen kids? (Sonora: probably 25)
        - Households? (Sonora: 36)
        - Name of community?

3. Describe your play area if you have one:
        a. Size of play structure structure?  Size of Play area? 
(Sonora:  structure 13'+ tall,
                15' wide by about 30' long; play area about 20-25' x 40-50')
        b.Types of functions included? (Sonora: monkey bars, tire swing, 
regular swings,
                slide, climbing poles, 3 or 4 interconnected platforms, 
climbing ladder and
                rock climbing wall, ....)
        c.Other features of the play area? (Sonora: (proposed) sandbox, 
patio, storage,
                seating, shade ramada, edge to contain pea 
gravel,  screening,
                vegetation/trees, .....)
        d. Cost of the structure? (Sonora: structure around $5,000)
        e. Overall cost of the play area? (Sonora: all the other stuff 
probably $5000+)
        f. How is the perimeter of the play area defined, if at all? 
(Sonora: .... no comment   ;-)
        g.What spaces exist adjacent to the play area? (Sonora: Common 
house kids room,
                sidewalks, common house courtyard, swimming pool, lawn, homes)
        h.What would you say has been most and least successful about your 
play area?
                (Sonora: n/a)
        i.Were kids involved in designing the area? If so, what was most 
important to them?
                (Sonora: n/a)


 Thanks,

Grant McCormick













> Have to go,
> R.
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> jnpalme [at] attglobal.net (Racheli Gai)
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l