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

[Cheryl A. Charis-Graves (ccharis]

On 7/19/02 5:56 PM, "Grant McCormick" <grantmc [at] u.arizona.edu> wrote:

> 1.  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.

In effective problem-solving, you first have to understand the need. So, it
seems to me, it isn't so much a question of a wall or not a wall, but the
degree of screening that is desired by the community. When we have an ad hoc
group working on something, we have them start off with a set of standards
and criteria by which they are working. The degree of screening would be
included in that set of standards and criteria. The committee has to have
that guidance from the community as a whole, it seems to me. If the
committee is not sure, they get feedback from the community to check and see
if they are on track.

BTW, for us, we would not have wanted the area to be screened (I think ? I'm
not aware of it being discussed too much) as that would prevent visual
monitoring from other spots in community. It seems important to us to be
able to keep an eye on things in the playground, so line of sight is
preserved.

I don't think the community as a whole is the appropriate group to hash out
what type of wall, but should guide the committee on degree of screening.

We have used ad hoc groups to iron out the details and find that to be
successful. But if the group is not clear on the guidance from the
community, then you would be getting into personal preferences.
And that is a very sticky wicket. Basically, persons on such a committee can
speak for themselves, but they are representing the good of the community in
their endeavors and not just their personal preferences. The good of the
community serves as a kind of central axis for determining content.

> 2. In your community, how many:

Harmony Village has 18 children total, 3 of whom are teens.
We have 27 households.

Our common house does include a children's play room, as well as a pool
table, big screen TV, foos ball table, and a Nintendo but there are some
guidelines which prevent children playing in the Common House unsupervised.

> 
> 3. Describe your play area if you have one:

We have three play areas, one for the tots, one with a play structure for
the bigger kids, and a sandy "beach" area.

The tot lot is a semi-circle with a plastic sandbox and a couple of low
plastic climbing structures, no more than three feet tall. Residents donated
four aspen trees to border the tot lot and provide shade.

The big kids playground has three swings (two flat seats and one toddler
seat), a rope to climb, a platform with a slide on one side and a horizontal
bar on the other side. There is a climbing net on one side of the structure.
The platform is probably 13 feet tall at its highest point.

The sand area is simple. Lots of sand, lots of digging toys and trucks and
such. Shade from the cottonwoods nearby. Bench seating for the adults on the
border of the sand area.

There are some adult chairs and a table to the side of the play area.
We were able to get the play structure used; I think it cost about $1200.
The rest is donated.

The perimeter of the play structure area is defined by a log border and
there are some trees for shade. But in the middle of the day, there is
little shade and the play area is too hot.

The play area is adjacent to the common house, with a sidewalk in between,
and is bermed on two other sides. The fourth side is adjacent to a ditch,
and the border consists of thick prickly bushes and trees.

Most successful: adults come and hang out while watching the kids. Kids
playing on play structure are visible from other parts of community, so
adults can supervise visually while standing/sitting in the central
courtyard. Kids seem to enjoy it. Pre-teens are not so interested; they are
into skateboards and ball sports.
Least successful: other kids outside community come and play on our play
structure, without adult supervision. Metal slide too hot in summer. Wood
needs periodic maintenance.

The kids were not involved in designing the area. We got lucky.

I think another factor is that our kids play on the common green and in and
around the open space on our site. It all seems to work well.

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