Re: criteria for member types (was flying mango) | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Lynn Nadeau (welcomeolympus.net) | |
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:48:03 -0700 (MST) |
Dear Marc, Here's my take on your guess at member types. > Looking for liberal, upper middle-class homeowners, with many thousands of >dollars of liquid cash, who have a huge tolerance for meetings,and are >willing to give up much of the control over aspects of their life to a >group. >Must be risk takers, and have a willingness to be highly social. A high >degree of patience and tolerance is desirable. To apply, you must place tens >of thousands of dollars in a risky real estate venture largely controlled by >amateurs with no experience.> Most of RW's 24 families are "liberals"- probably none voted Republican, and on Sept 12, 2001 when we spontaneously gathered to share thoughts and feelings, not a single person voiced a desire for war or revenge. Sadness, yes, but largely fear of how many more lives would be lost and how many civil liberties constrained, in the aftermath. A conservative could certainly join - they just wouldn't have much company for their opinions. But we do not as a community outright endorse political parties or actions. The political trends here are probably the result of people feeling drawn to "likes", already knowing or getting to know, existing members. Upper middle class? Not sure what defines that. We probably have a number of families who make under $15,000 a year: retired single seniors, the two young families whose houses were built by Habitat, me with a house gifted to me by my father, a middle aged man on disability income, a single mom with a double-wide prefab home funded by her parent's savings. Yes, to live here one needs to somehow have enough money for land and house, which around here pretty much requires at least $100,000. So a lot of people can't afford home ownership, it's true. Several families, and several individuals, also live here as socially part of our community without being owners. They rotate housesitting, or rent an "ADU" ("mother-in-law") apartment in one of several homes with such units for rent. (My renter pays $350 a month.) Or are relatives of members, and frequently join us for gatherings. Among all but our youngest members, college education is typical, often with graduate degrees. Typical work is teaching, counselling, construction carpentry, computers. And we have a lay midwife, a medical (on line) transcriptionist, an artist, a worker in the Port boat-haul-out area. A huge appetite for meetings is not necessary, though it helps if at least one household member has a tolerance for a half-day-a-month large-group meeting and a couple of discussion circles a month. There are ways to helpfully participate here without being on multiple committees and task forces, including hands-on tasks in common house or landscape, jobs like treasurer, or trash-taker-outer. Highly social:It's paradise for the highly social, but many here are fairly quiet: some socialize a lot less than others. It does seem to work well for couples with differing degrees of extroversion: the extrovert can find lots of social contact without needing to drag an unwilling partner, or stay home feeling cut off. Giving up "much of the control over aspects of their life"? What one does at home, or in one's yard or garden patch, is independent. Our relationships, income, worship, political and organizational involvements, all take place rather as they would outside of community. We do agree that if our barking dog or glaring porch light bothers our neighbors, we'll talk it over and try to find acceptable solutions. We do need to cooperate over the use of our common land, common budget, and commonhouse, but those we wouldn't have except because we are in community. Compared to a commune or religion-focused community, there is less communality, less control over individuals, but with a concomitant lesser degree of intense connection, I'd guess. But more connection than most of us would have "out there". Financial risk varies from community to community, and certainly in the development phases there can be risks. Amateurs? Some groups are developed by, or in partnership with, knowledgeable professionals. We did it ourselves, as amateurs, and rather slowly, out of pocket, but we at least had our land, so had it not worked out as cohousing, the initial investments would have netted the investors land to build on or sell to someone else. Buying into a built community has almost no financial risk, other than the legal liability of the whole group, which is typically covered by insurance. >a diverse, friendly community. and then there's the kids. that's a >really big issue for us >* is there such a place in a pleasant climate or are we looking for >shangrila? Check us out at www.rosewind.org. Port Townsend's climate is distinctly moderate: mild temperatures are possible at any time of year and our rainfail is 17 inches a year, like San Francisco's. It's a great place to raise kids, too. Anyone who'd like a little piece I put together on PT and Kids can email me directly for it. Good luck! Lynn Nadeau, RoseWind Cohousing Port Townsend Washington (Victorian seaport, music, art, nature) http://www.rosewind.org http://www.ptguide.com _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.