Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Re: BIG Co-housing. Who Loves It? Who Hates It?

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> http://ecosyn.us/ecocity/Proposal/proposal1.html

> Name: Lion Kuntz,
> Location: Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California, USA
> Had 30-year career-adventures in community activism, media,
> eco-projects, property management. Presently
> semi-disabled/retired.

In response to several messages on this project. I want to lay out a 
proposal for how this could work using sociocracy to govern the 
organization. There is the huge issue of how do you develop such a 
project -- as one lister said, I applaud Lion for taking the time to 
sort out all the details of the property. But as complicated as the 
actual property and development potential is, the real issue is 
establishing an ownership and governance structure that will enable it 
to function. Basically, who makes decisions and who benefits from those 
decisions.

Sociocracy has a unique feature of being able to have individual units 
function semi-autonomously and also take an active part in the 
decision-making of the whole. Economically it has a structure for the 
financial compensation to each member. My first thought when I look at 
this project is wanting to see an ownership structure that includes all 
the residents and with financial benefits accruing to those residents 
rather than walking away with the commercial sector.

In Opera Plaza there would be a whole series of "stakeholders," all 
with different interests and different risks.

> The key points:
> *** BIG (hectare, city block)
> *** MIxed-Use, commercial space on ground floor
> *** 100 families.

After living in a 43 unit cohousing community for almost 6 years, I 
dream of a smaller community. It is very hard to educate everyone 
("please stop using your key to open the front door to the CH -- you 
are disabling the security system-- use only the electric opener") and 
understand everyone ("It hurts my feelings when .... ") and learn how 
each parent wants their children treated ("Never correct my child. 
Never feed my child rice.").

It's a bit like the difference between having one child and having two. 
The increased complexity is not just doubled -- its quadrupled 43-fold. 
You have a new member of your own life to negotiate and consider and 
support, etc,., but also the relationship of that one new child to 
every other child and to every other adult in the household. Multiply 
that by each member in the community. How much can you take before you 
close down and all the relationships suffer. The whole becomes 
unmanageable on an interpersonal basis. It becomes less personal.

I would think in terms of at least 3 cohousing communities, each with a 
different focus. Perhaps, senior cohousing, multi-generational, and 
perhaps "child centered" or whatever develops out of the people 
attracted to your project. I would also suggest rental units to make a 
place for those who cannot or wish not to buy. The 20-somethings who 
are still 20-something.

Sociocratically each unit or circle would be a "holon" an entity that 
in natural systems functions both independently and as an integral part 
of a larger whole-- a holarchy. A holarchy is more structured than a 
network. The relationships and the flow of control and information are 
more structured. This enables the sharing of economic resources, not 
just information.

In sociocracy, these units are called "circles" and circles are 
interlinked to form the organization. Each cohousing community would be 
a circle and its members, by consent, would make all the policy 
decisions that affected its own domain.

There might also be a circle of those leasing commercial space, etc. 
Each kind of stakeholder would belong to a circle that would govern 
their own domain. Investors would have a voice but would not have veto 
control over the project as they often do.

The whole project would be governed by a general circle composed of at 
least two representatives from each of the other circles. 
Representatives of the commercial leaseholders would participate in 
this circle with the representatives of the cohousing communities, etc. 
This general circle would make the decisions that affected the 
community as a whole.

The unique thing about sociocracy as that in the general circle, each 
representative has an equal voice and must consent to decisions. The 
needs and interests of all the stakeholders, each of the circles, is 
balanced and protected. The representatives are selected by the circles 
to serve this function.

Then the top circle -- what we might think of as a board of directors 
-- is composed of representatives of the general circle AND 
representatives of the larger community. This is considered very 
important in sociocracy. The lawyer is not just hired to be the lawyer, 
the lawyer participates with consent privileges in the long term 
planning of the organization. Other top circle members might include a 
local government official, a university professor with expertise in 
sociology or community development, an economic advisor, etc.

Including the experts in the top circle is important because there is 
greater synergy between them when they discuss together than if you 
consult them alone. They talk to each other and options and 
opportunities develop for the community. Experts are chosen by the 
general circle and, and I think, by the investors.

I think this is a very exciting project and a direction that cohousing 
has to take in many areas. Many of us prefer to live in urban areas and 
this is what urban areas look like. We just have to figure out how to 
govern our urban neighborhoods so they are more people-friendly.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
http://www.sociocracy.info