RE: Rules & Regs Violation | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Chris Kemp (chris![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:37:44 -0700 (PDT) |
Oh dear. I seem to be the author of this storm in a teacup. I?ve recently moved in to co-housing to live with my significant other (who has lived happily without a TV for many years, is a founding member of the community and puts a ton of effort into it) and I think that the case being presented is rather one-sided. I emailed the following to Anne earlier today before becoming aware of this thread: Anne, I?m sorry but I appear to be the unwitting cause of some friction here with regards to the satellite dish. I wanted the dish because the cable service used by the group unfortunately doesn?t offer a chunk of programming to which I?m very partial to (I?m afraid I?m something of a soccer nut). If this hadn?t been the case I would not have opted for it. I hope that in view of where the dish is sited (I asked for it to be situated in what I regarded as the least obtrusive place) and the fact that cancelling my subscription would make me liable to a substantial financial penalty, that we might perhaps let this slide without a great deal of fuss. My apologies for any offense caused and I hope this incident doesn?t serve to sour any relationships that I?m hopefully beginning to build in the community. Chris I believe there is some history behind what?s going on here, but it?s not history that I was involved in so I don?t feel qualified to comment on it. The Rules & Regs of the thread title are nowhere close to being as clear-cut as they are presented and Leslie (significant other) was rather upset at being told peremptorily to take the dish down. The said evil dish is situated right at the end of the housing block in such a situation that it cannot, to the best of my knowledge, be observed from anywhere within the complex and it certainly doesn?t jar aesthetically with the 3 or 4 dishes situated on the neighboring houses. Indeed, it was there for well over a month apparently before anyone noticed. Or perhaps that?s the amount of time it took to dig up a regulation that might vaguely cover such an abomination. My, co-housing looks as though it may be rather more interesting than I'd expected. "Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." Nietzsche -----Original Message----- From: Ann Zabaldo [mailto:zabaldo [at] earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 7:12 PM To: gebser [at] speakeasy.net, Cohousing-L Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Rules & Regs Violation Hello all -- This is a truly interesting thread. I've enjoyed reading everyone's thoughtful posts -- there's quite a bit to grapple with and I've certainly learned a lot about how people view "rules." Thanks to everyone for sharing your wisdom. However...I'm slow. I'm still back on what led up to this behavior by this resident. I don't feel the whole story (all zillion sides of it) has been presented. (Or did I miss this?) As I said in an earlier post, I don't think this kind of behavior happens in a vacuum and besides...one person's "violator" is another's "liberator." I'd like to know why the resident wanted satellite. Is there an architectural review committee and did he petition the committee for a variance? How many meetings did he sit through to have his request heard? Or was it dismissed before being considered because of the restriction in the condo docs? Was this the first time he "violated" the rules or is this a repeated behavior? I'm reminded of the old saying that "rules are meant to be broken." That's how we get change. A big part of what's so glorious about cohousing is that we are "living" communities. We are not bound to enforcing 400+ pages of condo docs that regulate everything from mailbox sizes to the number of goldfish you can have in a 5 gallon tank. We have the possibility of modifying agreements to meet changing circumstances or ... even just a personal request by a neighbor. Of course, the possibility exists that the resident was being self serving. I'd just like to know more about the circumstances that led up to him sticking the dish on the side of the house. We might learn a lot knowing this. BTW -- I LOVE this quote from Hitchhiker's Guide: "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" Ann Zabaldo Takoma Village Washington, DC ³The Road to Enlightenment is Long and Difficult... So Bring Cookies and a Magazine.² Wk 202 546 4654 FAX 202 291 8594 On 4/11/06 7:53 PM, "ken" <gebser [at] speakeasy.net> wrote: > Fillard Rhyne wrote: >> Ken and Thomas have brought up some good points -- e.g., rules work >> best when there are very good reasons for them, and there are clear >> benefits to a non-restrictive approach. >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: >> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
- Re: Rules & Regs Violation, (continued)
-
Re: Rules & Regs Violation ken, April 11 2006
- Re: Rules & Regs Violation Martin Sheehy, April 11 2006
- Re: Rules & Regs Violation OCCNG11, April 15 2006
- Re: Rules & Regs Violation Ann Zabaldo, April 11 2006
- RE: Rules & Regs Violation Chris Kemp, April 11 2006
- RE: Rules & Regs Violation--or how to orient the new folks Bonnie Fergusson, April 12 2006
- Orienting new residents Rob Sandelin, April 13 2006
-
Re: Rules & Regs Violation ken, April 11 2006
- RE: Rules & Regs Violation Catya Belfer-Shevett, April 12 2006
- Chris Kemp's Response to Rules & Regs Violation Lion Kuntz, April 15 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.