Cohousing-L Mailing List: Commentary on Sycamore Village and Sac Bee article - long

[Cinnie Blair (cpie55]

As promised, here is the response that I sent to the Sacramento Bee. Cinnie


   Commentary on the proposed Sycamore Village Cohousing and Sac Bee article

  I was at the CPAC meeting in Orangevale on Tuesday, January 2. Although I am 
a former 15 year resident of Fair Oaks, I am not a current resident in 
Sacramento County, nor a future resident of this project. I attended the 
meeting because I am an enthusiastic supporter of cohousing and hope to live in 
a cohousing community some day. I left Sacramento because I wanted to farm, and 
so I moved to a rural part of Nevada County. I would like to share a few of my 
observations about the meeting and the subsequent Sacramento Bee article on 
Monday, January 8.
     In my experience, this part of Orangevale is not “rural.” My 1996 edition 
of Webster’s Unabridged dictionary defines rural as: “…characteristic of the 
country, country life, or country people; of or pertaining to agriculture…” 
Okay, do any of the petitioners actually own livestock? Do any grow a crop? 
When was the last time you had to wait while your neighbor drove his cattle 
down the road? This morning I drove past 2 hunters standing beside their pickup 
truck, wearing camo and holding rifles…I amused myself by imaging this duo in 
Thelen Court! No, this part of town, Illinois and Greenback, is “suburban” and 
“commercial”. The 3.5 acre lot in question is an island surrounded by ¼ acre 
parcels and a huge concrete building that houses a fitness center. The only 
rural property left in the area is the 80 acre Gum Ranch, 1.5 miles away. (I 
think this committed group of residents would do better to work to preserve 
that!)
     Why would one journalist and 70 local residents call this place rural? 
I’ll bet you money that the Bee Staff Writer has never seen the place by the 
light of day.  But what about those 70 local residents? My guess is that it is 
denial, pure and simple. Denial exists to shield us from a reality too painful 
to bear. I am going to be the bubble-popper, I’m going state the sad, sad 
truth. Are you ready? Okay here it is: there is no more open space. This area 
has already lost its open space to a style of development that makes it very 
difficult to socially interact and do anything without a car. This is something 
we all grieve. Cohousers, among a handful of others, are trying to do something 
about it. Let me tell you how.
     First of all, a “court” (as in Thelen Court)  is no more “cohousing” than 
a grub is a butterfly. Cohousing residents have known each other for years 
before they actually move in. As co-developers they have risked their life 
savings, squabbled over design issues, and ridden the highs and lows of the 
approval roller coaster. They do this because they feel that the benefits of 
cooperation outweigh all of the hardships. In cohousing, people have private 
homes, private kitchens, and private finances.  But they have chosen to 
cooperate with their neighbors, and they have generous shared facilities.  I 
know the first three things I would cooperate on: 1. childcare – goodbye 
play-dates! 2. shared dinners 3. driving. 
     I would say, of all the issues raised by the neighbors in opposition to 
this project, traffic got the most air time. Please note: there already exists 
a tremendous traffic problem and residents are justifiably alarmed. But I don’t 
think cohousing could make it much worse.  In fact, cohousing stands a good 
chance of improving the traffic. A study done in Colorado found that cohousing 
reduced traffic by 25%. At the Nevada City cohousing, they have a 15 passenger 
van that ferries some of the kids to a school across town. One mother at the 
same location said she used one tank of gas all last summer vacation because 
her kids wanted to stay home and play with their friends. Can the signers of 
the petition say the same? How many of you carpool with your neighbors? 
Cohousing will set an example that can be followed by others.  The spirit of 
cooperation won’t end at the property line, so there are sure to be 
opportunities for the surrounding residents to cooperate directly with 
cohousing residents on many things, including driving.
     The Bee article also failed to mention that the area in question falls 
within the Greenback Lane transportation corridor identified by county planners 
as one in which they would like to increase density in order to promote public 
transit and reduce urban sprawl. The bottom line is mass transit requires mass. 
I was very impressed by the research and thought that went into the petition 
drive. I encourage the petitioners to continue their research by looking into 
the latest solutions to the traffic hell that cul-de-sac development has 
created in this country. You can begin by googling “smart growth” and “new 
urbanism”. You can also visit Sacramento County’s website devoted to Commercial 
Corridor development.  You may choose to revise some of your assumptions about 
what creates more traffic. In fact, you may wish that cohousing had been 
brought to your community while you still had some open space to play with. You 
could have clustered your homes, reduced traffic by at least 25% and preserved 
some open space, all at the same time. (But lest you think it’s too late, you 
can look at N Street Cohousing in Davis where neighbors tore down the fences in 
their back yards to a create a big common space.)
     Another issue of grave concern to the immediate neighbors was one of 
visual impact and privacy. They don’t want to see two-story buildings across 
their fence; they don’t want their neighbors to look in on their back yard 
activities. Yet they know that development itself is a forgone conclusion. So, 
rather than settle for two-story buildings set back eighty feet amongst many 
mature oak and sycamore trees that will be preserved and having a buffer of a 
covered parking garage between them and their cohousing neighbors, they would 
default to the current mode of construction: a two-story stucco box built as 
big as can be with a 15 feet strip of set-back for a yard, inhabited by people 
who may not be cooperative or even friendly. Hmmm….
     Cohousing residents are energetic, creative people dedicated to making the 
world a better place for future generations, starting with their own. They are 
problem solvers. As soon as they have settled in, they will be eager to involve 
themselves with the surrounding community. An example was given of Muir Commons 
in Davis where the Girl Scouts and Neighborhood Watch meet in the Common House. 
So you may want to consider this new development in a new light: you are not so 
much losing open space as gaining a free community development department and a 
meeting space that will be available to the neighborhood.
     Finally, I consider this the beginning of the conversation. The neighbors’ 
concerns will be addressed at future meetings, both publicly through the 
planning process and privately with the cohousers. I know many think it would 
be easiest to shut down the project in one night so you can get on with your 
lives. I encourage you to continue the conversation. There are not just two 
sides to an issue - there is much to be learned by all. I want to conclude with 
an image taken from the life of a butterfly. After the caterpillar spins the 
cocoon, butterfly cells appear only to be swiftly vanquished by the old 
caterpillar cells. The butterfly cells must continually reappear and congregate 
until finally they are “accepted” and can go on about the business of their 
unique transformation. These butterfly cells have been given a name. They are 
called “imaginal cells.” No kidding. Look it up.