Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Affordability?

[Brian Bartholomew (bb]

I'll come back to the 'does voting belong in consensus' and 'is a
consensus decision an enforcible promise to an individual' ideas in a
later message, but now I finally think there's a very deep division in
goals that would explain a lot of things I've seen in the last six months.

        Some of you really want to be cells in a more complex
        organism, don't you?  If there was a a mind-reading helmet
        that would allow you to be in constant telepathy with each
        other and cohabit a hive mind, you'd run out and get them.
        You want to be Borg, but with sunnier asthetics.

That would explain the emotional casualness towards what I've been
viewing as process failure.  Consensus is not the best-known way for
individuals to relate, it is one method in a toolbox of implemention
methods for a hive mind.  It is expected that some worker bees will be
sacrificed for the hive's overall success, and if the individuals
complain about their situation, it is as much a failure of that
individual's acceptance of being property of the hive.

(I'll point out that bees have different genetic inheritance patterns
than humans, which makes being a worker bee a win for the worker.  I
have also seen a recent article, probably in _Nature_, that observed
how some queens have mutated(?) to cheat on the hive.)

The more I hear about "cohousing", the more it sounds like a commune,
where partial and heavily-zoned individual ownership of dwellings is a
consession to individualism not yet shed.  That would explain why I've
been asked "what I want to grow into" by moving into cohousing.  Silly
me, I thought I just wanted to share dinners, a mower and an event hall.

-----

So.  Assuming there is substantial emotional truth to that, what do
you call a housing development for humans who are happy as individuals
and want to stay individuals?  Where their primary motivation is to
share buildings and mowers to gain resource use efficiencies?  Where
they wish to grow into a semi-family over time, a "neighborhood", but
have no desire to artificially push it?

Brainstorming: No pet policy.  No architectural zoning.  No HOA.
Dwelling lot lines expanded out to touch.  Shared ownership is avoided
whenever possible, because decision-making among individuals is
*hard*.  Yet, still clustering, shared meals, shared greenspace.  We
all use it, but this is Fred's mower, and we should be considerate
when we borrow other people's stuff.  Amy owns the common house, Sam
owns the workshops, but more or less everyone pitched in to the
barn-raisings to erect them, and more or less everyone uses them on
"family" terms.  Lots of squabbling sometimes, but it would take
something really outrageous to eject someone.  At which point they
could build their own common house.  Or apologize.  Maybe this is a
traditional midwestern farming community?  Except we don't farm and
our houses are real close.

                                                        Brian