Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Common House Use Proposal

[Wayne Tyson (landrest]

Eris and CoHo:

How did the first "co-housing" communities in Denmark work? 

How are the present co-housing communities working? 

What are the most important areas that need to be changed in said communities? 

What are the most important features of existing co-housing that satisfy 
community members most? 

What is the ultimate goal of co-housing as a "movement" in the opinion of those 
now living in "cohos?" 

What remains to be achieved with respect to actually achieving that goal? 

Should "theoreticals" be banned? Are they, ipso facto, invalid? 

Are those not presently living in cohos considered "uncool" when they suggest 
alternatives? 

How have the other members of John's coho voted with respect to his proposal? 

Thanks for any responses/answers. 

WT


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eris Weaver" <eris [at] erisweaver.info>
To: <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Common House Use Proposal


> 
> I have been watching this conversation with interest, and notice that except
> for Sharon it mostly seems to be folks who aren't living in coho yet who are
> discussing theoreticals. 
> 
> My first question would be to the original poster John, wondering about the
> backstory. Where did this come from and what were you hoping to get from
> posting to the list? Is this an idea you have and you want validation or
> critique before proposing it to your community? Or has it been proposed to
> your community and you want feedback? I'm curious. The idea of connecting
> participation with CH access is unique (and may not be legal depending upon
> your ownership structure?)
> 
> I echo Sharon's question about why we are OK about rules, penalties
> regarding dues but not about work.
> 
> The number one topic for which communities hire
> consultants/facilitators/trainers like me is conflict about community work
> issues. The usual scenario is that the community has policies or agreements
> about work; participation is declining; and the few who feel they do more
> than their share are unhappy. There are no consequences or incentives built
> into the agreements. The community seems to feel that reworking the
> agreements and talking about it all will magically get people to increase
> their participation. Few communities are willing to apply positive or
> negative incentives...even though we use them with our children, our
> spouses, our students, our employees, ourselves (when we're trying to quit
> smoking, lose weight,etc.) and there is a large body of excellent research
> about how to make organizational behavior change...but in CohoLand we hold
> onto this ideal that everyone should just want to do it and should just do
> it and we don't want to be police etc.
> 
> IT DOESN'T WORK. In my opinion, this lack of accountability is one of the
> biggest flaws in our cohousing models.
> 
> It just might end up being the topic of my next book.
> 
> (Shameless promotion: my first book will hopefully be out in time for the
> conference! It's titled "Let's Talk About Money: A Conversation Guide for
> Intentional Communities.")
> 
> ------------------------------
> Eris Weaver, Facilitator & Group Process Consultant
> Founding member, FrogSong cohousing (Cotati, CA)
> eris [at] erisweaver.info
> 707-338-8589
> http://www.erisweaver.info
> http://erisweaver.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> fa cil' i tāt: to make easier
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3629 - Release Date: 05/10/11