Cohousing-L Mailing List: Per Household or Per Person

[Thomas Lofft (tlofft]

RPD from Cornerstone Cohousing in Cambridge, MA wrote:"If you are [a community] 
in formation, you might not know very much about future unit sizes.  A per 
member, rather than per unit, assessment, might make sense during the formation 
period.  Interestingly enough, our community does consensus on a per unit (per 
household) basis, where each of our 32 units has equal standing.  Other 
communities do consensus on a per member basis, excluding (usually) dependent 
minors.  Then there is always the tenant / renter controversy: In America, all 
citizens have an equal voice (so we say) in public affairs and decisions ? but 
at Cornerstone, only people with their names on a deed have a voice.  ???" I 
reflect, If you are seeking consensus, how will it matter if a household is 
counted as one household or two (or more) member voices? Actually, a household 
of multiple members may have multiple opinions, one (or more) in accord, one 
(or more) in disagreement. A true search for consensus should seek to have 
every opinion expressed, not to force a supression of contradictory opinions. 
So much for determining policy. When it comes to tallying up and sharing the 
bills, only the property owners may be assessed for fees through the typical 
condiminium laws of every state. Should renting tenants who have no capital 
investment at risk in their lodging be able to force an assessment to create 
benefits for themselves at the expense of the property owners? As to public 
policy of our non-democratic federal republic, property owners don't get any 
vote by virtue of property ownership. Every citizen (or other human who manages 
to get themselves registered) gets to vote, except those excluded by felony 
conviction (in some states?) or by lack of verifiable citizenship (in some 
other states?) In my personal opinionTom LofftLiberty Village, MD