Cohousing-L Mailing List: Screening of Prospective Members

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

I held off on joining this conversation. It’s hard to discuss without sounding 
naïve, stupid, or elitist. Most of us only have hopes for a community when we 
start and not a clue about real estate financing and construction. 

Facing the questions of what we expect cohousing to be, how we expect to ensure 
that, and whether it is possible to build anything at all raises many fears.

The trigger for this discussion was the announcement of the bank’s foreclosure 
on Rocky Corner Cohousing and members losing all their money and their almost 
completed houses. It has become unthinkable that by the time a group reaches 
the final stages of construction that the community could still evaporate. 

People who start ventures like cohousing, entrepreneurs, tend to believe that 
all success requires is plowing on, looking straight ahead, and never glancing 
back or to the side. 

Rocky Corner reminded us that developing communities are at risk every moment 
because any construction delays can raise financing costs beyond our means. And 
it doesn’t matter what permits you have paid for because building codes can 
change retroactively. Approvals can be taken back. How do we protect ourselves?

That led to discussion of what assets “equity” or investing members needed to 
prove and verifying whether new members were able to afford to a unit before 
accepting them.

One post listed the detailed information about what has to be checked to 
“guarantee” financial qualifications. That list introduced a vocabulary and a 
level of judgement that are outside the experience that people who want to live 
in cohousing have. Cohousers are usually interested are in downsizing, having a 
home they can afford, living sustainably, and investing in community, in 
people, not in assets. 

The details of avoiding risks made the risks real. The responsible reaction to 
risk, of course, is to hire experts, do background checks, verify financial 
assets, etc., to ensure that we are not making any mistakes.

Questions about what the accuracy of such reports led to a discussion of sexual 
predators, emotional instability, being preyed upon by potential neighbors, 
disclosing medications that might reveal extreme behavior, and (off list) a 
question about requiring disclosure of gun possession. “Don’t you want to know 
what your neighbors might do? That murder is possible?”

Suddenly we were very far away from the pre-WW II films in which Judy and 
Mickey put on a musical in the barn to save the farm. All obstacles are 
overcome with youthful enthusiasm. And repeat it again the next year.

While getting from the first meeting to move-in, life happens. The more life 
you strive for, the more life will happen. 

But rather than stopping life—stop striving and wishing—the only way forward is 
to learn how to cope. Community is about a group of people bringing resources 
together like Judy and Mickey. It’s about trusting each other to step up to the 
plate and figure things out. Trying to avoid all possible risks in advance 
means you will probably never make it. It would be too complicated. Too many 
details. Total overwhelm. The effort to protect yourself against hypotheticals 
is endless and not happy-making. And it does build a false sense of trust.

The group has to find a level of feeling safe, but the solutions have to be 
satisficing.

“Satisficing" is a blend of “satisfying" and “sufficient.” It’s a bit more 
optimistic than “good enough” but has the same effect of allowing you to go 
forward without the paralysis of continually searching for guaranteed perfect 
answers or expecting to limit your community to a group of certified perfect 
people. The negativity generated would be so uncomfortable that no one would 
want to join. 

It is extremely unlikely that anyone with criminal intent is going to choose to 
live where buildings are close enough together to see who is coming and going 
24/7. A group of 30-50 adults brings with it all the experience and 
understanding of each person in the group. Someone will smell a rat. You will 
be able to imagine a million more possible events than will ever happen. 

Trying to protect yourself by investigating the background of members will 
build incredible feelings of suspicion and exposure. And you can’t do it well 
enough to ensure yourself that you have actually done it, anyway. All sorts of 
law enforcement institutions exist to do this, each one spends millions of 
dollars every year, and they still don’t know who stole this or that billion 
dollars or who is likely to be a predator. Or who in 10 years will become a 
thief or predator. Or go mental in the middle of the night and tear up all the 
mail. 

The first precondition to abuse is secrecy. The best defense against abuse is 
transparency. Establish the expectation of openness, interaction, contribution, 
and responsibility. Expect everyone to trust their own sense of good judgement 
including judgements about when expert advice is required.

It is practical to ask people to do their own mortgage qualification so they 
know they are being realistic about purchasing a newly built home of whatever 
size. If they haven't done it, it will come out in the high-contact 
interactions necessary in developing the community. Anything on paper can be 
faked.

A story: A former priest and a former nun had married and had two children. 
They quickly decided that the perfection of the nuclear family was a complete 
illusion and they wanted a cohousing community. The early group was composed of 
people who had experience with open membership, consensus decision-making 
groups. In one meeting a new woman came who kept asking questions about what we 
expected of her: how much money did she need to have, who would interview her, 
was there a trial period, what did she have to sign, etc. At each question 
people responded no, none, or nothing. She became increasingly frustrated 
thinking they wouldn’t even allow her to apply to become a member, when in fact 
they had no intention of approving members. She just had to say, “Okay, I’m in 
and what can I do?" It was a couple of meetings before she believed that was 
true.

Because cohousing on the whole is less risky and more proven now, we may have 
to do more than that to ensure that someone joining understands that this will 
be a self-managed community requiring participation. But I think we have to be 
careful that cohousing moving into the mainstream means we change the 
mainstream, not that the mainstream changes cohousing. Cohousers are leaving 
the mainstream for good reasons.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org