Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing vs "traditional" self-managed community

[R Philip Dowds (rphilipdowds]

I think most or all cohousing communities like to characterize themselves as 
having cheerful, optimistic and positive attitudes of inclusivity, tolerance 
and empathy.  Much or most of the time, such characterizations are justifiable 
and appropriate.

But for me, the *real* test of community is this:  How well (or poorly) does 
the community handle (or ignore, or repress) values conflicts?  For example …

Our Cornerstone culture discourages and resists “political” conversations.  
Especially ones that seem to involve partisanship at the national level.  I 
think we do this because we’re afraid we can’t handle them.  That such 
conversations will blow up on us, and permanently ruin relationships.  And yet …

And yet, we *do* use our common house to host neighborhood and city-wide 
convocations that most would agree have political meaning and consequence.  
More specifically, most “Republican-ist” people would probably see our hosted 
meetings as “Democrat-ish”.  I personally know of one household here that is on 
the side of Russia, not Ukraine; but this household lies very low, believing 
thats its views would not be well included or welcome.  I think their belief is 
probably correct.  I cannot recall any time at Cornerstone when a meeting, 
conversation, email or public notice included the words “Gaza” or “genocide”.

Well, never mind issues of international peace and justice; they are beyond the 
scope of cohousing, I guess.  But my point is:  All communities larger than one 
person have occasional values conflicts.  If a community isn’t good at 
discussing and resolving values conflicts, these conflicts congeal into 
fossilized resentments and antagonisms that impede the basic domiciliary 
business of interpreting fair housing and ADA.  Or of replacing the worn-out 
roof.  Or of deciding what to do about a dog that is scaring the kids.  Or 
about the ornery member who shows up and hijacks every committee meeting.  Or 
about the 20% of the membership that makes zero contribution to the chores 
system.  Because management issues like these have the potential to go nuclear, 
it often feels safest to ignore and deny them as long as possible.

Shared values of inclusiveness and welcome-ness are part of the foundation 
establishing the equivalence and potential legitimacy of all members and views. 
 But they are not, by themselves, the sufficient tools of resolving value 
conflicts.  Nor the guarantors of residential harmony.
 
———————————
Thanks,
Philip Dowds
Cornerstone Cohousing
Cambridge, MA

> On Jun 13, 2025, at 9:37 AM, Lisa Kuntz via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] 
> cohousing.org> wrote:
> 
> It seems like an extreme response to me.
> 
> Well-stated:  " laws that are supposedly trying to enforce people
> being inclusive and welcoming.  :-| "
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 6:01 AM Mac Thomson <macthomson [at] mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> Lisa,
>> 
>> Wow. Sorry to hear your FH story.
>> 
>> Like I’d imagine most cohousing communities to be, we are very inclusive
>> and welcoming. I’m thankful that we haven’t had issues with the laws that
>> are supposedly trying to enforce people being inclusive and welcoming.  :-|
>> 
>> --
>> Mac Thomson
>> 
>> Heartwood Cohousing
>> Southwest Colorado
>> http://www.heartwoodcohousing.com
>> 
>> 
>> “You can have everything in life you want, if you will just help other
>> people get what they want."
>>        - Zig Ziglar
>> **********************************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 12, 2025, at 6:19 PM, Lisa Kuntz <lisa.kuntz [at] 
>> daybreakcohousing.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> That is an excellent question, Mac. I  appreciate the use of the word
>> "sanction" rather than lawsuit or complaint.
>> 
>> As I understand it, if a formal complaint were lodged the complaint would
>> be investigated and suggestions made.  There wouldn't be a monetary
>> assessment against the community, which seems to be a great source of
>> anxiety and fear. There would be the opportunity for self-correction.
>> 
>> Recently, another member suggested that the “honorable” thing for me to do
>> was step down from my role on Membership Team in giving tours and/or
>> contact with the public for mistakes I have made IN THE PAST.  A couple who
>> moved  here three years ago knew so little about cohousing that they were
>> outraged that we had  an informal interview/”vetting”  process. They
>> learned about FH laws and have used them to scrutinize past messages and
>> comments over the years to the point where it felt to me as though FH were
>> being weaponized!
>> 
>> The member insisted that the Membership Team committed “flagrant
>> violations,” which seems a bit inflammatory to me. That is different from
>> “taking responsibility for.” The couple have achieved their goal of having
>> only formal realtor-type tours by recruiting a cohort of like minded
>> residents to form a FH team to educate the community. From my perspective,
>> they went to extremes to eliminate any informal/casual dialogue when
>> showing potential residents the complex. Instead of modifying the current
>> conversational interview/tour to ensure that we were FHA compliant, the
>> Membership Team eliminated it under pressure from the new FH team.
>> 
>> My view is that many of the "errors" I made are subject to interpretation.
>> There is a belief that because our Membership Team had a one-hour video
>> orientation presented by FH of Oregon, myself and others should know how to
>> navigate making full disclosure of what future residents can expect while
>> remaining in compliance with FHA.  I think that takes practice, yet I was
>> informed that I should have known better.
>> 
>> Our website was deemed to be acceptable by FH of Oregon, but it is
>> nevertheless being revised. I think lawyers will be brought into the
>> picture to scrutinize any new documents or processes that involve
>> interaction with potential residents
>> 
>> The FH study team created an internal FH Concern Response Procedure where
>> residents can submit concerns. Three “neutral” residents will be assigned
>> to the team. I don’t understand how this can work in a cohousing community
>> without generating mistrust and hard feelings. That is about to be
>> presented to the community at a business meeting.
>> 
>> This is an abbreviated version, of course. My take is based on a few
>> months of observation and inquiry, but this whole endeavor is extremely
>> concerning to me.
>> 
>> Educating and forming an internal FH review team seems legally wise, but I
>> don't think it was done wisely.  One reason I think it was unskillfully
>> handled is that unlike conventional communities, which are purely business
>> oriented, the ideals of cohousing are based on a well-functioning social
>> fabric.  From my perspective, this whole endeavor has been insensitive to
>> the social fabric of the community. It's been treated as though it were a
>> morality issue rather than a legal and ethical one. The way it was handled
>> has damaged my relationship with the community.
>> 
>> I always try to find the humor in dynamics like this. Surely one ironic
>> aspect is that they have alienated a once hard-working committed, long time
>> member because of what seems to me to be a judgmental, moralistic and
>> fundamentalist mind-set towards residents who "transgress."
>> 
>> It's just the stuff of cohousing and something I was mostly prepared for.
>> We're a bunch of sometimes unskillful volunteers with varying degrees of
>> social intelligence!
>> 
>> Have others had experiences like this?
>> 
>> 
>> Lisa Kuntz
>> Daybreak Cohousing
>> Portland OR
>> lisa.kuntz [at] gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 5:51 AM Mac Thomson <macthomson [at] mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> There’s been a lot of concern over the years with cohousing marketing
>>> running afoul of fair housing laws.
>>> 
>>> I’m curious, have there ever been any cohousing communities that have
>>> actually been sanctioned for violations of fair housing laws?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mac Thomson
>>> 
>>> Heartwood Cohousing
>>> Southwest Colorado
>>> http://www.heartwoodcohousing.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "It isn't enough to talk about peace.  One must believe in it.  One must
>>> work at it."
>>>        - Eleanor Roosevelt
>>> **********************************************************
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 5, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Lisa Kuntz via Cohousing-L <
>>> cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your reply, Linda.
>>> 
>>> It reflects our concerns about moving away from "full disclosure" due to
>>> FH
>>> concerns.
>>> 
>>> FH seems to want you to share less, but that seems "unkind" to me, in the
>>> sense that potential members could end up buying into community that is
>>> not
>>> what they expected, or missing the opportunity to live in a community that
>>> would be a welcoming "sanctuary."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 1:07 PM Linda Hobbet <coho [at] lindahobbet.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We run into that problem at Village Hearth in Durham, NC. We are an
>>> LGBTQIA+ and allies-oriented senior community. one of our core values is
>>> to create a space where people are comfortable being themselves in
>>> public. While cohousing communities in general are welcoming being in a
>>> place where LGBTQ+ people are the majority feels different to our members.
>>> 
>>> We are concerned about that focus changing over time, simply due to
>>> demographics, because we aren't allowed to say we prefer LGBTQ+ people
>>> when marketing available units. Probably the most useful tool is our
>>> website (currently under revision), which makes who we are very clear.
>>> That and general promotion of the community without it being linked to
>>> marketing a specific unit. Our orientation has attracted media coverage,
>>> especially at the beginning. For example, we are going to be featured on
>>> an upcoming CBS Eyes on America segment on the national evening news!
>>> Nevertheless, our population can easily swing to mostly allies
>>> (including myself) rather than actual members of the LGBTQ+ community,
>>> simply because 55+ LGBTQ+ people are a much smaller demographic.  We are
>>> currently about 50/50.
>>> 
>>> Linda Hobbet
>>> 
>>> On 6/4/2025 7:16 PM, Mariana Almeida via Cohousing-L wrote:
>>> 
>>> Marketing a unit in cohousing is fraught in a fair housing context. You
>>> 
>>> want to know a lot about people, but the fair housing law essentially
>>> wants
>>> you to know less (so you can discriminate less.)
>>> 
>>> --
>>> VillageHearthCohousing.com <http://villagehearthcohousing.com/>
>>> 706-202-7178
>>> coho [at] lindahobbet.com
>>> 
>>> "When you plant a seed of love, it is you that blooms.”
>>>                                                   Ma Jaya
>>> 
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>>> http://L.cohousing.org/info <http://l.cohousing.org/info>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>>> http://L.cohousing.org/info <http://l.cohousing.org/info>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://L.cohousing.org/info
> 
> 
>