Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Addressing Conflicts as Community Issues [was Community Mediation in cohousing “neighborly awareness” from becoming surveillance (with CPS calls)

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Oct 13, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Diana Carroll via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] 
> cohousing.org> wrote:
> 
> Indeed, once we choose to address an issue as a community issue, rather
> than just an individual conflict, I would expect the entire community to be
> involved in the solution.

I think the default should be that conflicts in community are teated as 
community issues. If there is a conflict over where a property line or boundary 
is, the community has probably not been clear about the property lines in the 
whole community. If it is a conflict over acceptable behavior it is a community 
issue — whether it is children or pets or men who are raising the conflict. If 
there is a conflict over use of the kitchen or the common house, that is a 
community issue. Indviduals don’t set expectatons about common spaces. If 
something is causing conflict it has to be addressed at the community level. If 
a circle or team has responsibility for the area, then they may be able to 
resolve it. Otherwise it needs to be elevated to a circle that has a wider 
responsibility, whether that is the whole group or a general coordinating 
circle. 

> Sure enough, when people were able to speak, lots of community members and 
> issues turned
> out to be affected, at least peripherally.

I find that an issue may arise from one person or two persons but where there 
is smoke there is fire. Rarely does something only bother one person. It may 
bother them more than others so they speak up, but most often others share the 
same feelings/wishes. In respect to using green materials, for example. There 
may be one “crazy” person in the community who always raises these issues but 
there will be others who are happy that this person is doing the work of 
raising the issues. Hard for that person to be the only one raising the issue 
but when the issue is discussed in a community context, it becomes clear that 
this is a common value.

One of the natural consequences of consent decision-making is that if one 
person has already raised the issue, no one else may feel the need to raise it. 
It doesn’t have to be raised x-amount of times before it is “worthy” of 
attention.

> We didn't "solve" the conflict
> but I believe the process resulted in forward progress towards a healthier
> community. 

Doing circles is the most effortless, entry level way of addressing issues and 
it doesn’t have to resolve anything to be effective. Just hearing how everyone 
feels about an issue is clarifying and air clearing. The issue might appear to 
even resolve itself once it is recognized. A specific rule or decision may not 
be necessary. Just hearing many ways of describing the issue is clarifying and 
can change feelings.

Expecting a rule or specific decision to be made around every issue, keeps 
issues from being addressed. Some people feel that the only issues that should 
be on a membership meeting agenda are those that are the result of a proposed 
decision. This clearly prevents any discussion or mention of an issue that is 
just driving a bunch of people crazy. People are at a loss about what to do but 
talking about it is often the best way to defuse the heat and the problem goes 
away.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Riderwood Village, Silver Spring MD
Formerly of Takoma Village, DC