Heard of Co Housing???

I like having really good neighbors who will help me (and I them) at the drop of the hat in the worst weather imaginable...and I like them at least several hundred yards away, and I like them to leave me alone unless I (or they) come asking for help.

So....that's not for me I suppose.

I'm part of an Intentional Community/Co Housing situation and I must say overall I like it. Sure, we've had ups and downs, but so does any other sort of living situation.

We had one gentleman who did not do his fair share. We asked him to leave as a group. He left, problem dealt with.

Co housing can work and it can be a good thing. I would caution anyone considering it to be careful and do plenty of research, to include speaking privately with individual members of the cohousing group in question, if possible.

We looked at a couple of cohousing situations here when we first moved to town. Both turned out to basically be situations where the owners of the property utilized the cohousing concept to get around some of their responsibilities as landlords and to also be far more invasive and restrictive than a typical landlord/tenant relationship would allow. There were group meetings for the purpose of decision making, but the owners reserved the right (in very small print on your lease) to completely ignore the decisions made by the group and do whatever they would like. They furnished one washer and one dryer for 12 units. The machines were located in their building and in speaking with current tenants, it was common for the owners to dump other peoples laundry out of the machines when they wanted to use them. They held tenants responsible for yard maintenance on a rotating schedule that the owners excluded themselves from. They provided no mowing or other yard equipment. The owners also reserved the right to enter units at any time and for any reason. The standard landlord/tenant law here stipulates a 24 hour notice. It was a bad scene. The owners sold on the cohousinig aspect of the property, and if we had not taken the time to do some internet research and speak with most of their miserably unhappy tenants, we would have bought into it.

This isn't to say that all cohousing is like this. It isn't. Just be aware that it can be seedy. It's my experience that good cohousing organizations generally require ownership. When everyone owns their property/apartment, it is much more difficult for an abuse of power to take place.

I've visited a place similar to what you describe in Madison, minus the shared barns. Many of the foriegn professors that teach at the UW live in UW housing with a shared meeting/rec building, including a full kitchen and dining area. As DW is half Turkish, she happed to meet some of the Turkish UW professors and we were invited to join them in some ethic celebrations. Now it seemed to work just fine for them, but there's no way I'd ever be comfortable there, and DW felt the same way. Too many people is too small of an area. But then I can't be comfortable in town anymore anyway... But I think they are used to that in, especially in Europe.

__________________
veni, vidi, volgavi

I think it could work for me, depending on the goals the community wished to achieve. It's one thing to have barns and pasture available to those who wish to use them, another thing to make everyone take turns shoveling. If there was enough opportunity to do as much or as little in the way of "farming", and still be able to hold outside jobs, more people would be able to fit in. You wouldn't want established leaders. Some people will come to the forefront anyway, but if the community is open enough, these people would never be able to gain enough power to take over.

__________________
Nothing is as strong as gentleness, nothing so gentle as real strength - St. Francis de Sales

This appears to me to be the exact opposite of what this forum is all about. Don't mean to offend anyone, but homesteading is about developing "My" (or "Your") home/acreage the way you want it to be, and not about how my live-in neighbor might want it to be. When it comes to "our" place, DH and I are the only ones who have to agree on what/how/when/etc...

If we were in a shtf mode and survival was at stake, it might be different, but I'll take my chances on my 4 acres with my DH. (My = Our)


my 2 pennies

I don't see any reason why the right situation wouldn't work. Rather than saying why it won't work......why not make suggestions?

I'd say that each person/family would need to have their own dwelling and at least a yard. Some people might be happier living in an apartment style house. Maybe one that the community built and the tenants pay some sort of rent for. Could help offset some community expenses. Some of the things that would really appeal to me about living in a 'purposed community' would be sharing equipment. 10 families could afford a tractor and implements much easier than one family can. Cream separator, incubator, grain grinders, meat grinders, industrial kitchen appliances, etc. Another thing would be canning or cooking. It's always more fun and less onerous to do canning all day when you have some other folks to help and to chat with. I'd much rather cook and eat and do dishes as a community. It is no fun to cook for just one or two. One cool thing about a group is the possiblility of starting a business run by the members. Maybe the group would decide to make willow furniture, quilts, reupholster furniture, small publishing company......the possibilities are endless. What is it that all homesteaders are forever trying to do?.....work at home! A group with varied talents might make that possible.
You would need to work out some sort of barter system. Decide on what products are worth...probably whatever the going rate at the store is and barter value for value. For instance a gallon of milk is more valuable than a dozen eggs.

Some things that I would do away with. Nit picky rules....nobody likes em. To me this is easy. If someone isn't pulling their own weight.....it's blatant...and there is no good reason for them not to(unexpected illness or something)....then that person would be asked to leave. In the case of someone that owned a house in the community they would no longer be welcome to participate in or enjoy community activities and would be encouraged to sell their house to the community. Possibly have a predetermined amount that a member will be paid. That kind of thing would have to be decided at first before anything was established and an attorney hired to draw up a contract for everyone(this would be a place I definately would be happy to pay the legal fee).

A good idea might be to contact other groups and see what has worked for them and what hasn't.

I don't take offense at your position, but I think it is worth pointing out that it is based on one particular definition/view of homesteading. Not everyone has a survivalist perspective, and some would place a higher value on community than others. While the spirit of independence is definitely a strong part of homesteading and the rural mindset, the interdependence of neighbours and pulling together is also a virtue of country living. (IMHO)

That's not to say I think you are wrong, just that the homesteading movement has a lot of diversity, and people work out what is right for them. (and you make getting consensus with your spouse sound easier. In my case, I think I would have more luck getting strangers to build a Taj Mahal than getting my wife to agree on where to put the garden... )

Me, my wife, and my brother share 80 acres. My brother has a house on it, and of course my wife and I have a house. My parents have a house on 70 acres that is connected to our 80.

This isnt exactly communal living, but we do share a lot of stuff. If one person buys a tool, no one els buys one of the same tool. We all share it. Small tools anyway.
My brother is a journeyman electrician. He does all our electrical work. I keep his driveway plowed all winter. Dad lets him use a tractor when he needs one.
Dad is retired, so he has a lot of time at home. If my brother or I need errands ran during the work week, dad will run them for us. When dad is doing field work we give him a hand. I build dad's outdoor wood furnace last year. My brother brought home a trencher and put the underground tubing in for dad, and he wired the furnace.
They both keep their scheduals open to boil maple syrup for me.
Dad pastured some cattle on our place for a few years, and gave us some burger in trade.

I like it. There is a neighbor 50 yeards from my house who we dont get along with, and has his house for sale ever other year. Id like to see a homestead minded person buy it, and join in our family co-operation.

__________________
http://lownfamilymaplesyrup.com/ max@lownfamilymaplesyrup.com
Professional Tool. 1220 Woodmere Ave,Traverse City, MI. 49686. 231-941-8003. http://professionaltool.com/

I think it is a by-product of modern society that human beings are so focused on seeking community. Community exists naturally in fewer and fewer place the more society advances.

The problem that I have observed with artificial community is that it is an attempt to, as perfectly as possible, recreate something that has centuries if not millenia of effort involved. When communities develop naturally, there is room for flexibility and change. If you try to lay everything out from the outset, that capacity for change is greatly reduced and it results in dysfunctionalism. The least dysfunctional created communities tend to share a common purpose that is clear and is not a subject for dispute. Familial ties to community members also seem to produce a better chance of success. This is so, I think, because both of these factors are examples of why natural communities form.

One of the things that most gets in the way of establishing any sort of intentional community is the decades of socialization focused on individualism that potential members enter the endeavor with. We are pre-programmed to look out for ourselves, because that is what societally makes the best sense today. It is hard to suppress, particularly when it is not given any thought at all.