Heads up: intending to bring up section 8 issues tonight as new business

[Nolan Darilek]

I don't like surprises about as much as the next person, so here's a
heads-up on a potential one.

Unless dissuaded, I plan to bring up some of the substantive issues of
our section 8 discussion tonight as new business. My intent is to phrase
it thusly.

We aren't certain about the implications of section 8 on coop
membership. We have some ideas, but nothing absolutely definitive. We're
breaking new ground.

We may have to treat section 8 residents differently than others, due to
legal restrictions on what their leases can include vs. ours.

For my part, I think that cooperation is an institution, not a contract.
I would like to allow for as much participation as we can offer,
regardless of what their contracts obligate. We may have to revisit that
six months later should we have problems, but we can address those
problems pragmatically rather than from a place of fear and reaction.

I would go even further and state that *not* letting a member join
because we cannot legally force cooperation discriminates against those
who legally cannot participate as fully. If a certain class of people,
be they section 8-ers or those with three arms, are legally prohibited
from obtaining the instruments that would make them full members, then I
would say that we have a *moral* obligation which trumps our legal one.
It's not an issue of helping the poor or people of color at that point.
You want to reach out and bring cooperation to people? Great, bring it
to those who have been denied cooperative access because they cannot
participate in the legal instruments most other cooperatives require.

We have not had this discussion in a way accessible to those who will be
most affected by it. In fact, most of it has taken place on a list not
available to current members. This is a part of our history. We should
all hold enough conviction in our beliefs to record them in ways that
become a *part* of said history, rather than on a list that will likely
soon be closed down and its archives unavailable.

We need to have this discussion with the residents. That short-term
discomfort we keep referring to? It isn't asking them to leave sooner
rather than later. It's confessing to the residents that we've been
having this discussion and involving them before we've made even more
injurious assumptions about what they will/cann do. Otherwise there will
always *be* a them, and an us, and how cooperative is that?

I plan on saying this. I also plan on taking a straw poll of who among
the current residents would be willing to chip in and help build the
cooperative even if they *can't* be made to sign a contract, and in
phrasing it such that it doesn't require section 8 folks to out
themselves if they wish not to.

Finally, to be absolutely clear. If folks aren't willing to be
cooperative, then I want them gone as much as the next person. This
won't succeed if we don't work together. But whether or not someone is
cooperative has *nothing to do* with whether or not they can sign a
contract that forces cooperation, and not being able to do so does not
mean they clash with our values and should be given the boot. It seems
so silly to me that, at its core, this is an issue of whether we can
*force* cooperation. What's next? War is peace?

I'd also like to have the bulk of this discussion on our membership
list. Let's make it part of archives that will *survive*. Also, Sarah is
*still not* getting emails from the old list, even though she does from
the new. And if you think that *I* have opinions, well... :P

Let's get this discussion had and stop hiding behind email addresses.
Thanks.

[Travis Jones]

My thoughts on this, for the record.

Firstly, I want to be transparent and honest with y'all about my own personal hopes and needs.  All I really want for myself and my family (cats included) is a space to call our own, with our own kitchen, surrounded by a warm and comforting community of friends that we socialize with regularly.  Within this mindset, whatever direction we go, be it required, optional or no food, be in inclusive of section 8ers or not, I do not see any of this as infringing on what will make me ultimately happy.  Conflict and strife is a requisite of community building and cooperation, and I am not worried about weathering that storm.  I've had to deal with much worse in the past, so whatever happens, I don't foresee any of it as surprising me.

We have a lot of uncertainty still about what we can and cannot do to stay within the bounds of HACA's section 8 requirements, but if there was one thing I was almost certain on, it was the absolute requirement that section 8 tenants be treated the same as everyone else in the building and sign the same contract.  So I don't want us to make the mistake of saying section 8 may be treated differently, because that is impossible (and discriminatory).  At least as far as I remember.

Another observation.  Until everyone that lives in the building is a member of the coop, the fact of the matter is that there *is* an us and them, and this cannot be swept under the rug.  "Us" is the current members, with prospective members being included for the sake of inclusivity.  We are the folks with the vision, knowledge and commitment to the cooperative.  "Them" is the current residents who either don't know enough about "us" to be able to consider becoming a prospective member, or those who do know enough and actively choose to not contribute.  If they are a part of the former group, it is our duty to educate them on both the brass tacks of the cooperative business model and also introduce them to the various personal opinions of those in the "us" group as to how to go about applying those principles to our organization.  Those in the second group have self selected out of "us," and we are under no obligation to try to change our opinions to bring them back in.  Bottom line, at least as I see it, is that we should accept that there are differences of opinion here in our group of cooperative pioneers, we should accept that there *is* a real division between us and them, but that over the coming weeks and months, this division will disappear on its own because eventually everyone in this building will be under the same cooperative contract.  Our task here is to determine what that contract looks like.

Another thing, whatever we decide to do *will* work, for the simple fact that we have committed, hardworking, visionary members already that will work hard to make sure it works.  The only thing that would make this project fail is if we all get so angry with each other that we all end up moving out at the same time.  Nothing like a good ol leadership vacuum to kill a coop.  But that's not going to happen, because in the end, we all love each other and want this to work.  As long as we treat each other with respect and let the democratic process play out, in the end we will have a working structure.  

Whatever comes, it probably won't work for everyone.  Maybe we'll end up with a system that is too structured, or conversely not structured enough, for some of our founding members.  Some people will be disappointed.  Some people will leave, because la reunion didn't end up meeting their expectations.  This is the cost of business when high minded individuals come together.  No one is willing to sacrifice their core beliefs, but lets all just remember to try to treat each other respectfully, avoid personal jabs and offensive generalizations, and even though some of us may end up moving on to find something that fits them better, we will be able to maintain the strong friendships and connections that brought us here in the first place.

Speaking of email lists.  Leslie and I are not members of the new list yet, presumably because we do not live in the building.  However, we are voting members of the organization, and so if more business-related discussions are migrating to the new list, I would want to make sure we're a part of that as well.  No matter how these discussions go, les and I are committed to moving in in mid-July, nothing's going to change that.  So maybe we should get on that new list now.  I'd hate to be excluded from a conversation because our email addresses weren't on a list.

One more thing, then I'll shut up.  We need to have a clear understanding of what we are talking about when we use the word cooperation.  It is difficult when a business model uses the same word for a specific structure that also means something much more general.  To be clear, when we are talking about cooperation, we are talking about a business structure that follows the 7 core principles of cooperation as set forth by the international cooperative alliance (http://www.cdi.coop/icaprinciples.html).  We are not talking about hanging out in the courtyard drinking 'rita's and playing cards.  We are not talking about sharing meals or watching each others' kids.  We are talking about a business structure that is intentionally democratically controlled and jointly-owned.  Read the principles and you'll understand that what exists currently among the current residents doesn't even scratch the surface of what cooperation means to me.  Maybe there is plenty within this community that we can build on, but lets not kid ourselves by calling them cooperative already. They are a neighborhood of friendly neighbors who help each other out and have common goals because they share a common space.  But it is inherently informal and based solely on the immediate personal needs of the individual renters.  What we are trying to build is something much stronger than this, that will last for generations to come.

I am ready to Skype in to the meeting again tonight if someone would be willing to offer their Internet connection.  I will try to be more vocal with my contributions this time, hopefully it'll work...

Travis

Sent from my iPad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CHEACoopDiscussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheacoopdiscuss...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Travis Jones]

My thoughts on this, for the record.

Firstly, I want to be transparent and honest with y'all about my own personal hopes and needs.  All I really want for myself and my family (cats included) is a space to call our own, with our own kitchen, surrounded by a warm and comforting community of friends that we socialize with regularly.  Within this mindset, whatever direction we go, be it required, optional or no food, be in inclusive of section 8ers or not, I do not see any of this as infringing on what will make me ultimately happy.  Conflict and strife is a requisite of community building and cooperation, and I am not worried about weathering that storm.  I've had to deal with much worse in the past, so whatever happens, I don't foresee any of it as surprising me.

We have a lot of uncertainty still about what we can and cannot do to stay within the bounds of HACA's section 8 requirements, but if there was one thing I was almost certain on, it was the absolute requirement that section 8 tenants be treated the same as everyone else in the building and sign the same contract.  So I don't want us to make the mistake of saying section 8 may be treated differently, because that is impossible (and discriminatory).  At least as far as I remember.

Another observation.  Until everyone that lives in the building is a member of the coop, the fact of the matter is that there *is* an us and them, and this cannot be swept under the rug.  "Us" is the current members, with prospective members being included for the sake of inclusivity.  We are the folks with the vision, knowledge and commitment to the cooperative.  "Them" is the current residents who either don't know enough about "us" to be able to consider becoming a prospective member, or those who do know enough and actively choose to not contribute.  If they are a part of the former group, it is our duty to educate them on both the brass tacks of the cooperative business model and also introduce them to the various personal opinions of those in the "us" group as to how to go about applying those principles to our organization.  Those in the second group have self selected out of "us," and we are under no obligation to try to change our opinions to bring them back in.  Bottom line, at least as I see it, is that we should accept that there are differences of opinion here in our group of cooperative pioneers, we should accept that there *is* a real division between us and them, but that over the coming weeks and months, this division will disappear on its own because eventually everyone in this building will be under the same cooperative contract.  Our task here is to determine what that contract looks like.

Another thing, whatever we decide to do *will* work, for the simple fact that we have committed, hardworking, visionary members already that will work hard to make sure it works.  The only thing that would make this project fail is if we all get so angry with each other that we all end up moving out at the same time.  Nothing like a good ol leadership vacuum to kill a coop.  But that's not going to happen, because in the end, we all love each other and want this to work.  As long as we treat each other with respect and let the democratic process play out, in the end we will have a working structure.  

Whatever comes, it probably won't work for everyone.  Maybe we'll end up with a system that is too structured, or conversely not structured enough, for some of our founding members.  Some people will be disappointed.  Some people will leave, because la reunion didn't end up meeting their expectations.  This is the cost of business when high minded individuals come together.  No one is willing to sacrifice their core beliefs, but lets all just remember to try to treat each other respectfully, avoid personal jabs and offensive generalizations, and even though some of us may end up moving on to find something that fits them better, we will be able to maintain the strong friendships and connections that brought us here in the first place.

Speaking of email lists.  Leslie and I are not members of the new list yet, presumably because we do not live in the building.  However, we are voting members of the organization, and so if more business-related discussions are migrating to the new list, I would want to make sure we're a part of that as well.  No matter how these discussions go, les and I are committed to moving in in mid-July, nothing's going to change that.  So maybe we should get on that new list now.  I'd hate to be excluded from a conversation because our email addresses weren't on a list.

One more thing, then I'll shut up.  We need to have a clear understanding of what we are talking about when we use the word cooperation.  It is difficult when a business model uses the same word for a specific structure that also means something much more general.  To be clear, when we are talking about cooperation, we are talking about a business structure that follows the 7 core principles of cooperation as set forth by the international cooperative alliance (http://www.cdi.coop/icaprinciples.html).  We are not talking about hanging out in the courtyard drinking 'rita's and playing cards.  We are not talking about sharing meals or watching each others' kids.  We are talking about a business structure that is intentionally democratically controlled and jointly-owned.  Read the principles and you'll understand that what exists currently among the current residents doesn't even scratch the surface of what cooperation means to me.  Maybe there is plenty within this community that we can build on, but lets not kid ourselves by calling them cooperative already. They are a neighborhood of friendly neighbors who help each other out and have common goals because they share a common space.  But it is inherently informal and based solely on the immediate personal needs of the individual renters.  What we are trying to build is something much stronger than this, that will last for generations to come.

I am ready to Skype in to the meeting again tonight if someone would be willing to offer their Internet connection.  I will try to be more vocal with my contributions this time, hopefully it'll work...

Travis

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 21, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Nolan Darilek <no...@thewordnerd.info> wrote:

[Nolan Darilek]

For the record, I'm not saying (nor have I ever) that the situation in the complex is a cooperative one. I'm also not disputing adherence to the 7 cooperative principals. My point is that cooperatives exist and have existed in times and places beyond those covered by HACA. We can adhere to the principals in such a way that doesn't require *us* to require a group of our prospective membership to legally consent to something they cannot.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the tone of lots of the discussions here, but sometimes they seem of the form "if we cannot mandate specific contract terms to a resident that require their cooperation, then they must leave. Further, if they cannot sign certain contract terms, then by extension their values are automatically at odds with ours, and they must leave." Given that the principals came along over a century before HACA likely existed, that doesn't make sense to me.

Put more simply, I'm *a whole lot more comfortable* saying "Joe's a dick, he steals from the kitchen, doesn't do work and is non-cooperative. Let's talk to him and/or evict" than I am saying "all these people can't legally be held to the same standards, so let's remove them now." Ideally we don't let things progress to ficticious Joe's level, but it would make me much more comfortable if our discussions were more about keeping people here until we cannot, rather than on even the *possibility* that they must go before we've even worked with them. Let's work with people individually, rather than aggregated into groups.

And I'm not living there and am also on the members list, as is Sarah. So yeah, you guys should be there too. Perhaps we should move to retire the old list soon so we can mitigate this confusion.