Food Program Plans

[Hannah Frankel]

Hey all,

 

I'd like to start a conversation onlist about our food program and what we want from it.  I know Jesse's authoring a survey to get more substantial information, but let's start talking generalities in the mean time.  This is one of the last major building blocks of who we are and what we do that we have yet to iron out (at least for now), before moving on to all the hundreds and hundreds of smaller ones.  Isn't the adventure inspiring? :DD  ://

 

So I humbly submit to y'all the following question prompts, which I'd like to hear as many voices chiming in on as possible:

 

Mandatory or not?

How many meals a week do we want?

How much do we want to pay per member?

Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op?  How much?

How many person-hours should go into each meal?

Should it be assigned to specific people or just a scheduled informal potluck?

 

My answers to the aforementioned questions:

 

1.  Non-mandatory.  With a building that's half section 8 recipients who we can't legally obligate to pay for food, it seems harsh to require that the other half of the tenants pay for food.

 

2..  3.  That's what seemed to work for most people, judging by the last time we took a straw poll.

 

3..  $50/month.  Should definitely include access to bulk and other ingredients for personal use.

 

4.  1-2 hours.

 

5.  2-3 hours to start, depending on participation/labor supply.

 

6.  Definitely assigned.  I'd like to comfortably show up after doing school/work/co-op shit all day, secure in the knowledge that I'm not contributing diddly to this particular meal but it doesn't matter cause it's not on me for the night.  Similarly, I'd like to know that it's my job to do stuff on a certain night so I can plan accordingly.

 

I want to know how this is going to work asap so I can do my Membership role well.  Once we get this ironed out I can sign normal length leases with people (currently we're signing abbreviated leases for a grace period we gave the first wave to figure stuff like this out, in case the lease terms changed), know what we can advertise ourselves as offering, and introduce the associate program that we already have substantial interest in. 

 

Thanks!

Hannah

[Gatlin Johnson]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Hannah Frankel <hfran...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey all,

 

I'd like to start a conversation onlist about our food program and what we want from it.  I know Jesse's authoring a survey to get more substantial information, but let's start talking generalities in the mean time.  This is one of the last major building blocks of who we are and what we do that we have yet to iron out (at least for now), before moving on to all the hundreds and hundreds of smaller ones.  Isn't the adventure inspiring? :DD  ://

 

So I humbly submit to y'all the following question prompts, which I'd like to hear as many voices chiming in on as possible:

 

Mandatory or not?

I think there should be an optional food storage coop. I have supported this for a while. There should be staples and materials to cook with. Meals and more mature meal systems will come out of that. But I think we should start with what matters: food, and sharing it. People will eat and cook together as a natural consequence.

 

How many meals a week do we want?

Sunday / Wednesday at minimum, food available all the time.

 

How much do we want to pay per member?
 

Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op?  How much?

It will depend on the nature of what we're trying to offer. I think we should focus on that at first. I do think we should cap it at 2 more hours so that there's a total of 4.

 

How many person-hours should go into each meal?

Should it be assigned to specific people or just a scheduled informal potluck?

 

My answers to the aforementioned questions:

 

1.  Non-mandatory.  With a building that's half section 8 recipients who we can't legally obligate to pay for food, it seems harsh to require that the other half of the tenants pay for food.

 

2..  3.  That's what seemed to work for most people, judging by the last time we took a straw poll.

 

3..  $50/month.  Should definitely include access to bulk and other ingredients for personal use.

 

4.  1-2 hours.

 

5.  2-3 hours to start, depending on participation/labor supply.

 

6.  Definitely assigned.  I'd like to comfortably show up after doing school/work/co-op shit all day, secure in the knowledge that I'm not contributing diddly to this particular meal but it doesn't matter cause it's not on me for the night.  Similarly, I'd like to know that it's my job to do stuff on a certain night so I can plan accordingly.

 

I want to know how this is going to work asap so I can do my Membership role well.  Once we get this ironed out I can sign normal length leases with people (currently we're signing abbreviated leases for a grace period we gave the first wave to figure stuff like this out, in case the lease terms changed), know what we can advertise ourselves as offering, and introduce the associate program that we already have substantial interest in. 

 

Thanks!

Hannah

--
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.
 
 

[Daniel Miller]

I wouldn't assume that having a kitchen with food will automatically give rise to a widespread meal program - I've definitely seen that not be the case, and instead for it to become increasingly difficult to start an organized meal program.  

That might be fine, given that everyone will have their own kitchen, but if the goal is that everyone wants a meal program, I recommend talking clearly about that as the goal and figuring out the path from here to there.

Another thing I've seen go badly - what about access to the kitchen for coop members who choose not to participate in the optional food program?  I've seen this range from well-intended misunderstandings to angry accusations of food theft when coop members who don't participate in the meal program also have the same access to the kitchen/dining area as anyone else.

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

[Gatlin Johnson]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

I wouldn't assume that having a kitchen with food will automatically give rise to a widespread meal program - I've definitely seen that not be the case, and instead for it to become increasingly difficult to start an organized meal program.  

That might be fine, given that everyone will have their own kitchen, but if the goal is that everyone wants a meal program, I recommend talking clearly about that as the goal and figuring out the path from here to there.

I'm not sure everyone does, as I'm not sure I want that right now. I want us to buy and eat food together, but that does not automatically entail a Sasona-style meal plan. I tend to use the terms "food plan" and "meal plan" as distinct things.

Another thing I've seen go badly - what about access to the kitchen for coop members who choose not to participate in the optional food program?  I've seen this range from well-intended misunderstandings to angry accusations of food theft when coop members who don't participate in the meal program also have the same access to the kitchen/dining area as anyone else.

If it were up to me, the food plan would be mandatory. I change my mind :)

[Victor Green]

I like the idea of two meals a week, two hours of labor, and $50 a month for that.  Until we have our pro kitchen built, that may be as good as we can do to build cooperative spirit without causing to much disruption on everyone's current work schedule or other commitments.  I imagine the # of meals per week will grow.


On a related food note.  Jesse and I spoke this Sunday about having a food buying cooperative.  In particular, I've always heard that if you go to a real meat market with enough money to buy half of a cow or pig, the butcher will cut and wrap the whole thing for you and you can get a lot of meat much cheaper than buying it by the pound.  The downside for an individual buying a half a cow of course, is that they have to have a big lump of cash up front, and a lot of freezer space for the meat.  As a coop however, we could pool our money up front, and split it the packages of meat up among all our little freezers -- but still get a good price on meat by buying beef in bulk.

Does this food buying coop idea sound good to anyone else?

[Travis Jones]

I’ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved.  My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing.  I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it.  Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here.  We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars.  This is worrying to me.

If we are serious about section 8, which it seems we are, then we cannot have a required food program, and I hate to say it, but I feel like an institutionalized optional food program would be detrimental to community cohesion as a whole.  

It comes down to us sacrificing something that we feel creates community and can even lead to a more affordable living situation in favor conforming to non-coop-friendly restrictions in a government program.  That’s how I see it, at least.  Doesn't really sit well with me.

I also share the concern Daniel voiced in regards to non-participating food ’poachers’.  How do we share common space (kitchen included) while keeping food reserved for only participating members?  The honor system only goes so far...

So anyways, seems like we’re pretty set on doing everything we can to allow section 8 members, so if we are unwilling to change this as a group, my vote is against any official food program, period.  Informal potlucks, even if scheduled, is fine by me and would be a great community builder because everyone could be invited, but we won't be able to spend house funds on the food itself.  That would come from willing folks’ own pantries.  

My own feelings, which are difficult to voice over a video phone from halfway across the country during a meeting but are valid nonetheless, hold a preference for a required food program over allowing section 8, with a commitment to partner with like minded organizations to ultimately amend section 8 policies to allow for food purchasing programs as a part of rent.  Like I said earlier, we're one big happy family, and what makes a family happier than the family dinner?

My 2¢...

Sent via pneumatic tube

««•T•»»

[Ryan Nill]

I'm thinking the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants. 

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food  even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them. 

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens. 

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets immediately distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much. 

[Mike Gorse]

When I lived at HoC, we'd typically have 2-3 people go to Johnson's
Backyard Garden on a Saturday and help with whatever Brett (or is it
Brent? I can never remember) needed help with on the farm. In exchange,
we'd get 2-3 boxes of fresh, organic vegetables for the house, and the
people going would receive labor credit.

[Daniel Miller]

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent.  The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA.  

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'.  Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

[Hannah Frankel]

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.  Relevant section quoted below. 

 

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.  Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.  I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

 

 

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:
 
a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.  i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.  Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.  The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.  I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

[McAllen Halsey]

I think it should be mandatory, and I'll back up Daniel and Travis's concerns as my reasons why. I think that any type of institutionalized segregation will always fail, well-intentioned or not, whether it's on the national level, the state level, or the coop level. I also think that by limiting participation in the food program, we limit its ability to bond our community and improve the general quality of life.

A lot can be said for the fact that our coop is different and that we should capitalize and expand on those differences. We don't have to be a carbon copy of Sasona, and we shouldn't be as far as I'm concerned. We have the opportunity to serve more types of people and more types of low-income people. But sometimes you should keep the baby inside the tub when it comes time to toss out the old bathwater. In our efforts to re-define ourselves, we should perhaps keep some things from the old system intact, such as an institutionalized, fully inclusive food program. I want to explore our various options for doing this, such as the one Ryan brought up. I believe in the lengths we can go toward making it happen if we think and try hard enough. But if we can't make it happen for whatever reason, then I'll say that our overall community cohesiveness comes first before including section 8. I that an all-inclusive food program is perhaps the single most impotant thing in maintaining and improving community cohesiveness. If we can't include section 8, I would strongly support our efforts to actively work to change section 8 policy so that they could.

I'm trying to think of the big picture. What courses of action will ultimately do the most good for the greatest number of people.

 

 

 

[Leslie Patterson]

I second Travis and Daniel's comments-food is a unifier and I stand with cooperation as much as possible over anything else. 

At Pearl Street we called people who never ate dinner with everyone "Ghost Co-opers"; the fact that they weren't bonding over the cooking and scarfing created an unspoken "us and them" situation that was laughed about, but not very cooperative. 

As for the dumpster diving/free stuff idea, that sounds sweet, but I'm a teacher and it takes up so much time, I'd rather spend my time relaxing with the people I live with rather than skulking around the Whole Foods distribution center at night(which I used to do with Pearl folks back in my day :) All of this takes mucho time and I want time for creative, outside pursuits too, don't you? 

Of course, like Trav, I'm not IN Austin to have the face-to-face conversations needed to actualize my true opinions, so I remain cautiously  flexible. 

 

Co-op Love, 

Leslie 

[Donald Goff]

I have some trouble deciding on this issue.� I of course understand the communal power of shared eating - understood that even before my first co-op.
That said, it's simplistic to say that we'll all be of one "class" of member here just because we're all eating food together.� There are a lot of classes of people here, and those class divisions are not going away anytime soon.� There are folks with kids, retired folks, black folks, hispanic folks, white folks, Spanish-only folks, folks of different education levels, folks on housing assistance, all living here right now.� Class divisions aren't going the way of the unicorn just because we force everyone to buy in to the food program to stay here.
Also, even if it's only $50/month, that may well put us out of reach of more people here.� There has been pushback on the modest rent increase we voted in already.� So in our efforts to eliminate 2 classes of members, we will be effectively evicting the class that can't afford to buy in.
My food for thought :)

--D

On 4/16/2013 10:05 PM, Hannah Frankel wrote:

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.� Relevant section quoted below.�

�

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.� Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.� I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

�

�

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:

�

a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.� i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.� Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.� The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.� I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

�

�

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent. �The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA. �

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'. �Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

--�

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Nill wrote:

I'm�thinking�the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants.�

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food �even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their�privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them.�

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens.�

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets�immediately�distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much.�

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Travis Jones <tjarvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I�ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved. �My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing. �I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it. �Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here. �We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars. �This is worrying to me.

If we are serious about section 8, which it seems we are, then we cannot have a required food program, and I hate to say it, but I feel like an institutionalized optional food program would be detrimental to community cohesion as a whole. �

It comes down to us sacrificing something that we feel creates community and can even lead to a more affordable living situation in favor conforming to non-coop-friendly restrictions in a government program. �That�s how I see it, at least. �Doesn't really sit well with me.

I also share the concern Daniel voiced in regards to non-participating food �poachers�. �How do we share common space (kitchen included) while keeping food reserved for only participating members? �The honor system only goes so far...

So anyways, seems like we�re pretty set on doing everything we can to allow section 8 members, so if we are unwilling to change this as a group, my vote is against any official food program, period. �Informal potlucks, even if scheduled, is fine by me and would be a great community builder because everyone could be invited, but we won't be able to spend house funds on the food itself. �That would come from willing folks� own pantries. �

My own feelings, which are difficult to voice over a video phone from halfway across the country during a meeting but are valid nonetheless, hold a preference for a required food program over allowing section 8, with a commitment to partner with like minded organizations to ultimately amend section 8 policies to allow for food purchasing programs as a part of rent. �Like I said earlier, we're one big happy family, and what makes a family happier than the family dinner?

My 2�...

Sent via pneumatic tube

���T���

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Victor Green <usedphi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I like the idea of two meals a week, two hours of labor, and $50 a month for that.� Until we have our pro kitchen built, that may be as good as we can do to build cooperative spirit without causing to much disruption on everyone's current work schedule or other commitments.� I imagine the # of meals per week will grow.


On a related food note.� Jesse and I spoke this Sunday about having a food buying cooperative.� In particular, I've always heard that if you go to a real meat market with enough money to buy half of a cow or pig, the butcher will cut and wrap the whole thing for you and you can get a lot of meat much cheaper than buying it by the pound.� The downside for an individual buying a half a cow of course, is that they have to have a big lump of cash up front, and a lot of freezer space for the meat.� As a coop however, we could pool our money up front, and split it the packages of meat up among all our little freezers -- but still get a good price on meat by buying beef in bulk.

Does this food buying coop idea sound good to anyone else?

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Gatlin Johnson <roke...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

I wouldn't assume that having a kitchen with food will automatically give rise to a widespread meal program - I've definitely seen that not be the case, and instead for it to become increasingly difficult to start an organized meal program. �

That might be fine, given that everyone will have their own kitchen, but if the goal is that everyone wants a meal program, I recommend talking clearly about that as the goal and figuring out the path from here to there.

I'm not sure everyone does, as I'm not sure I want that right now. I want us to buy and eat food together, but that does not automatically entail a Sasona-style meal plan. I tend to use the terms "food plan" and "meal plan" as distinct things.

Another thing I've seen go badly - what about access to the kitchen for coop members who choose not to participate in the optional food program? �I've seen this range from well-intended misunderstandings to angry accusations of food theft when coop members who don't participate in the meal program also have the same access to the kitchen/dining area as anyone else.

If it were up to me, the food plan would be mandatory. I change my mind :)

--�

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Monday, April 15, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Gatlin Johnson wrote:

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Hannah Frankel <hfran...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey all,

�

I'd like to start a conversation onlist about our food program and what we want from it.� I know Jesse's authoring a survey to get more substantial�information, but let's start talking generalities in the mean time.� This is one of the last major building blocks of who we are and what we do that we have yet to iron out (at least for now), before moving on to all the hundreds and hundreds of smaller ones.� Isn't the adventure inspiring? :DD��://

�

So I humbly submit to y'all the following question prompts, which I'd like to hear as many voices chiming in on as possible:

�

Mandatory or not?

I think there should be an optional food storage coop. I have supported this for a while. There should be staples and materials to cook with. Meals and more mature meal systems will come out of that. But I think we should start with what matters: food, and sharing it. People will eat and cook together as a natural consequence.

�

How many meals�a week do we want?

Sunday / Wednesday at minimum, food available all the time.

�

How much do we want to pay per member?

�

Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op?� How much?

It will depend on the nature of what we're trying to offer. I think we should focus on that at first. I do think we should cap it at 2 more hours so that there's a total of 4.

�

How many person-hours should go into each meal?

Should it be assigned to specific people or just a scheduled informal potluck?

�

My answers to the aforementioned questions:

�

1.� Non-mandatory.� With a�building that's half section 8 recipients who we can't legally obligate to pay for food, it seems�harsh to require that the other half of the tenants pay for food.

�

2..� 3.� That's what seemed to work for most people, judging by the last time we took a straw poll.

�

3..� $50/month.� Should definitely include access to bulk and other ingredients for personal use.

�

4.� 1-2 hours.

�

5.� 2-3 hours to start, depending on participation/labor supply.

�

6.� Definitely assigned.� I'd like to comfortably show up after doing school/work/co-op shit all day, secure in the knowledge that I'm not contributing diddly to this particular meal but it doesn't matter cause it's not on me for the night.� Similarly, I'd like to know that it's my job to do stuff on a certain night so I can plan accordingly.

�

I want to know how this is going to work asap so I can�do my�Membership role well.��Once we get this ironed out I can�sign normal length leases with people�(currently we're signing abbreviated�leases for a grace period we gave the first wave to figure stuff like this out, in case the lease terms changed), know what we can advertise ourselves as offering, and introduce the associate program that we already have substantial interest in.�

�

Thanks!

Hannah

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

[Gatlin Johnson]

The cleverness of a "food plan" over a "meal" plan is that only those who want the food need to pay for it. Energy costs can be amortized easily and if 5 people buy food in bulk there is still savings. 

Sent from my I-Phone

On Apr 17, 2013, at 16:43, Donald Goff <d...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

I have some trouble deciding on this issue.  I of course understand the communal power of shared eating - understood that even before my first co-op.
That said, it's simplistic to say that we'll all be of one "class" of member here just because we're all eating food together.  There are a lot of classes of people here, and those class divisions are not going away anytime soon.  There are folks with kids, retired folks, black folks, hispanic folks, white folks, Spanish-only folks, folks of different education levels, folks on housing assistance, all living here right now.  Class divisions aren't going the way of the unicorn just because we force everyone to buy in to the food program to stay here.
Also, even if it's only $50/month, that may well put us out of reach of more people here.  There has been pushback on the modest rent increase we voted in already.  So in our efforts to eliminate 2 classes of members, we will be effectively evicting the class that can't afford to buy in.

My food for thought :)

--D

On 4/16/2013 10:05 PM, Hannah Frankel wrote:

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.  Relevant section quoted below. 

 

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.  Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.  I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

 

 

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:
 

a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.  i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.  Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.  The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.  I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

 

 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent.  The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA.  

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'.  Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Nill wrote:

I'm thinking the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants. 

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food  even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them. 

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens. 

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets immediately distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much. 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Travis Jones <tjarvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved.  My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing.  I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it.  Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here.  We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars.  This is worrying to me.

[McAllen Halsey]

I don't have any other specific answers in response to the 6 questions Hannah asked, except for

"Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op? How much?"

I would imagine there would be because it takes a certain amount of time and effort to prepare and clean up after meals.

 

To add to my previous comments...

My concerns boil down to wanting to avoid making decisions based on short-term discomfort. In this case, that discomfort would be our excluding people, some of whom we've met and talked to face to face. This is the principle that drives my attitude, the priciple of accepting short-term discomfort in exchange for a longer-term reward. If a mandatory meal plan would truly bond our community in the long run, then we should make it mandatory regardless of the painful short-term cost of letting current tenants go. But if most of us decide that making the plan wouldn't actually be a crucial sacrifice, then so be it.

I think buying food in bulk is a great idea regardless of what we do with our meals.I

I hope I don't sound like a hard ass, I just want what's best.

[Nolan Darilek]

I had a much longer email here, but I think it can be summarized in three brief points:

1. "Short-term discomfort" is a very nice way of saying "removing people from their homes." I just want to be clear that we call it what it is.

2. What efforts have been made to involve current tenants, some of whom are one meeting away from becoming members, in this discussion about how we may be about to go through a bit of short-term discomfort? It seems to me like we have a lot going on at the moment, and while I want to see some sort of food plan in place, it'd be pretty shitty of us to tell current residents and prospective members how much they have a voice in this new way of living, then to make a decision before enough of them become members and can speak their piece.

3. We're trying to learn lessons from past coop experience, which is good in one way. Maybe it's just me though, but most of my past coop experience hasn't been amidst some of the cultural and income diversity that we have currently in LR. Could it be that some things we do inadvertently perpetuate that lack of diversity?

If I seem snippy, well, having the IRS swallow up all but $90 of your savings has a great way of reminding you that life with $90 is a whole lot different than is life with $7500. We're not here to solve Austin's housing problems, but a lot of these folks have never lived in a coop. It'd be a shame to displace them in the name of short-term discomfort, or to make such a decision before giving them a voice in its making. I know that we're not deciding now, but I'd love to see how the tone of this discussion would change if prospective members were on this list, or if it was had during a meeting.

On 04/18/2013 12:39 AM, McAllen Halsey wrote:

I don't have any other specific answers in response to the 6 questions Hannah asked, except for

"Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op? How much?"

I would imagine there would be because it takes a certain amount of time and effort to prepare and clean up after meals.

�

To add to my previous comments...

My concerns boil down to wanting to avoid making decisions based on short-term discomfort. In this case, that discomfort would be our excluding people, some of whom we've met and talked to face to face. This is the principle that drives my attitude, the priciple of accepting short-term discomfort in exchange for a longer-term reward. If a mandatory meal plan would truly bond our community in the long run, then we should make it mandatory regardless of the painful short-term cost of letting current tenants go. But if most of us decide that making the plan wouldn't actually be a crucial sacrifice, then so be it.

I think buying food in bulk is a great idea regardless of what we do with our meals.I

I hope I don't sound like a hard ass, I just want what's best.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Gatlin Johnson <roke...@gmail.com> wrote:

The cleverness of a "food plan" over a "meal" plan is that only those who want the food need to pay for it. Energy costs can be amortized easily and if 5 people buy food in bulk there is still savings.�

Sent from my I-Phone

On Apr 17, 2013, at 16:43, Donald Goff <d...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

I have some trouble deciding on this issue.� I of course understand the communal power of shared eating - understood that even before my first co-op.
That said, it's simplistic to say that we'll all be of one "class" of member here just because we're all eating food together.� There are a lot of classes of people here, and those class divisions are not going away anytime soon.� There are folks with kids, retired folks, black folks, hispanic folks, white folks, Spanish-only folks, folks of different education levels, folks on housing assistance, all living here right now.� Class divisions aren't going the way of the unicorn just because we force everyone to buy in to the food program to stay here.
Also, even if it's only $50/month, that may well put us out of reach of more people here.� There has been pushback on the modest rent increase we voted in already.� So in our efforts to eliminate 2 classes of members, we will be effectively evicting the class that can't afford to buy in.

My food for thought :)

--D

On 4/16/2013 10:05 PM, Hannah Frankel wrote:

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.� Relevant section quoted below.�

�

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.� Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.� I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

�

�

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:

�

a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.� i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.� Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.� The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.� I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

�

�

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent. �The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA. �

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'. �Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

--�

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Nill wrote:

I'm�thinking�the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants.�

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food �even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their�privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them.�

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens.�

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets�immediately�distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much.�

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Travis Jones <tjarvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I�ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved. �My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing. �I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it. �Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here. �We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars. �This is worrying to me.

If we are serious about section 8, which it seems we are, then we cannot have a required food program, and I hate to say it, but I feel like an institutionalized optional food program would be detrimental to community cohesion as a whole. �

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

[Donald Goff]

I guess the question is, how big is the "we" who are making the decisions about the future of this place?
There is something to be said for not making major decisions until some set time in our development, like perhaps when the majority of people living here are co-opers, and then will have a voice in the big decisions.
There are a few big things in maintenance that have come up that some of us think are cool, but that I really think should be kicked down the road until such time as we can engage the majority of La Reunion residents in the decision.� Like deciding to control access to this place via keycard, or tear up a parking lot - things that would change the experience of living here in a major way, that current tenants didn't sign up for.
Some decisions we _have_ to make now.� Some decisions we _want_ to make now.� Perhaps this is one of the latter? I want more socialization ASAP, and a meal program would provide that.� But I'd be willing to wait another month to get 5 more co-opers in / converted (I believe that's the number), AND get feedback from the residents about what they would/could pay and what they would want in the plan.� I might even be willing to wait until we have 50%+ co-opers.� Maybe not too much longer, because we're already establishing habits and patterns here.� I don't think I'd be willing to wait a year to start the meal plan.
For the record, I still support an optional meal plan, 3x per week, prepared and cleaned up by meal plan labor.� Especially now that we have electricity in the common area.

--Donny

[Nolan Darilek]

Agreed. I also wanted to add one more observation.

We talk about how important a food program is to community, socialization, etc. Then I hear folks talk about how there already *is* a community in this complex, and that they're trying to reach out to us.

If we require a food program in the name of community, while at the same time acknowledging that there already *is* a community formed *without* a food program, well, color me baffled.

That said, I'm looking forward to socializing with folks around the dinner table. I just hope that we're open-minded enough to consider that a community doesn't *require* a dinner table, and the idea that it does might say more about us than about the community that already exists.

[Travis Jones]

Be that as it may, the community that may already exist in this building is most certainly **not** a cooperative one, as until now this has been nothing more than a neighborhood of apartments in the same complex.  

I can see your points as to holding off on this big decision until the majority of residents are members and can vote, but I want to make sure it is clear to everyone already joined and also those considering joining that there is a faction within the existing group that strongly supports a built-in food sharing program that would be included in the rent.  Whether or not that includes meals, I honestly don't give a damn, but if people see paying a slightly hogher rent so that a portion of it could go towards being able to purchase food at lower cost than they would pay at the supermarket as "pricing them out," I would be as baffled as you are, Nolan.  I've lived with pennies in my pocket while living in a coop in the past, and I was so extremely grateful to have the food available without having to worry about how I was going to pay for it.

Additionally, the longer we wait to make this decision, the more difficult it will be for us to make a change.  Right now there is no food sharing whatsoever, aside from the occasional potluck.  This is how it has been in this building since time immemorial.  The question here is, are we creating something new, something we can truly be proud of, or are we just applying cooperative principles to the status quo in the least disruptive manner?  I don't like kicking people out of their homes any more than the next guy, but if their core values clash with those of the founding members, I have no problem asking them to skedaddle.  I do believe that those of us in this organizing committee should have more say in the matter than the current residents.  We are experienced, we are committed to a vision, and we care about the long term, not just whats best for us right now.  I believe that a built in food sharing program will be the best thing for this coop in the long term, and so I support that over a bleeding heart desire to help those already there stay put.

And finally, I cannot adequately express my views at a meeting as I am physically unable to attend, and therefore I am glad to have this current avenue of expression.  I will continue to voice my opinion via email, but my participation in meetings is limited due to my physical absence.  If only I had $600/week to fly down to Austin every Sunday...

Sent via pneumatic tube

««•T•»»

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Nolan Darilek <no...@thewordnerd.info> wrote:

Agreed. I also wanted to add one more observation.

We talk about how important a food program is to community, socialization, etc. Then I hear folks talk about how there already *is* a community in this complex, and that they're trying to reach out to us.

If we require a food program in the name of community, while at the same time acknowledging that there already *is* a community formed *without* a food program, well, color me baffled.

That said, I'm looking forward to socializing with folks around the dinner table. I just hope that we're open-minded enough to consider that a community doesn't *require* a dinner table, and the idea that it does might say more about us than about the community that already exists.


On 04/18/2013 05:27 PM, Donald Goff wrote:

I guess the question is, how big is the "we" who are making the decisions about the future of this place?
There is something to be said for not making major decisions until some set time in our development, like perhaps when the majority of people living here are co-opers, and then will have a voice in the big decisions.

There are a few big things in maintenance that have come up that some of us think are cool, but that I really think should be kicked down the road until such time as we can engage the majority of La Reunion residents in the decision.  Like deciding to control access to this place via keycard, or tear up a parking lot - things that would change the experience of living here in a major way, that current tenants didn't sign up for.
Some decisions we _have_ to make now.  Some decisions we _want_ to make now.  Perhaps this is one of the latter? I want more socialization ASAP, and a meal program would provide that.  But I'd be willing to wait another month to get 5 more co-opers in / converted (I believe that's the number), AND get feedback from the residents about what they would/could pay and what they would want in the plan.  I might even be willing to wait until we have 50%+ co-opers.  Maybe not too much longer, because we're already establishing habits and patterns here.  I don't think I'd be willing to wait a year to start the meal plan.
For the record, I still support an optional meal plan, 3x per week, prepared and cleaned up by meal plan labor.  Especially now that we have electricity in the common area.

--Donny

On 4/18/2013 2:30 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:

I had a much longer email here, but I think it can be summarized in three brief points:

1. "Short-term discomfort" is a very nice way of saying "removing people from their homes." I just want to be clear that we call it what it is.

2. What efforts have been made to involve current tenants, some of whom are one meeting away from becoming members, in this discussion about how we may be about to go through a bit of short-term discomfort? It seems to me like we have a lot going on at the moment, and while I want to see some sort of food plan in place, it'd be pretty shitty of us to tell current residents and prospective members how much they have a voice in this new way of living, then to make a decision before enough of them become members and can speak their piece.

3. We're trying to learn lessons from past coop experience, which is good in one way. Maybe it's just me though, but most of my past coop experience hasn't been amidst some of the cultural and income diversity that we have currently in LR. Could it be that some things we do inadvertently perpetuate that lack of diversity?

If I seem snippy, well, having the IRS swallow up all but $90 of your savings has a great way of reminding you that life with $90 is a whole lot different than is life with $7500. We're not here to solve Austin's housing problems, but a lot of these folks have never lived in a coop. It'd be a shame to displace them in the name of short-term discomfort, or to make such a decision before giving them a voice in its making. I know that we're not deciding now, but I'd love to see how the tone of this discussion would change if prospective members were on this list, or if it was had during a meeting.


On 04/18/2013 12:39 AM, McAllen Halsey wrote:

I don't have any other specific answers in response to the 6 questions Hannah asked, except for

"Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op? How much?"

I would imagine there would be because it takes a certain amount of time and effort to prepare and clean up after meals.

 

To add to my previous comments...

My concerns boil down to wanting to avoid making decisions based on short-term discomfort. In this case, that discomfort would be our excluding people, some of whom we've met and talked to face to face. This is the principle that drives my attitude, the priciple of accepting short-term discomfort in exchange for a longer-term reward. If a mandatory meal plan would truly bond our community in the long run, then we should make it mandatory regardless of the painful short-term cost of letting current tenants go. But if most of us decide that making the plan wouldn't actually be a crucial sacrifice, then so be it.

I think buying food in bulk is a great idea regardless of what we do with our meals.I

I hope I don't sound like a hard ass, I just want what's best.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Gatlin Johnson <roke...@gmail.com> wrote:

The cleverness of a "food plan" over a "meal" plan is that only those who want the food need to pay for it. Energy costs can be amortized easily and if 5 people buy food in bulk there is still savings. 

Sent from my I-Phone

On Apr 17, 2013, at 16:43, Donald Goff <d...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

I have some trouble deciding on this issue.  I of course understand the communal power of shared eating - understood that even before my first co-op.
That said, it's simplistic to say that we'll all be of one "class" of member here just because we're all eating food together.  There are a lot of classes of people here, and those class divisions are not going away anytime soon.  There are folks with kids, retired folks, black folks, hispanic folks, white folks, Spanish-only folks, folks of different education levels, folks on housing assistance, all living here right now.  Class divisions aren't going the way of the unicorn just because we force everyone to buy in to the food program to stay here.
Also, even if it's only $50/month, that may well put us out of reach of more people here.  There has been pushback on the modest rent increase we voted in already.  So in our efforts to eliminate 2 classes of members, we will be effectively evicting the class that can't afford to buy in.

My food for thought :)

--D

On 4/16/2013 10:05 PM, Hannah Frankel wrote:

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.  Relevant section quoted below. 

 

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.  Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.  I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

 

 

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:
 

a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.  i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.  Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.  The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.  I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

 

 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent.  The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA.  

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'.  Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Nill wrote:

I'm thinking the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants. 

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food  even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them. 

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens. 

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets immediately distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much. 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Travis Jones <tjarvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved.  My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing.  I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it.  Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here.  We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars.  This is worrying to me.

If we are serious about section 8, which it seems we are, then we cannot have a required food program, and I hate to say it, but I feel like an institutionalized optional food program would be detrimental to community cohesion as a whole.  

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

[Donald Goff]

I appreciate what both Travis and Nolan said.� It's almost as if we're having a contest of eloquence.� Good respectful discussion, and it is much appreciated!� Thank you, all participants in this ongoing multi-month debate.
I must disagree with one point Travis made: the community that existed in this building IS co-operative.� People do things for each other, talk and listen to each other.� I hear them almost every day in the common area (the courtyard).� Probably not at the same high amount of communication as is needed to run a co-op, I grant you, but a number of residents do co-operate and look out for each other and co-operation at the level needed to run the place may only be a small step away.�
I want to remind folks that Daniel has seen a number of co-ops institute a food program (not meals) that never evolves into a meal program.� He said (IIRC) that the food plan seems to get in the way of forming a meal plan.� I have some fear of this, even though I want food and I want meals.� I'd sacrifice the food program now if it is more likely to get me shared, social meals later.� I'd also sacrifice the social meal plan if the majority of residents want cheap food to prepare themselves.
There is no "right" answer for this.� There is the way we want to shape community, and the degree to which we're willing to do it before involving (or even informing) the residents, some of whom have been here for a very long time - I believe I heard someone say "17 years" for their family.�
I sometimes think Suzy's (the former landlord's) stipulation that we NOT talk to the residents has come to rest a little too close to our hearts, and become a little too convenient.� Does a co-op exist for the people who live there?� Shouldn't we give the residents, some of whom have lived here for more than a decade, a REAL chance to join and have a voice before we take steps that may very well price them out?� Maybe I'm a bleeding heart for saying that, but one of our principles is "open membership" - that should count.� There has BARELY been a chance for them to join, and a couple have said they will, but they have not yet - and in their defense, we haven't bothered to inform them that we're making decisions about required dues increases that might affect their ability to stay here.� All we've said is $800/month, and a number are having trouble even at that level.
This transition period is not easy, and I don't know the right answer.� But democratic principles and open membership make me think we should involve as many people as we can in the big decisions.� The decision to require the food program is a big one.

--Donny

On 4/18/2013 6:07 PM, Travis Jones wrote:

Be that as it may, the community that may already exist in this building is most certainly **not** a cooperative one, as until now this has been nothing more than a neighborhood of apartments in the same complex. �

I can see your points as to holding off on this big decision until the majority of residents are members and can vote, but I want to make sure it is clear to everyone already joined and also those considering joining that there is a faction within the existing group that strongly supports a built-in food sharing program that would be included in the rent. �Whether or not that includes meals, I honestly don't give a damn, but if people see paying a slightly hogher rent so that a portion of it could go towards being able to purchase food at lower cost than they would pay at the supermarket as "pricing them out," I would be as baffled as you are, Nolan. �I've lived with pennies in my pocket while living in a coop in the past, and I was so extremely grateful to have the food available without having to worry about how I was going to pay for it.

Additionally, the longer we wait to make this decision, the more difficult it will be for us to make a change. �Right now there is no food sharing whatsoever, aside from the occasional potluck. �This is how it has been in this building since time immemorial. �The question here is, are we creating something new, something we can truly be proud of, or are we just applying cooperative principles to the status quo in the least disruptive manner? �I don't like kicking people out of their homes any more than the next guy, but if their core values clash with those of the founding members, I have no problem asking them to skedaddle. �I do believe that those of us in this organizing committee should have more say in the matter than the current residents. �We are experienced, we are committed to a vision, and we care about the long term, not just whats best for us right now. �I believe that a built in food sharing program will be the best thing for this coop in the long term, and so I support that over a bleeding heart desire to help those already there stay put.

And finally, I cannot adequately express my views at a meeting as I am physically unable to attend, and therefore I am glad to have this current avenue of expression. �I will continue to voice my opinion via email, but my participation in meetings is limited due to my physical absence. �If only I had $600/week to fly down to Austin every Sunday...

Sent via pneumatic tube

���T���

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Nolan Darilek <no...@thewordnerd.info> wrote:

Agreed. I also wanted to add one more observation.

We talk about how important a food program is to community, socialization, etc. Then I hear folks talk about how there already *is* a community in this complex, and that they're trying to reach out to us.

If we require a food program in the name of community, while at the same time acknowledging that there already *is* a community formed *without* a food program, well, color me baffled.

That said, I'm looking forward to socializing with folks around the dinner table. I just hope that we're open-minded enough to consider that a community doesn't *require* a dinner table, and the idea that it does might say more about us than about the community that already exists.


On 04/18/2013 05:27 PM, Donald Goff wrote:

I guess the question is, how big is the "we" who are making the decisions about the future of this place?
There is something to be said for not making major decisions until some set time in our development, like perhaps when the majority of people living here are co-opers, and then will have a voice in the big decisions.

There are a few big things in maintenance that have come up that some of us think are cool, but that I really think should be kicked down the road until such time as we can engage the majority of La Reunion residents in the decision.� Like deciding to control access to this place via keycard, or tear up a parking lot - things that would change the experience of living here in a major way, that current tenants didn't sign up for.
Some decisions we _have_ to make now.� Some decisions we _want_ to make now.� Perhaps this is one of the latter? I want more socialization ASAP, and a meal program would provide that.� But I'd be willing to wait another month to get 5 more co-opers in / converted (I believe that's the number), AND get feedback from the residents about what they would/could pay and what they would want in the plan.� I might even be willing to wait until we have 50%+ co-opers.� Maybe not too much longer, because we're already establishing habits and patterns here.� I don't think I'd be willing to wait a year to start the meal plan.
For the record, I still support an optional meal plan, 3x per week, prepared and cleaned up by meal plan labor.� Especially now that we have electricity in the common area.

--Donny

On 4/18/2013 2:30 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:

I had a much longer email here, but I think it can be summarized in three brief points:

1. "Short-term discomfort" is a very nice way of saying "removing people from their homes." I just want to be clear that we call it what it is.

2. What efforts have been made to involve current tenants, some of whom are one meeting away from becoming members, in this discussion about how we may be about to go through a bit of short-term discomfort? It seems to me like we have a lot going on at the moment, and while I want to see some sort of food plan in place, it'd be pretty shitty of us to tell current residents and prospective members how much they have a voice in this new way of living, then to make a decision before enough of them become members and can speak their piece.

3. We're trying to learn lessons from past coop experience, which is good in one way. Maybe it's just me though, but most of my past coop experience hasn't been amidst some of the cultural and income diversity that we have currently in LR. Could it be that some things we do inadvertently perpetuate that lack of diversity?

If I seem snippy, well, having the IRS swallow up all but $90 of your savings has a great way of reminding you that life with $90 is a whole lot different than is life with $7500. We're not here to solve Austin's housing problems, but a lot of these folks have never lived in a coop. It'd be a shame to displace them in the name of short-term discomfort, or to make such a decision before giving them a voice in its making. I know that we're not deciding now, but I'd love to see how the tone of this discussion would change if prospective members were on this list, or if it was had during a meeting.


On 04/18/2013 12:39 AM, McAllen Halsey wrote:

I don't have any other specific answers in response to the 6 questions Hannah asked, except for

"Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op? How much?"

I would imagine there would be because it takes a certain amount of time and effort to prepare and clean up after meals.

�

To add to my previous comments...

My concerns boil down to wanting to avoid making decisions based on short-term discomfort. In this case, that discomfort would be our excluding people, some of whom we've met and talked to face to face. This is the principle that drives my attitude, the priciple of accepting short-term discomfort in exchange for a longer-term reward. If a mandatory meal plan would truly bond our community in the long run, then we should make it mandatory regardless of the painful short-term cost of letting current tenants go. But if most of us decide that making the plan wouldn't actually be a crucial sacrifice, then so be it.

I think buying food in bulk is a great idea regardless of what we do with our meals.I

I hope I don't sound like a hard ass, I just want what's best.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Gatlin Johnson <roke...@gmail.com> wrote:

The cleverness of a "food plan" over a "meal" plan is that only those who want the food need to pay for it. Energy costs can be amortized easily and if 5 people buy food in bulk there is still savings.�

Sent from my I-Phone

On Apr 17, 2013, at 16:43, Donald Goff <d...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

I have some trouble deciding on this issue.� I of course understand the communal power of shared eating - understood that even before my first co-op.
That said, it's simplistic to say that we'll all be of one "class" of member here just because we're all eating food together.� There are a lot of classes of people here, and those class divisions are not going away anytime soon.� There are folks with kids, retired folks, black folks, hispanic folks, white folks, Spanish-only folks, folks of different education levels, folks on housing assistance, all living here right now.� Class divisions aren't going the way of the unicorn just because we force everyone to buy in to the food program to stay here.
Also, even if it's only $50/month, that may well put us out of reach of more people here.� There has been pushback on the modest rent increase we voted in already.� So in our efforts to eliminate 2 classes of members, we will be effectively evicting the class that can't afford to buy in.

My food for thought :)

--D

On 4/16/2013 10:05 PM, Hannah Frankel wrote:

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.� Relevant section quoted below.�

�

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.� Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.� I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

�

�

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:

�

a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.� i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.� Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.� The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.� I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

�

�

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent. �The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA. �

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'. �Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

--�

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Nill wrote:

I'm�thinking�the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants.�

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food �even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their�privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them.�

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens.�

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets�immediately�distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much.�

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Travis Jones <tjarvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I�ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved. �My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing. �I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it. �Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here. �We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars. �This is worrying to me.

If we are serious about section 8, which it seems we are, then we cannot have a required food program, and I hate to say it, but I feel like an institutionalized optional food program would be detrimental to community cohesion as a whole. �

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

--
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.

�
�

[Daniel Miller]

Not quite - I was talking about coops that have an optional food or meal program, or none at all, where it became difficult to create a shared meal program.  The trouble was making a transition from either no food program or a small and optional one to one that was universal (or, as a conservative might call it, 'mandatory').

In some of those coops, that was fine - they continued to be coops with satisfied members who wanted to live cooperatively and not have a universal meal program.    They had a culture, they had a community, they had events and knew each other and loved their coop.  They also had meals together - but as a potluck style affair, where people brought dishes to the dining area, or spent time cooking together in the common kitchen (depending on the coop).

The only place I saw that become a major problem was at a coop saddled with other problems - most notably, the coop was built with a bunch of people sharing a central kitchen, but without a food program.  So they had no universal food as a benefit of membership, but the members *also* didn't have their own kitchens.  That was lose-lose.  

I can try to put y'all in touch with some of those vibrant apartment-style coops without a food program, if people are interested to know more about what that looks like.  And obviously having a universal food program in a coop is something that can work very well.  

Definitely don't rip out everyone's kitchens and then not institute a food program.  That's a really bad idea, and I've written pages and pages of reports dissecting how that failed.  It wasn't fun, either to write about or to watch and live inside of.

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Donald Goff wrote:

I appreciate what both Travis and Nolan said.  It's almost as if we're having a contest of eloquence.  Good respectful discussion, and it is much appreciated!  Thank you, all participants in this ongoing multi-month debate.
I must disagree with one point Travis made: the community that existed in this building IS co-operative.  People do things for each other, talk and listen to each other.  I hear them almost every day in the common area (the courtyard).  Probably not at the same high amount of communication as is needed to run a co-op, I grant you, but a number of residents do co-operate and look out for each other and co-operation at the level needed to run the place may only be a small step away. 
I want to remind folks that Daniel has seen a number of co-ops institute a food program (not meals) that never evolves into a meal program.  He said (IIRC) that the food plan seems to get in the way of forming a meal plan.  I have some fear of this, even though I want food and I want meals.  I'd sacrifice the food program now if it is more likely to get me shared, social meals later.  I'd also sacrifice the social meal plan if the majority of residents want cheap food to prepare themselves.
There is no "right" answer for this.  There is the way we want to shape community, and the degree to which we're willing to do it before involving (or even informing) the residents, some of whom have been here for a very long time - I believe I heard someone say "17 years" for their family. 
I sometimes think Suzy's (the former landlord's) stipulation that we NOT talk to the residents has come to rest a little too close to our hearts, and become a little too convenient.  Does a co-op exist for the people who live there?  Shouldn't we give the residents, some of whom have lived here for more than a decade, a REAL chance to join and have a voice before we take steps that may very well price them out?  Maybe I'm a bleeding heart for saying that, but one of our principles is "open membership" - that should count.  There has BARELY been a chance for them to join, and a couple have said they will, but they have not yet - and in their defense, we haven't bothered to inform them that we're making decisions about required dues increases that might affect their ability to stay here.  All we've said is $800/month, and a number are having trouble even at that level.
This transition period is not easy, and I don't know the right answer.  But democratic principles and open membership make me think we should involve as many people as we can in the big decisions.  The decision to require the food program is a big one.

--Donny

On 4/18/2013 6:07 PM, Travis Jones wrote:

Be that as it may, the community that may already exist in this building is most certainly **not** a cooperative one, as until now this has been nothing more than a neighborhood of apartments in the same complex.  

I can see your points as to holding off on this big decision until the majority of residents are members and can vote, but I want to make sure it is clear to everyone already joined and also those considering joining that there is a faction within the existing group that strongly supports a built-in food sharing program that would be included in the rent.  Whether or not that includes meals, I honestly don't give a damn, but if people see paying a slightly hogher rent so that a portion of it could go towards being able to purchase food at lower cost than they would pay at the supermarket as "pricing them out," I would be as baffled as you are, Nolan.  I've lived with pennies in my pocket while living in a coop in the past, and I was so extremely grateful to have the food available without having to worry about how I was going to pay for it.

Additionally, the longer we wait to make this decision, the more difficult it will be for us to make a change.  Right now there is no food sharing whatsoever, aside from the occasional potluck.  This is how it has been in this building since time immemorial.  The question here is, are we creating something new, something we can truly be proud of, or are we just applying cooperative principles to the status quo in the least disruptive manner?  I don't like kicking people out of their homes any more than the next guy, but if their core values clash with those of the founding members, I have no problem asking them to skedaddle.  I do believe that those of us in this organizing committee should have more say in the matter than the current residents.  We are experienced, we are committed to a vision, and we care about the long term, not just whats best for us right now.  I believe that a built in food sharing program will be the best thing for this coop in the long term, and so I support that over a bleeding heart desire to help those already there stay put.

And finally, I cannot adequately express my views at a meeting as I am physically unable to attend, and therefore I am glad to have this current avenue of expression.  I will continue to voice my opinion via email, but my participation in meetings is limited due to my physical absence.  If only I had $600/week to fly down to Austin every Sunday...

Sent via pneumatic tube

««•T•»»

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Nolan Darilek <no...@thewordnerd.info> wrote:

Agreed. I also wanted to add one more observation.

We talk about how important a food program is to community, socialization, etc. Then I hear folks talk about how there already *is* a community in this complex, and that they're trying to reach out to us.

If we require a food program in the name of community, while at the same time acknowledging that there already *is* a community formed *without* a food program, well, color me baffled.

That said, I'm looking forward to socializing with folks around the dinner table. I just hope that we're open-minded enough to consider that a community doesn't *require* a dinner table, and the idea that it does might say more about us than about the community that already exists.


On 04/18/2013 05:27 PM, Donald Goff wrote:

I guess the question is, how big is the "we" who are making the decisions about the future of this place?
There is something to be said for not making major decisions until some set time in our development, like perhaps when the majority of people living here are co-opers, and then will have a voice in the big decisions.

There are a few big things in maintenance that have come up that some of us think are cool, but that I really think should be kicked down the road until such time as we can engage the majority of La Reunion residents in the decision.  Like deciding to control access to this place via keycard, or tear up a parking lot - things that would change the experience of living here in a major way, that current tenants didn't sign up for.
Some decisions we _have_ to make now.  Some decisions we _want_ to make now.  Perhaps this is one of the latter? I want more socialization ASAP, and a meal program would provide that.  But I'd be willing to wait another month to get 5 more co-opers in / converted (I believe that's the number), AND get feedback from the residents about what they would/could pay and what they would want in the plan.  I might even be willing to wait until we have 50%+ co-opers.  Maybe not too much longer, because we're already establishing habits and patterns here.  I don't think I'd be willing to wait a year to start the meal plan.
For the record, I still support an optional meal plan, 3x per week, prepared and cleaned up by meal plan labor.  Especially now that we have electricity in the common area.

--Donny

On 4/18/2013 2:30 PM, Nolan Darilek wrote:

I had a much longer email here, but I think it can be summarized in three brief points:

1. "Short-term discomfort" is a very nice way of saying "removing people from their homes." I just want to be clear that we call it what it is.

2. What efforts have been made to involve current tenants, some of whom are one meeting away from becoming members, in this discussion about how we may be about to go through a bit of short-term discomfort? It seems to me like we have a lot going on at the moment, and while I want to see some sort of food plan in place, it'd be pretty shitty of us to tell current residents and prospective members how much they have a voice in this new way of living, then to make a decision before enough of them become members and can speak their piece.

3. We're trying to learn lessons from past coop experience, which is good in one way. Maybe it's just me though, but most of my past coop experience hasn't been amidst some of the cultural and income diversity that we have currently in LR. Could it be that some things we do inadvertently perpetuate that lack of diversity?

If I seem snippy, well, having the IRS swallow up all but $90 of your savings has a great way of reminding you that life with $90 is a whole lot different than is life with $7500. We're not here to solve Austin's housing problems, but a lot of these folks have never lived in a coop. It'd be a shame to displace them in the name of short-term discomfort, or to make such a decision before giving them a voice in its making. I know that we're not deciding now, but I'd love to see how the tone of this discussion would change if prospective members were on this list, or if it was had during a meeting.


On 04/18/2013 12:39 AM, McAllen Halsey wrote:

I don't have any other specific answers in response to the 6 questions Hannah asked, except for

"Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op? How much?"

I would imagine there would be because it takes a certain amount of time and effort to prepare and clean up after meals.

 

To add to my previous comments...

My concerns boil down to wanting to avoid making decisions based on short-term discomfort. In this case, that discomfort would be our excluding people, some of whom we've met and talked to face to face. This is the principle that drives my attitude, the priciple of accepting short-term discomfort in exchange for a longer-term reward. If a mandatory meal plan would truly bond our community in the long run, then we should make it mandatory regardless of the painful short-term cost of letting current tenants go. But if most of us decide that making the plan wouldn't actually be a crucial sacrifice, then so be it.

I think buying food in bulk is a great idea regardless of what we do with our meals.I

I hope I don't sound like a hard ass, I just want what's best.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Gatlin Johnson <roke...@gmail.com> wrote:

The cleverness of a "food plan" over a "meal" plan is that only those who want the food need to pay for it. Energy costs can be amortized easily and if 5 people buy food in bulk there is still savings. 

Sent from my I-Phone

On Apr 17, 2013, at 16:43, Donald Goff <d...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

I have some trouble deciding on this issue.  I of course understand the communal power of shared eating - understood that even before my first co-op.
That said, it's simplistic to say that we'll all be of one "class" of member here just because we're all eating food together.  There are a lot of classes of people here, and those class divisions are not going away anytime soon.  There are folks with kids, retired folks, black folks, hispanic folks, white folks, Spanish-only folks, folks of different education levels, folks on housing assistance, all living here right now.  Class divisions aren't going the way of the unicorn just because we force everyone to buy in to the food program to stay here.
Also, even if it's only $50/month, that may well put us out of reach of more people here.  There has been pushback on the modest rent increase we voted in already.  So in our efforts to eliminate 2 classes of members, we will be effectively evicting the class that can't afford to buy in.

My food for thought :)

--D

On 4/16/2013 10:05 PM, Hannah Frankel wrote:

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.  Relevant section quoted below. 

 

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.  Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.  I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

 

 

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:
 

a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.  i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.  Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.  The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.  I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

 

 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent.  The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA.  

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'.  Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Nill wrote:

I'm thinking the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants. 

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food  even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them. 

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens. 

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets immediately distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much. 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Travis Jones <tjarvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved.  My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing.  I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it.  Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here.  We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars.  This is worrying to me.

If we are serious about section 8, which it seems we are, then we cannot have a required food program, and I hate to say it, but I feel like an institutionalized optional food program would be detrimental to community cohesion as a whole.  

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

[Nolan Darilek]

On 04/18/2013 06:07 PM, Travis Jones wrote:
>
> Be that as it may, the community that may already exist in this
> building is most certainly **not** a cooperative one, as until now
> this has been nothing more than a neighborhood of apartments in the
> same complex.
>
>

Exactly, because they may not have had the opportunity to even *know*
that a cooperative community is a possibility. So do we tell them one
week how they have a say, then make a major decision when most of them
cannot participate the next?

> I can see your points as to holding off on this big decision until the
> majority of residents are members and can vote, but I want to make
> sure it is clear to everyone already joined and also those considering
> joining that there is a faction within the existing group that
> strongly supports a built-in food sharing program that would be
> included in the rent. Whether or not that includes meals, I honestly
> don't give a damn, but if people see paying a slightly hogher rent so
> that a portion of it could go towards being able to purchase food at
> lower cost than they would pay at the supermarket as "pricing them
> out," I would be as baffled as you are, Nolan. I've lived with
> pennies in my pocket while living in a coop in the past, and I was so
> extremely grateful to have the food available without having to worry
> about how I was going to pay for it.
>

Were you on food stamps which you could not spend on anything other than
certain types of supermarket food? If a certain portion of your money is
*only* available for food, then raising rent that *cannot* be paid for
using that portion, directly negates the benefit of that program. Put
another way, raising rents by $25/$50 sounds great until you realize
that someone with $100 in food stamps can't use $25 of that for the rent
increase. Suddenly, we're a whole lot less appealing to certain
demographics, because they *cannot* use the money they've been given for
food to pay for food. Meanwhile we pat ourselves on the back, because
our new higher rents enable those of us *not* on assistance to get a
better deal.

And that is my point. Unless someone has experienced these benefit
programs, I wouldn't expect them to be familiar with these factors. If
you have then my apologies, but it didn't seem like it had been taken
into account in your above description.

> Additionally, the longer we wait to make this decision, the more
> difficult it will be for us to make a change. Right now there is no
> food sharing whatsoever, aside from the occasional potluck. This is
> how it has been in this building since time immemorial. The question
> here is, are we creating something new, something we can truly be
> proud of, or are we just applying cooperative principles to the status
> quo in the least disruptive manner? I don't like kicking people out
> of their homes any more than the next guy, but if their core values
> clash with those of the founding members, I have no problem asking
> them to skedaddle. I do believe that those of us in this organizing
> committee

Factions and clashes, oh my. Here I just wanted to have a frank
discussion. Sounds like this new era of cooperation will be a tumultuous
one.

Disruption is great when you're the one doing the disrupting, but not so
much when you're the disrupted. And this is starting to feel to me like
cooperation is great, as long as it's *our* kind of cooperation, with
all of *our* experience and ideas applied. There's nothing wrong with
bringing experience to the table, but it seems to me like some pretty
damned hasty judgements have already been made about the current
residents, what they will want, and how the "non-cooperative" culture of
the building must surely give way to us.

To offer some perspective, some current residents have expressed an
interest in joining, but they haven't had two meetings to become
members. Many came to our potluck. Some even provided food. So here's
this group who probably has never even *heard* of a coop. They *think*
they have an idea of what this is about. They're reaching out to us, not
mooching, but offering us the same hospitality and food we're offering
them. They've come to a couple meetings and hear that cooperation is
about *them* participating in the decision-making process. Their rents
increase some, but we explain that this is so we can continue doing the
good work we've already started.

Now we want to disrupt, as you yourself have said. We want to raise
rents even more, and to require participation in something that may
price some out? How do you think these new coopers will feel about
cooperation after *that* happens?

Put another way, if someone can explain how we as the new owners coming
along and bulldozing the current residents isn't gentrification, please
help me to understand. Do it in the name of capitalism or cooperation,
but as long as we keep finding some reason to push impoverished people
out in the name of something else, well, I can't get behind it. I think
it was Luke on the very first day we all visited en mass who asked if
this was some sort of "gentrification thing." I'm afraid we may look
like just that.

> should have more say in the matter than the current residents. We are
> experienced, we are committed to a vision, and we care about the long
> term, not just whats best for us right now. I believe that a built in
> food sharing program will be the best thing for this coop in the long
> term, and so I support that over a bleeding heart desire to help those
> already there stay put.
>
>

It sounds less like long-term vision, and more like getting a better
deal for a select few, then calling that "upholding cooperative values."
I'm just blown away by the fact that we're so fucking uncreative that a
possible solution to *every* problem involving S8/HACA is "well, if the
section 8 tenants block *our* vision of a coop, then they may have to
leave." For instance, just last week Sarah suggested approaching HACA
and asking them to raise the fair market value for our place, due to the
sheer amount of maintenance we'd have to do to pass HUD inspections. As
such, we may be able to get *more* money from HACA than we're otherwise
paying in rent, even though we keep our rents the same, with the
justification that we couldn't pass their own inspections with the rates
as they are now. The thing is, we don't even *know* what is possible,
but we keep talking about pulling the trigger instead. Asking people to
leave SHOULD NOT EVEN BE ON THE TABLE AT THIS POINT. Come on people,
we're better than this.

And that's enough from me.

[Hannah Frankel]

Nolan brings up something that's been bothering me.  Another reason we need to get this proposed community announcements board up and running is so we can post the weekly agenda, which at this point is only available on the wiki.

 

I had another thought:  what if the current tenants were not required to pay the food program fee but all new contracts, section 8 and otherwise, were?  This compromise would honor the fact that we would be putting current residents in a difficult position by mandating they pay for services which they may not otherwise choose to pay for, but which they are required to unless they're willing to move.  However, it would also honor the idea that a community is often strengthened by sharing meals, and many of us want a more tightly woven community than is currently in place or that seems likely to evolve without this.

 

I'm putting this on this week's agenda with the goal of taking some straw polls and getting a more holistic picture of current co-op members' wishes.

 

I'd like to ask the meeting attendees (members as well as anyone who intends on becoming a member) the following questions:

 

1.  Assuming the cost of $50/month and two hours of labor, would you join the food co-op?

 

2.  Do you want a food co-op that collaborates to serve meals, as opposed to strictly buying food in bulk?

 

2.  Do you think this program should be mandatory, including to people who live here now that want to renew their contract? 

 

4.  Do you think the food program should be mandatory for all new contracts? (Which would include co-opers since our  current leases only go until June 30th)

 

The reason I'm pushing we make a decision---some kind of decision---is exactly that:  our current leases only go until June 30th.  I'd like us to know what the changes of terms if any in our current lease is by mid-May at the latest so as to give me time to change the document and run it by Daniel.  I'll have to look and see when I'm at home, but I'm guessing that there are leases I'll have to submit to HACA to renew for current Section 8 tenants (HACA needs to know the lease terms 2-3 months before the end of the actual lease to approve continuing payments) and as we stand now I'll have to renew them for the going rate of $800/month.  However, even though that may be what we choose to do anyways, I'd like for it to be an active rather than a passively made made decision.

 

It would be nice to know sooner than May 15th, too, because I could start advertising with certainty that I was giving accurate terms and a real portrait of the place I'm advertising.  Also, it would be a lot easier to advertise and/or attract associates if we know the terms of/existence or not of a food program.

 

Final thought:  there's a community in the building with a lot of strengths, but it has a ways to go (in my opinion) before it is what I would consider "cooperative."  There are connections, but they are fragmented, often limited to cordial neighborliness, and there are some animosities too.  I would like to cultivate what's there, but definitely toward the end of making it stronger, more present, and tighter-knit. 

 

 

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Nolan Darilek <no...@thewordnerd.info> wrote:

I had a much longer email here, but I think it can be summarized in three brief points:

1. "Short-term discomfort" is a very nice way of saying "removing people from their homes." I just want to be clear that we call it what it is.

2. What efforts have been made to involve current tenants, some of whom are one meeting away from becoming members, in this discussion about how we may be about to go through a bit of short-term discomfort? It seems to me like we have a lot going on at the moment, and while I want to see some sort of food plan in place, it'd be pretty shitty of us to tell current residents and prospective members how much they have a voice in this new way of living, then to make a decision before enough of them become members and can speak their piece.

3. We're trying to learn lessons from past coop experience, which is good in one way. Maybe it's just me though, but most of my past coop experience hasn't been amidst some of the cultural and income diversity that we have currently in LR. Could it be that some things we do inadvertently perpetuate that lack of diversity?

If I seem snippy, well, having the IRS swallow up all but $90 of your savings has a great way of reminding you that life with $90 is a whole lot different than is life with $7500. We're not here to solve Austin's housing problems, but a lot of these folks have never lived in a coop. It'd be a shame to displace them in the name of short-term discomfort, or to make such a decision before giving them a voice in its making. I know that we're not deciding now, but I'd love to see how the tone of this discussion would change if prospective members were on this list, or if it was had during a meeting.

On 04/18/2013 12:39 AM, McAllen Halsey wrote:

I don't have any other specific answers in response to the 6 questions Hannah asked, except for

"Will there be extra labor tied to the food co-op? How much?"

I would imagine there would be because it takes a certain amount of time and effort to prepare and clean up after meals.

 

To add to my previous comments...

My concerns boil down to wanting to avoid making decisions based on short-term discomfort. In this case, that discomfort would be our excluding people, some of whom we've met and talked to face to face. This is the principle that drives my attitude, the priciple of accepting short-term discomfort in exchange for a longer-term reward. If a mandatory meal plan would truly bond our community in the long run, then we should make it mandatory regardless of the painful short-term cost of letting current tenants go. But if most of us decide that making the plan wouldn't actually be a crucial sacrifice, then so be it.

I think buying food in bulk is a great idea regardless of what we do with our meals.I

I hope I don't sound like a hard ass, I just want what's best.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Gatlin Johnson <roke...@gmail.com> wrote:

The cleverness of a "food plan" over a "meal" plan is that only those who want the food need to pay for it. Energy costs can be amortized easily and if 5 people buy food in bulk there is still savings. 

Sent from my I-Phone

On Apr 17, 2013, at 16:43, Donald Goff <d...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

I have some trouble deciding on this issue.  I of course understand the communal power of shared eating - understood that even before my first co-op.
That said, it's simplistic to say that we'll all be of one "class" of member here just because we're all eating food together.  There are a lot of classes of people here, and those class divisions are not going away anytime soon.  There are folks with kids, retired folks, black folks, hispanic folks, white folks, Spanish-only folks, folks of different education levels, folks on housing assistance, all living here right now.  Class divisions aren't going the way of the unicorn just because we force everyone to buy in to the food program to stay here.
Also, even if it's only $50/month, that may well put us out of reach of more people here.  There has been pushback on the modest rent increase we voted in already.  So in our efforts to eliminate 2 classes of members, we will be effectively evicting the class that can't afford to buy in.

My food for thought :)

--D

On 4/16/2013 10:05 PM, Hannah Frankel wrote:

Hey y'all, Daniel's right, according to the last conversation we had with someone who knows more than us about this, aka Andi Shively who shared the consultation of her HACA contact Dylan Shubitz.  Relevant section quoted below. 

 

I'll call Dylan and if I don't get through to him, the other contacts she thoughtfully provided.  Sounds like if HACA considers $850 or below a reasonable rate for a two-bedroom, 900-square-foot apartment then we can require Section 8 tenants to buy into it as well.  I realize that we have not totally decided that we want to do this, but I'd like to know if the option is for sure available or not.

 

 

NOTE FROM ANDI ON THE FOOD PROGRAM
Dylan did point me at the section in the HAP contract that would be in conflict with your food policy - Part C, Section 6.:
 

a) "rent to owder does not include coste of any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provided by the owner."

i think what this means is that the food will not be taken in to consideration when determining rent reasonableness.  i do not think it means that you can't spend money collected from rents on food.

b) "The owner may not require the tenant or family members to pay charges for any meals or supportive services or furniture which may be provded by the owner.  Nonpayment of any such charges is not grounds for termination of tenancy."

if they determine the reasonable rent to be lower than what you can sustainably charge and still provide food, then you may decide to charge a separate additional fee for food. this section says that you can't require folks to pay extra food charges.  The real impact this has is that you can't evict folks based on non-payment of food fees.  I do think that you could only accept people who agree to the food plan, and can choose to not renew a lease if they don't pay the fees, but once they are in on the initial lease, you will have to wait it out until the end of the lease if they don't pay.

however, if it works out for you to include the food budget in the rent, then i don't think this is an issue.

 

 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Miller <dan...@nasco.coop> wrote:

The last I remember hearing, HACA has no problem with Section 8 vouchers being used in a place that had mandatory payments for food - you couldn't force anyone to eat the food, but it was fine to build the food into the rent.  The only qualifier was whether or not the resulting rent would be 'reasonable' in the opinion of HACA.  

Since people are talking about a less expensive food program on this thread, that implies to me that you're more likely to have the resulting rent be seen as 'reasonable'.  Has anyone heard from HACA what they would consider to be a reasonable rent on a 2br, 1ba, 900 sq ft apartment?

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Nill wrote:

I'm thinking the food program should be mandatory, but not exclusionary of Section 8 Tenants. 

I envision that section 8 tenants could have access to food  even if they don't pay. Hopefully a combination of social pressure, internal guilt, and persuasiveness will get some or most to sign on or at least to not abuse their privileges. But if not we should not hold it against them. 

Hannah and I had a conversation last night about seeking out free food and forming relationships with other non-profits. I'll let hannah fill in those details, but I think if we present ourselves as providing essentially a "free to play" pricing model for low income section 8 people we may have better success getting donations and not burdening those that are required to pay by getting a decent portion of the food provided for free.

I think ideally it would be awesome if nobody had to pay anything, and all our food came from donations, dumpster diving, and our gardens. 

I also share many of Daniel and Travis concerns. I had thought of the food theft idea myself, and one solution I thought was simply a food buying cooperative, where food gets immediately distributed to all buyers. But I don't like that as much. 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Travis Jones <tjarvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’ve been struggling to put my feelings on this topic into words, but it is something I am very serious about and feel I need to at least try, so here it is.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of an optional food program, whether or not there are meals involved.  My concerns are multi-fold and complicated, but it really boils down to an institutionalized segregation set down at the get-go, leading to lots more problems down the road.

Most (if not all) of us on this email list are interested in some sort of food sharing.  I am certain that at least some of the current, non-coop residents are at least skeptical of the idea, and going forward, especially when we each have our own kitchens, more and more prospective members will see an optional food program as unimportant or superfluous, leading to less buy-in and perhaps eventually a complete collapse of the program.

Having some folks involved in group food purchasing and meals and others who are not is like only inviting half your family to dinner every night, because the other half isn't helping pay for it.  Talking to some coworkers today, I realized how important the family dinner is to cohesion and development of children, and the same applies here.  We would end up with a tight, comfortable group, and then a bunch of alienated outliers who would end up becoming shadow members we never see unless they're going to or from their cars.  This is worrying to me.

If we are serious about section 8, which it seems we are, then we cannot have a required food program, and I hate to say it, but I feel like an institutionalized optional food program would be detrimental to community cohesion as a whole.  

--
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.
 
 

--
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.
 
 

[Nolan Darilek]

One more thing. I won't apologize for being emotional here, but I do
regret that I'm in this emotional place. This is really bothering me,
it's not just a "what color should the bikeshed be painted?" [1] issue,
but a serious "how can we *ever* call ourselves a *cooperative* when a
possible solution to *every* HACA problem is that S8 people might be
asked to leave?" Seriously, it's like training for years to run a
marathon, then stepping on a banana on the starting line. Do we really
want to regret years down the line that one of our first acts was to ask
a bunch of S8 folks to leave because we rushed a decision?

1. http://bikeshed.com/

[Hannah Frankel]

PS, I did call the two contacts Andi recommended to find out if $850 (to include food) would be a "reasonable rent" increase.  No answer but I'll try again tomorrow.

--
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 cheacoopdiscussion+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Daniel Miller]

Thanks Hannah - glad to hear it.  Do you have a sense of how HACA looks at this?  

I understand that "we want to provide food to all of the residents" doesn't register on their radar, but what about "the previous owner was skimping on health-and-safety related maintenance and we plan to fund major improvements in the living conditions"?

-- 

Daniel Miller
North American Students of Cooperation
dan...@nasco.coop
Cell: 734-945-2424
P.O. Box 180048
Chicago, IL 60618

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheacoopdiscuss...@googlegroups.com.

[Mike Gorse]

Hi all,

First of all, I like that the people living at the complex are diverse in
terms of race, class, age, stage of life (there are families as well as
single people), etc. I see this as something that is not present at many
coops and hard to create after the fact, so it is something that is
distinct about our coop, and it creates the opportunity to extend the
benefits of the cooperative economy to people who would otherwise not be
included. So I see the input of the current residents as very valuable to
us. They may have something to say that we hadn't considered. If there are
families that intend to stay, for instance, then I'm curious as to what
they would want, and I wouldn't want families to be especially likely to
leave because we've implemented a mandatory food plan that they don't find
useful.

I'm pretty sure that ICC has had members who received food stamps, and
they would use them to buy food for their house in lieu of paying the
portion of their rent that would generally be sent to their house to pay
for food and other small expenses. I don't know whether it is legally
questionable to do this, but it might be a way to work things out.

I guess we'll discuss it more at the meeting, but I wouldn't feel
comfortable deciding that current tenants will need to buy into a food
plan when they renew until we've at least talked to some of them about it.
I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether it should be mandatory for new
members, although I wish I had a better idea of whether families would
want to be part of a food plan and what they would like out of one. There
are many ways of participating in a community, and I see eating dinner /
buying food together as one way among many, not more or less essential
than talking to people in common spaces or organizing/participating in
educational events or being part of a child care cooperative if we set one
up, for instance. Also, people tend to self-select into coops because they
like the communal aspect to them, and we have no shortage of people who
want to apply, so I'm not worried about having a bunch of members who no
one ever sees. So I'm not convinced that the food plan _needs_ to be
mandatory; the main downside that I see to it being optional is that
people would have keys to the common area, which includes the kitchen,
when they aren't part of the food plan, so we would either need to lock
the kitchen with a separate key or trust that people who aren't paying for
food won't take it or just not worry about it.

Thanks,
-Mike

[McAllen Halsey]

Donny is right when he says that this isn't a simple issue that will be easy to decide. There are multiple factors to consider. I agree with Nolan's sentiment that our decisions in this area should be very carefully considered and not hastily made.

I want to communicate some personal background information that has colored my judgements on this issue. I'm speaking to Nolan in particular, but the information is also relevant to anyone else who's speaking up on this topic.

It's ironic that I've been one of the more vocal opponents of an optional food program and other measures that would be less disruptive to current tenants. The reason is because one of the two core ideas that inspired me to begin this project, at the end of 2010, was to start a housing coop that was more inclusive and diverse. The other idea was to make the coop a venue for social and community events. People who joined the project later, including Nolan, have also thought this, independantly.  Before you joined, Nolan, I had to defend the idea a couple of times against people who weren't down for it. Another note about me, my current annual income falls far below even what's considered "very low income" by the city of Austin, and always has in my adult life. I have lived on food stamps before. I recently suffered from painful gingivitis, daily, for almost a year, because the only medical insurance I can afford is Austin's low income "MAP" public medical insurance where you have to wait forever just to get one cleaning appointment with a dentist. My parents aren't a whole heck of a lot better off than I am. I may have something of an outward appearance of privilege, but I'm not very privileged. I am not looking at tbis issue from the lofty and disconnected viewpoint of an upper-middle class person who doesn't know what it's like to have to struggle. For this reason, and for additional reasons I can maybe elaborate more on in person later, I'm a leading member of the inclusivity of low-income Gault St tenants fan club. I definitely don't want to make hasty decisions that would blow our big chance of creating a truly different kind of community in Austin that isn't just another gentrification initiative in disguise.

Another idea that i'm equally a fan of is creating a coop that truly functions as cooperatively as it can and should. To be honest, Nolan, I've sometimes wondered if you really want that. Sometimes it's seemed that you've been less concerned with creating our coop than you are about preventing the consequnces of it. I apologize if that's a grossly incorrect or insulting statement. I don't want to insult anyone and I respect your opinions motivations. 

As shitty as it may sound, I think that sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. We'll do everythingwe can to minimize that in this case. But it seems to me that in all societies - good societies and bad societies, and societies past and present, a leader can never accommodate 100% of the people 100% of the time, and if they try to, they risk endangering or eroding some of their core values and goals.

I don't have a full answer to how we should treat this issue, but we should do so carefully in any case.

Thanks.

--
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 cheacoopdiscussion+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Nolan Darilek]

On 04/20/2013 11:57 PM, McAllen Halsey wrote:
> Another idea that i'm equally a fan of is creating a coop that truly
> functions as cooperatively as it can and should. To be honest, Nolan,
> I've sometimes wondered if you really want that. Sometimes it's seemed
> that you've been less concerned with creating our coop than you are
> about preventing the consequnces of it. I apologize if that's a
> grossly incorrect or insulting statement. I don't want to insult
> anyone and I respect your opinions motivations.
> As shitty as it may sound, I think that sometimes you have to break a
> few eggs to make an omelette. We'll do everythingwe can to minimize
> that in this case. But it seems to me that in all societies - good
> societies and bad societies, and societies past and present, a leader
> can never accommodate 100% of the people 100% of the time, and if they
> try to, they risk endangering or eroding some of their core values and
> goals.
>

What does "cooperative" mean?

Does it mean "here's a contract, and that contract says you are all
obligated to X hours of labor, Y extra money in rent, and Z minutes of
standing on your head in the light of the new moon so our unit functions?"

Or does it mean "We're all working together to achieve a cooperative
goal. For some of us, this means signing a contract that obliges us to
do certain labor and that makes us responsible for certain meals per
week. For others of you, cooperation means meeting you where you are,
and taking whatever you can give us in helping to create the best
house/apartment/whatever we can. And between all of us working together
rather than paying a landlord to lord over us, we're going to build a
pretty kickass community."?

My concern throughout this project is that we all want to be
cooperative, but some of us have very rigid ideas of what that is.

Is it still cooperative if we *can't* require some tenants to
participate as fully, but they chip in regardless because they
appreciate that we've killed their bedbugs and roaches, provide a richer
community that they've had otherwise, and they want to help out with
that because they're decent human beings?

Whenever something comes up re: section 8, it boils down to "if we can't
*make* them participate in this carefully-prescribed way, then we may
have to ask them to leave." And for all your advocacy about not making a
hasty decision, it seems that just a few days ago you wanted to endure
the short-term discomfort sooner rather than making it long-term discomfort.

Maybe the reason that coops seem to fail at becoming what you want to
see here, is precisely because they rigidly define cooperation in ways
we're trying to here. What if, in meeting people where they are rather
than forcing cooperation at the barrel of a contract, we create a much
richer community that blows all of those others out of the water?

Note that I'm not saying that a rich community shouldn't have contracts,
just that we owe it to ourselves (and the people we're considering
displacing) to ponder that carefully, and *not* to talk about kicking
them out every time we're challenged. That's like having a relationship
and talking about breaking up during every single argument.

Here's how I'd like us to go forward. Let's say we *can't* make S8
tenants do anything differently than we already are. I know that we can
already require labor, and that's fine, just go with me for the sake of
argument. Regardless of what we can "make" them do, let's see what they
*want* to do. Even if we couldn't *make* them do labor, someone might
care enough about our inclusivity to do more than we would have asked,
without us having done so. Why don't we see if we *have* a problem
before we decide that there are consequences to our actions, and that
the only solution is kicking people out. It strikes me as odd that I'm
being told that I'm not prepared to deal with consequences that a) we've
essentially entirely made up and b) the *consequences* would seem to be
that we've inherited a cooperative situation with challenges we didn't
expect. So who is dealing with those consequences better? The person who
is actually trying to meet these people where they are, and to see if
there are cooperative possibilities beyond those he has known? Or the
people who suggest that we may need to kick these folks out every time
an issue arises? And given how much work that has been done thus far,
and how much is on the table, I'm not sure what consequences I'm
preventing...and that's even *before* any residents have had the
opportunity to join and show what they're willing to do. We're making a
*lot* of assumptions about what people will do if we don't *make* them
do those things. Nothing you've said here has insulted me, but I'd
probably be very insulted were I on the receiving end of *that*.

[Nolan Darilek]

On 04/21/2013 07:44 AM, Nolan Darilek wrote:
> in this carefully-prescribed way, then we may have to ask them to
> leave." And for all your advocacy about not making a hasty decision,
> it seems that just a few days ago you wanted to endure the short-term
> discomfort sooner rather than making it long-term discomfort.
>

Sorry, in retrospect I think I may have mischaracterized another opinion
as your own.

And here I thought I was doing very well responding before coffee...