Community Development - Recently Updated Pages

test

skybluestar — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:40:00 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

the larger vision

skybluestar — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:02:18 CDT

Recently when asking myself, what is the best use of my life, the answer (in that moment) that came was this: Make a game out of seeing how many communal/cooperative entities you can help found over the next 20 years.

A big complaint I have about the communities movement is the predomance of the middle-class pattern to create a comfortable and disparate life for one's self, one family, or, at most, one's community. I see several branches of the communities movement: communes, housing co-ops, cohousing, ecovillages, and homesteads. With most there is some level of organization around that general model, but despite the similarities in values and goals between all models the amount of interaction, collaboration, mutual support, etc. is woefully limited.

But then you have lots of other movements developing other branches of alternative society that intersect nicely with the communities movement - worker co-ops, CSAs and sustinable agriculture groups, urban gardening projects, urban community centers, local currency and labor exchange projects, indipendant media, alternative education centers, as well as resistance based movements and organizations.

As Jello Biafra said, you want to bring down global capitalism? - stop giving it your money! Similarily, if we want to limit ecological destruction, we should stop purchasing from businesses that have that as a practice (as well as simply consuming less). Concurently, a friend of mine once said to me, we should be getting as much land out of the capitalist economy as quickly as possible.

Twin Oaks over produces cheese. East Wind makes nut butters. Sandhill makes sorghum. Trade between these communities happens. What if there were 20, 50, 100 different communities and co-ops that were all producing goods that could be traded?

My current fantasy is to pick a population center and help found and/or link a network of communal/cooperative entities that are providing housing, growing and distributing food, producing ecologically sound goods for money or barter, providing space for social events, arts and performance, and organizing, and engaging in community organizing and local politics.

- sky

For me, unsurprisingly, the larger visions is connected to memetics (cultural self replication). If youstart a community, you are reallysaying "If lots of people lived this way, we would have a chance." But starting a single community (or even a dozen in 20 years) is not solving the problem. If we look at otehr success memes, like Alcoholics Anonomous (or other 12 step groups) or global capitalism - these ideas take hold and spread seemingly unstopably. We need to design communities so compelling, that when visitors leave they say "i want to create one a lot like that, and i am willing to help make that happen."

- Paxus

...creating a network of groups for the purpose of mutual aid that will allow people to get their basic needs met with a high degree of security without the necessity of 1. being independantly wealth, or 2. engaging in the mainstream money economy as wage-earners. My belief is that this will have several positive benefits. It will simultaneously require and create more satisfying relationships. It will allow for more "liesure time," and it will reduce the stress of "earning a living", which will in turn increase the amount of time and energy individuals put into creative and altrustic endevours. For these reasons, and because of the increased localization of the economy, levels of consumption and waste will drop, which will make it easier to expand the network.

- sky

property development

skybluestar — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:44:41 CDT

There are a major set of hurdles and problems to be dealt with in developing a piece of property. My understanding is highly limited, but in conversations with folx in Eugene who are working on this I'm learning how much there is to deal with. Zoning laws on city, county, and state levels can be very restrictive and very irrational.

For example, Miaya was telling me how in Oregon you can have a humanure system but you can't have a grey water system. Solving this problem would require taking the state to court and proving why grey water systems are safe and useful - no small endevour. Also, on their property on River Rd, if they want to build any residences they have to build 15, each of which need to have a kitchen and bathroom. They're working with the city to allow greater flexibility. Miaya also said that at Maitreya Ecovillage when Rob built the triplex the city wanted to require him to put in a parking lot. He managed to get around them by promising to buy bus passes, and follow up on that promise.

So, it seems like there is room inat least some cities for creative problem solving, but I think this area of community development can't be underestimated in terms of the time and money it could take.

Also on the subject of development, Miaya described a number of positive collaborations and connections they've made with various departments and programs at the University of Oregon and the local community college. It seems that with proper planning there are a lot of resources available from educational institutions.

- sky

food

skybluestar — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:30:44 CDT

I came across a group in Chico, CA called GRUB (growing resourcefully uniting bellies). Their mission is to grow as much food within the city limits as possible. Distribution will be through a combination of CSA, barter, and free distribution to disadvantaged individuals, all on bike. They already have more donations of land then they have gardeners to work. They're also creating a "tree registry" - a list of fruit and nut trees owned by individuals who are happy to have others come harvest/gleen.

Another food system I like, which I understand has happened at times in both Chico and Eugene, OR is a "food swap." People who garden gather at a certain time and place and trade excess produce they've grown in their gardens.

Eugene also has the Grower's Market, a volunteer run food co-op. Because of how it's run it has the best prices in town. It's only open during certain hours on certain days, and, from what I hear, it tends to be a bit disorganized, but these seem like solvable problems.

Food is so crucial to people's lives and to building community. It seems like one of the easiest things to organize around to create a system of mutual support outside the money economy. As Twin Oaks has proved, good organization and a little labor from a lot of people can go a long way.

virtual community

BucketVonHarmony — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:07:56 CDT

One topic I’m interested in exploring is related both to economics and the mechanics of joining and leaving. I call it “virtual community”. By “virtual community” I mean the tight bonds that form and are maintained in a society where people move around a lot. These bonds can be emotional, project-oriented, mutually supporting or economic.

Twin Oaks predicates itself on all members being on the farm all the time. This has shifted slightly with PAL, VE changes, TOAST, long-term guesting and a handful of members who are willing to risk strong disapproval from some people. But, the assumption remains and alternatives are fraught. In part, this is justified by much of the work being land-based or manufacturing. It’s also justified by arguing that personal relationships suffer when members are not in proximity.

One response to the last argument is that Twin Oaks has no community-wide or community-endorsed mode of strengthening and supporting personal relationships. Perhaps, putting an emphasis on relationships would alleviate the concern that the communal culture suffers when members come and go. If members were having high-quality personal interactions when together, separations might be less meaningful.

The economic argument seems easier to dismiss: there are lots of ways of making a buck while traveling or through information technology. Also, the flip is that no one reckons the economic loss caused by rigid home requirements. One line of reasoning at Twin Oaks has been that allowing members to build equity or accumulate assets (and in some cases, skills or education) would only empower them to leave and take resources from the community. This combines with the political resentment towards incentive based motivation. Not only are community members kept in a state of poverty, but the community itself, while financially solid, is stuck in extremely slow growth.

I welcome a personal ethic of voluntary poverty but wish to invite a wealth of opportunities for personal accomplishment and the successful incubation of projects. I do not subscribe to the notion that a community needs to be a self-contained world separate from the “mainstream” world. In fact, I am opposed to it. I am not interested in altering human nature in a hermetic environment. Rather, I would follow Peter Maurin’s notion of building a world where it is easier for people to do good.

One fantasy (or more like a thought experiment) I have had about Twin Oaks is to imagine it had purchased in its early years several hundred acres nearby for an eco-village. I can hear right away the arguments against this. That members would rather live there. It would make it too easy for people to leave. They would compete- one would overshadow the other. They would steal toilet paper from each other.

My argument is that the availability of that option would have been successful at catching some members for whom the full Twin Oaks experience wasn’t satisfying. Members leaving because of conflict, broken relationships, to pursue more nuclear arrangements, etc. The Rob Jones circle around Charlottesville comes to mind. What if instead of 2% of members staying twenty years at Twin Oaks and another 1-5% staying in the area, a small upward tick. Say 10% had stayed in the area living in some form of community or eco-village structure. The economic gain for Twin Oaks in collective wisdom, resource and skill retention and sharing, and maintenance of strong personal connections would be considerable. In addition the possibilities set in motion by increased critical mass. It would be of transcendent value in terms of barn-building, culture creation and psychological nurturance.

I mention this rather nutty thought experiment as a concrete example of the benefits of more permeable barriers. Twin Oaks has invested a great deal in having more impermeable barriers. I am wondering what levels of “permeability” and “virtual community” people can imagine that would enhance the experience of local community?
What do they think would work? How bound to place do we have to be? What are the trade-offs? The resentments that will form? Does that eliminate sustainability and food raising? Can those problems be solved?

For me, this is complicated by an assumption of some level of personal voluntary poverty, lowered consumption practices, and environmental consciousness. Also, I do think you start a community to some degree by having a house where people can live.

But, just buying a house, that’s another post.
-Thomas

(bucket says:)

Kim Stanley Robinson talks about a system like this in hisMars Trilogy. In his futuristic world, cooperatives are the norm, rather than corporations. It is yet another communistic utopian sci-fi novel and I higly reccomend it.

I appreciate this model, and can see many of the benefits to a system like this.

I would be interested in seeing how a model like this would look fleshed out.

Perhaps it begins with one house, and a work expectation that required it's members to work an average fo 2 years over a three year period, focusing on high efficiency and return on that work.

Over time other houses are purchased in other locations, allowing coop members to move and travel over the life of their membership.

As a member of the cooperative all food, clothing, shelter and medical care are taken care of no matter where you are located. Each house has a certian level of autonomy but also has the expectation of putting up members of the coop that come through.

Group purchasing power is used where possible, as the group grows.

(end bucket)

Funding

karmakas — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:43:13 CDT

Where is the money going to come from?

PEACH (the catastrophic health care fund) has money to loan, as does the Federation of Egalitarian Communities. Emma's has money, but last I heard they want to focus on the Seattle area (maybe they could be persuaded otherwise). Twin Oaks could probably be persuaded as well. Then there's National Co-operative Bank. Others?

-sky

The way you want to go here, i think, is with affluent community supportive individuals. Aron comes to mind, Jeremy Google perhaps, Alexis. There are more.

- paxus

althoughthis can create a potentially awkward relationship between the "donor" and the acutal community members, especially if different visions/values surface later on.
-kas

ecological sustainability

Paxsu — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:23:27 CDT

Rather then re-inventing the wheel on this one, I think the Ecological Covenants and Sustainability Guidelines of Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage are great. There may be ways they need to be adapted to different situations. Also, I wouldn't want to expect a group to start out meeting all criteria, but that there is recognition where the criteria isn't being met and continual effort being made to do better.

- Sky

With all due respect ot my Rabbit friends and perhaps there is some additional document that i am not seeing, but there are some important pieces missing here.

There is lots about avoiding unsustainable resource use, but missing for me is the commitment to sharing and moving away from certain aspects of private property.

Sustainability for USamericans means using far less - not just green versions of products, but less actual stuff.

- Paxus

Membership

Paxsu — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:09:54 CDT

I propose a tiered system - core group of full members (FM), then provisional members (PM), then residents (R) and interns (I). Create clear distinctions between the privilages and responsibilities for each. The provisional membership period would be indefinite. When the PM decides they want to take on the responsibilities of FMship they would initiate the process.

- sky

When we (Star Family) were in Fussen (a large German IC) there were even more levels of membership, the last of which was an income and asset sharing level - which was connected to a life commitment to the community. Simply having this be an option changes the discussion of what the community is trying to do. USAmericans are obcessed with their notions of freedom, 3 of the 4 membership types described by Sky above are about various different ways you can get out of the community. What happens when you start to explore ways to get more deeply invested?

- Paxus

Home

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:46:35 CDT

This wiki is for creating intentional communities that address issues of sustainability and justice along ecological, social, economic, and political lines. These communities will be integrated with larger communities, movements, and society as a whole. They will also seek to expand and/or spawn other communities and will maintain a network for mutual support. These communities could have different primary focuses (residential, service or income production, networking, activism, etc.) but will seek to incorporate as many functions as possible.

- sky

This is an open forum which will reformat itself using the type of rolling democracy which is found in other wikis. There is another effort being made to build a more general purpose intentional community wiki which is at wiki.ic.org

- paxus

political systems and structures

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:56:45 CDT

consensus and consent-based decision making
communication systems and group process

communication systems and group process

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:56:14 CDT

The wheel as a metaphor for group process (...coming soon). - sky

Institutional self-evaluation: This is crucial. Bureaucracy has a tendancy to expand and perpetuate itself. Systems can get so large, complex, and cumbersome that they take on a life of their own. The group can end up putting huge amounts of time and energy into simply maintaining the system without checking to see what good it is actually doing. Also, both twin oaks and the fec have had a tendancy to accumulate projects. Someone's pet project becomes a facet of the institution. But maybe no one's really interested in that anymore. This is where clear vision, mission, aim is important. Is what we're doing fulfilling what the group is suppose to be about? If not, let's fix that, or lets change what the group is suppose to be about. Plenty of room needs to be allowed for the conscious, intentional evolution of the group.

How does an individual bring a problem to a group? Everyone's problem is nobody's problem. Similarly, one person's problem is just their problem. But if you consider every person to be part of the whole then their problems are also the groups problems. Selecting against high-maintinance people is important, or at least making sure that the give and take is going to work for the group (maybe someone costs a lot in some ways but gives a tremendous amount in others). And not that the group will also take on or deal with everyone's personal problems, but there should at least be a way to get the group to consider the issue. Fostering or selection for people who have a sense of investement and commitment in others so that they will have motivation for addressing problems in the group that they might not themselves feel impacted by.

- sky

consensus and consent-based decision making

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:52:37 CDT

I believe in consensus, not just as a decision-making method, but as a philosophy for relating to others, myself, and the world around me at all times. Consensus, or consent-based decision-making methods, like any other decision-making methods, is sometimes approached as a political game, disintegrated from a larger social vision. What a group using consensus considers to be the "spirit" of consensus is important to define so that each individual understands what is expected of them.

There are many ways to do consensus. There are formal, step-by-step processes. Alternatively, a group can just keep talking about an agenda item until it's clear everyone agrees. Sociocracy has a particular method that relies heavily on go 'rounds. Different approaches are appropriate for different settings.

Also, consensus can be used with large groups. Establishing quorum (the number of members required to be present for decision-making, either for the whole mtg and/or for a specific agenda item) and allowing proxies (absentee members giving other members their "vote", which would count towards quorum) can help tremendously. Fall-back plans like "consensus minus one" can also be helpful, though potentially compromise the ideal of consensus.

The Twin Oaks bylaws state that it will implement "[a]n emphasis in the Community's social policy and practices on fostering responsibility and commitment, on cooperation rather than competition, and on affirming rather than punishing means for changing behavior...." Little has been done to institutionalize or systematically implement this goal. Cooperation as a philosophy or attitude is like feminism. It's not how we're raised and it's hard to see the behaviors we engage in that counter it. Defining cooperation and engaging in the process of learning and unlearning the relevant behaviors is important.

Generally speaking, it seems absurd to me that so many co-operative entities have decided to implement heirarchical decision-making structures, citing efficiency (for various reasons) as the rational. We are trying to shift the practices of society. Heirarchy, in it's various manifestations, is arguably at the core of disfunctional (one might say suicidal) civilization. We should not be so quick to abandon our efforts to learn new ways of collectively managing common resources - we can be, and indeed need to be more clever and more loving then that.

- sky

social systems and culture

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:30:59 CDT

Membership
Behavior code/standards
joining and leaving

economic systems and structures

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:33:59 CDT

There are various level of resource sharing to consider. There is the basic expense-sharing model of traditional housing co-operatives (paying into a system for paying rent/lease/mortgage, maintinance, utilities, and maybe food). There's income-sharing, which tends to scare a lot of people ;0) Then there's full on asset sharing, which really scares people.

(bucket adds:)
Where the money comes from is also an interesting aspect. Do the individuals work for outside businesses? Do they own the means of production or are they working for wages?

A community business as the primary source for the communities income serves as a great equalizer. The ownership of the means of production is what makes the ruling class the ruling class, according to Marx.
(end bucket's addition)

A level of economic autonomy and flexibility is important; avoiding classism is also important. In considering a model that is economically just I would suggest considering various sections of the UN Charter on Human Rights. Here is what I think is the most relevant passage:

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

In the absence of state or local gov't taking responsibility for the fulfillment of this, I think organizations created for, among other things, mutual support (i.e. community) ought to take it as their responsibility to fulfill this.

Personally, I like model developed by the Emma Goldman Finishing School <www.egfs.org>. They have a system involing shared labor and income, but allow for personal earning/spending after the necessary contributions by each member have been made. But there is a spending cap (some $$ amount per year). Any earnings beyond this cap are donated to the community's "social-justice fund", the main purpose of which is to start communities similar to Emma's.

- sky

So just to throw out posible problems early, what about folx like Jeremy Google, who has a high salary (which potentially could be capped like Emma's does) but also has stock options, of varying and unspecified value? Alternative to a cap (which is a fixed amount) might be a tith (which is a fraction of income. This aspect more than diet, location, spirtuality, relationship model will determine hwo lives at the place. Marx was right, it is economic determinism. - Paxus

A stock option, or other unrealized asset, might not be considered until it was turned into cash and then could fall under the rules for income for the community. If stock options are significantly in lieu of salary, ie, the member is not contributing near the community's expected amount, I could see the option being transferred or cashed out to the community.

I think there are too many varieties of commodities to codify all of the possible arrangements. Each plan could be somewhat individualized within a framework of principles: say, some combination of the Emma model and the Twin Oaks model of pre-existing assets being set aside.

One important point to consider will be whether members can accumulate assets towards retirement or pension, either within the community or to use after they leave the community. What do others think would and wouldn't work in those cases?

I might point out that the New York Catholic Worker makes no attempt to regulate finances, relying entirely on personal responsibility, commitment, and example. They also maintain a large network of extended community- regular contributors, volunteers, and folk who maintain ongoing roles and jobs, some of whom don't live in the physical community. In two recent cases, two people who didn't live in the houses, retired to the houses after a lifetime's contributions, receiving full-time care and support.

-Thomas

Behavior code/standards

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:32:25 CDT

The goal is for the group as a whole and the individuals therein to be as high-functioning (happy, productive, engaged, etc.) as possible. Of course, everyone has their own personality, strengths and weaknesses, etc. What's more important then where a person is at in their personal development is that they are engaged in and committed to that process. Each member needs to start with a personal commitment to preventing their issues from interfering with their ability and the ability of the group to function as much as possible - this is not something imposed or legislated by the group. A base level of acceptance of each individual is important, and the goal of the group should be to support each other in becoming more and more of who we want to be. However if the basic commitment to better oneself, including a desire (more then just willingness) to hear feedback, a vision of one's ideal self, and a path to get there, is not present the group may evaluate the individuals membership (the extent and rigor of this commitment would vary depending on the tier of membership - less involvement, less expectation).

- sky

joining and leaving

skybluestar — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:32:02 CDT

One proposal could be to start with a core of people whose project is to start a community together and whom all involved respect and mostly know what to expect. Those people could be invited to membership with whatever internal approval process we institute. Everyone would commit to some amount of time to this project.

As new people become involved, even highly recommended people, I think we don't even offer membership- but rather residencies or internships of up to one year. Residency could be an internship in whatever we do or what skills we have to offer (indexing, facilitation, being groovy) or simply a project the person has consistent withour goals (going to school, organizing demonstrations, starting a soupline). The residency plan would have some sort of economic plan (they'll pay rent, they'll do housework, we want to sponsor someone doing what they’re doing). After completion of the residency contract (which will incorporate a lease-like thing) they leave.

Then we know them and we can invite them to come back and join as (provisional?) members. Also, I don't think the residency system would preclude us having guests, short or long-term.

Lifetime membership: I would like an environment where a lifetime membership is viable. I think less than two percent of people accepted for membership at Twin Oaks stayed for twenty years. That’s a back of the envelope calculation but I think it’s not what I want.

Three aspects of this:

I would prefer to avoid the assumption that once you’re in you can’t be got out without committing an egregious violation of explicit bylaws. I think the members of the community will need to re-commit to each other and the community’s purposes from time to time.
I think the community needs to incorporate change in to its model- the changing goals of its members and its own changing dynamics. Can a member still be a member and go off to school, religious contemplation, start a new community or decide to write a novel?

3.I think the community needs to come to some accommodation about supporting members as they leave the community. A pay-out on equity isn’t the only solution. Another would be to offer support in forming new projects and facilitating them though they take the member away from the community. The whole notion of you’re in or you’re out can be a horribly self-defeating effort allegedly designed to protect the community.

- thomas