Real life AS commune signup thread--check 1st post regularly

Post Reply New Topic

Well my recommendation was to purchase a multi family dwelling (some of which are apartment buildings) as being the housing solution for the community that would be fastest, easiest, have the fewest loose ends, etc. Renting apartments next door to one another, isn't really an intentional community no. But that's not really what I'd recommended. Thing is that building a multi-family dwelling is very time consuming and a lot more expensive than purchasing one that's already been built, so, like ana54 was saying "keep it simple"... You can't do simple with an IC... but purchasing an existing multi-family dwelling is a lot simpler than any other solution.

Ike, What are your by-laws?

Wasn't one I was familiar with... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_rules_of_order

I don't have any objections to it... however... my point being that without having an established, formalized and literally legal set of bylaws (file articles of incorporation for nonprofit or not-for-profit org), it will be literally impossible to raise any kind of funding other than our own. Ownership of the property must also fall to an entity and without filed articles of incorporation (which require bylaws) then the property would need to be owned by an individual -- which won't work for a whole host of reasons, unless we're talking about just purchasing adjoining houses or renting neighboring apartments (which isn't an intentional community really). These aren't hyperboles. In all likelihood the endeavor will never pass the planning stage without bylaws.

And speaking of NTs... I won't be in any community that prohibits NTs because I'm not going to give up my significant other. She's the only person who's consistently been with me and supported me (if not financially) in the last seven years. I'm not going to just cast her aside for a group of new friends. So either the bylaws will allow for the inclusions of NTs or I won't be part of the community. I suspect I'm not the only person who feels that way.

Okay, but is there going to be a few governing representatives chosen however or will everyone's voice be equal?

Sorry about the NT comment, I know a few good one too and wouldn't want you two cut off from each other.

I would think we would need to discuss that as a group and find out what most of us are more comfortable with.

Off the top of my head, my inclination would be for there to be a forced rotation of say 3 people who act as facilitators & dispute mediators chosen at random, but required to be people who haven't been on the list in a certain period of time either. I'm inclined to allow people to abstain from the lottery if they don't feel they're able to serve for whatever reason or to step down if they become overwhelmed (holding another on-the-spot lottery when they do) although there would need to be enough people *in* the lottery to ensure that the responsibility is fairly well shared (which might be an issue, knowing that we're talking about aspies and I know a lot of us aren't necessarily thrilled about the idea of being in that kind of a position). Although I wouldn't really describe that "job" as being authoritative so much -- it's just a matter of keeping papers straight and helping people to find solutions to their problems (conflicts in particular, but problems in general). So the folks in these 3 slots wouldn't be seen so much as "making rules" as they would be "providing support". And they would be responsible for holding the ballot box if there's a situation in which we want to use blind-ballots to vote on something. Hopefully most decisions (if not all) could be made through consensus without a need for voting. Meetings should probably also be recorded in some manner so that if people become confused about why certain things were done months or years later, we can go back to the record to see what was discussed and why certain decisions were made and decide if those are still good decisions for us. The job of recording meetings may fall either to the facilitators or to another "secretary".

All in all, this conceptual model would be designed to keep everyone pretty much equal.

Again, this is just "off the top of my head". I'm not married to it and would prefer there be more (rather than less) discussion of how we choose to structure ourselves.



S'awright. These things happen. No harm no foul.

I think it might be better for the group if the people who become leaders are required to show themselves to be hard workers. I like the rotating idea, it is good and gives opportunity. But I think if the group agrees on a way to measure mathematically the diligence of each member of the community in performing beneficial work in a timely fashion, then the members who are the most help should be rewarded with opportunity, in the foreseeable future, to become leaders. Everyone should be given the chance to lead, but maybe the ones who are more lax in helping the community should have shorter terms. This idea comes from my experience that the best managers to work with are those who get their hands dirty and actually work, and not those who sit at a desk and give orders from their throne.

I'm not sure if "management" or "leadership" is the best way to describe what I had in mind.

Damn, we're not allowed to edit our posts after 9999 minutes have passed after first posting it? Why is that?


Anyway, MeshGearFox wants to join, probably. That's a 13th or 14th person!

People who decide what other people do are leaders, managers decide who is included and who is rejected in addition to being a leader. What did you have in mind?

I wasn't thinking they would be responsible for making decisions about how the community is run or what we do so much as facilitating group decisions and conflict resolution based on whatever ground-rules we laid down for decision making -- preferably a system that helps to keep everyone equal in the decision making process. At least that was my thinking.

Listen, let's keep this simple! I'm getting a job very soon, I'll buy a small piece of land in the country, and some of us can live there in tents or whatever in the meantime, while we plan our commune! At least we'll have each other to keep comany, to talk to, to do stuff with, to protect each other. $2000 for a backyard-sized bit of land really is SO GREAT! I'll be able to afford that in no time!

? What happened to the deal with you getting an apartment because your unable to work or whatever? I thought I was gonna be able to leave sooner. :/

I'm also doing that. But when I get the job I'll also be able to save for land!

EDIT: In case Social Serv. cuts me off and I don't wanna pay rent out of my pocket, would you mind if we lived in the tent city for awhile until I can afford the land? Then maybe you can also save and buy a piece right next to mine, and a bunch of you next to ours, etc.

Oh cool

A tent in Canadian winter? I hope Terrace and Phillip are in my sleeping bag.

Not that I have anything against tents or camping per se, but this idea sounds to me as though it's liable to create some practical challenges...

The thing that springs to mind for me initially is plumbing. On a residential acreage you're generally not going to find (not easily anyway) fresh water and if you do then local ordinances will probably prohibit things like washing dishes in it. Which would mean paper plates or food that requires no dishware. It also means no bath or shower, so if you needed to keep clean for the purpose of a job, it'd mean going to the local YMCA to shower. Then there's cooking, which since you can't have conventional appliances means a grill or camping stove (which needs to be fueled frequently), food that doesn't need to be cooked or open fires, the latter of which are a fair amount of work to maintain on a daily basis (comparatively) and frequently prohibited in residential areas. Speaking of local ordinances, it's probably also illegal in most places to defecate outdoors on a residential acreage. Once or twice when nobody's looking, but if you're living in a tent I suspect the NT neighbors will catch on and likely create legal problems. It's possible that an acreage in a more rural area might have looser restrictions on what you can or can't do on the property, however that makes taking showers at the Y harder. Then there's laundry for the job which means a laundromat, but also without the ability to keep the laundry folded in a dresser it's tough to keep the clothes from being wrinkly which is often viewed poorly by NTs in the workplace. And while you can carry a cell-phone to handle the issue of needing a phone for job hunting and such, it also means no internet access (except what very little internet you can access on a cell phone) or accessing the internet at work if it's available (where checking your email is problematic at a lot of jobs) and remembering to charge the cell phone at work since you won't be able to at home.

While it may sound simple on the surface I'm apt to think it will be very complicated and challenging and come to an early end. I've actually lived through a hurricane that destroyed all of the local infrastructure (Wilma) and was without phone, electricity, water, etc. for days to weeks on end when Tiffany and I lived in Florida. That sort of sudden loss of infrastructure is a real challenge for people to deal with. I'm not saying you can't, though if you do it intentionally, be prepared for it to be harder than you expect. Plan for everything you can think of and then expect there to be things you didn't plan for. These are all the reasons why you can get an undeveloped acre for such a small amount of money and why more people aren't doing it already.