Skip to main content

Itineraries Spring 2012

Community — Build It!

Contents:

Dynamic Governance and Sharing Lives by Gaya Erlandson

Dynamic Governance: Key to a Nurturing Community by Larilee Suiter

The Sharing Solution by Gaya Erlandson and Janelle Orsi

Intentional Elder-Friendly Communities by Alex Mawhinney

From the Editor, Gaya Erlandson…

Spring is a time we see the seeds we planted during our visioning stage begin to emerge into the light of day. This section focuses on the two kinds of structures needed to build community. The first, and in my opinion the most important, are soft structures — legal agreements and governance structures. We will examine these first, exploring how they support the effective interaction and collaboration among stakeholders that is KEY to having a harmonious community experience. Then we will look at issues of architecture and site design.

Social beings need the loving support of others to thrive. Though most of us have a deep yearning for a loving community, questions make us cautious. Will there be much conflict? How do people resolve their differences? Will I have enough privacy? Enough autonomy? Will I feel as though I’m actually less empowered to direct my life, or will it be better? Will strong personalities dominate meetings and decision-making so that I have to put up with an undercurrent of tension and resentment? Will it be worth all the adjustment required?

Boiled down, all these concerns revolve around getting along with others. As much as we need people in our lives, our individualistic lifestyles and structured roles within hierarchical work situations rarely prepare us to negotiate or collaborate with others as equals. Among the tools that can resolve these dilemmas — and one I highly recommend to any organization where equality, transparency, and shared leadership are highly valued — is Dynamic Governance. I explore it in my piece, “Dynamic Governance and Sharing Lives,” then illustrate how it works with a story by Larilee Suiter about a community where it was used.

“Aging in place” — staying in your own home until the end of life — is, according to research, most people’s preference. Economics is a factor here: for many, the costs of building or moving into “intentional” or other specialized communities is prohibitive. An affordable and promising approach to aging in place — namely, creating community within our existing neighborhoods — is currently attracting a lot of attention. In “The Sharing Solution” I preview a recent book by attorney Janelle Orsi and then excerpt brief articles by her on (1) urban agriculture and how cities should encourage it, (2) using homes as neighborhood sharing hubs, and (3) how to make our neighborhoods more sharing environments.

The remaining articles in Section 2 focus on the “hard” structures of community. Alex Mawhinney, in “Intentional Elder-Friendly Communities,” surveys the almost dizzying array of alternatives currently being explored. Then cohousing expert Ann Zabaldo — in her engaging article, “Romancing the Developer” — provides good advice for anyone flirting with the idea of being their own developer.

Dynamic Governance and Sharing Lives by Gaya Erlandson

Sharing is a vital aspect of community building. By uniting isolated neighbors into caring networks, sharing has the capacity to create communities of people who understand that their greatest source of abundance is in their shared, human assets. Parents who struggle alone to provide for their families, for example, can collaborate with neighbors for reliable, quality childcare, teen mentoring with local seniors, and meal and ride sharing.

Key to community building, however, is good governance and decision-making processes. Community building has been a lifelong passion of mine, and I am truly delighted to spread the word about a highly effective governance system that enables communities to be thriving containers of caring, collaborative relationships.

Dynamic Governance is an innovative approach to governance based on scientific principles. It combines the best business practices with the principles of cybernetics and systems thinking to create modern organizations — including communities whose governance meetings are more effective, more productive, and more efficient. Among its many benefits, Dynamic Governance:

  • Streamlines decision-making while reducing tension around power

  • Maximizes decision-making effectiveness and efficiency

  • Kindles creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit

  • Decreases number of meetings and increases their productivity

  • Increases individual engagement, productivity, and commitment

  • Builds relationships and community belonging

  • Provides a structure that assures ongoing progress, learning, and improvement

In much of the world, Dynamic Governance is called “sociocracy” based on the Latin and Greek roots socius, meaning social familiarity, and kratein, meaning governance. The word was coined in 1851 by Auguste Comte, and the concept was developed extensively by Gerard Endenburg in the Netherlands, who in 1970 began applying its principles to his electrical engineering corporation.

Sociocracy was brought to the United States by business consultant John Buck who has studied with Endenburg since the 1980s. To date, sociocracy has been implemented in hundreds of organizations around the world — private and public schools and universities, professional groups, large and small businesses, government agencies, and intentional communities. In the United States, sociocracy is largely referred to as Dynamic Governance (DG), the term we will use.

Structure and Principles

DG can be pictured as a hierarchy of circles reflecting different levels of work, not control. Circles are of just 2-40 people who know each other and who have a particular aim or job within a business or community organization. A simple three-tiered hierarchy includes the Top circle, made up of those heading the organization (Board of Directors, CEO, CFO, etc.) and a representative from the next circle down called the General circle. The General circle is made up of representatives from the circles at the third level (sometimes referred to as departments, committees, etc.) and also has its own representative in each of the lowest level circles as well as in the Top Circle (see double-linking below).

Just as implementation of Dynamic Governance makes minimal change to operations and maximum change to decision-making, its four principles are simple, but have dramatic effects.

1.  Consent — Policy decisions are made by consent. Consent means members must offer a well-reasoned “paramount objection” (relevant to stated goals and aims) so it can be addressed. Rather than generating a negative turning point, paramount objections are expected to result in the opposite. Discord and chaos are embraced as opportunities to improve the proposal — and as opportunities for the group to build trust and understanding. In articulating objections, for example, members learn about the needs, gifts, and ideas of the others. They also gain clarity on their own motivation, goals, and ideas.

2.  Circles of Equivalence — Members within each circle are highly involved: in determining meeting agendas, engaging in transparent elections, cocreating proposals for policies or projects, decision-making, etc. Decisions that are implemented are monitored and the outcomes measured by members of the circle to further the group’s learning and effectiveness. Those members that were most skeptical of a proposal may be elected as the best ones to do its measuring.

3.  Double Linking — All the circles are “double linked.” Two people within each circle are members of the next higher circle — one selected from within the higher circle and the other elected from within the lower circle. This means that the higher circle is represented in the lower one and vice versa. Thus, any decision made in a circle is “passed” or consented to by all in that circle, including the member that is there as a representative of the higher and lower circles.
Because of this, ideas from the “lowest” circles can link upward and become implemented at any higher level, or move laterally through the representatives. Indeed, information flows to where it needs to go. With a comprehensive feedback system that ensures communication up and down the organization, DG’s double linking optimizes an organization’s ability to respond to internal and external pressures. This self-optimization allows a business or community organization to be very resilient.

4.  Elections — Although some people are elected for specific tasks and functions over time, everyone within each circle has an equal vote and can be elected for any function. The election process assures both that the elected person is accepted by the group as the best available one to do the task, and that s/he understands what the task requires. In addition to enhancing effectiveness, the specific procedures used during elections greatly enhance interpersonal awareness and connection.

DG and Sharing Law

Writing DG governing documents into a new or existing legal structure can be done rather easily. In Appendix E of the book We The People, Buck and Villines offer an example of DG operating agreements and bylaws for a limited liability company. Article 1 includes three sections entitled, Organizational Model (describes the four principles), Structure (describes Top Circle, General Circle, Department Circles, etc.), and Investing and Working Partners.

Article 2, entitled “Top Circle,” gives details on its composition, roles, terms, meeting requirements, how to handle vacancies, etc., and Article 3 focuses on “Executive Officers of the Top Circle.” Significantly, the Board of Directors is part of the Top Circle and shall not meet separately from the Top Circle, and all decisions are made according to the principle of consent. External members chosen from outside the organization also are part of the Top Circle for their expertise in: financial matters, business management, city politics, DG consulting, and legal advice.

Article 4, “Circle Management,” has several subsections. It is stated here, for example, that each circle shall be a separate organ of the LLC and be empowered to draft its own regulations (in agreement with Top Circle’s vision, etc.); that the next higher circle, through its representative, is responsible for assuring that decision-making in a circle below functions according to the operating agreement; that recording circle minutes be done properly, etc.

Article 5, entitled “Compensation and Profit Sharing,” offers an ingenious way to compensate investing and working partners (workers), with both fixed and variable payments, depending on profitability. Additional example articles are offered, one entitled, “Conduct of Meeting of Investing Partners.” Again, decision-making by consent prevails; however, investing partners may choose other methods and structures of decision-making, provided they agree to do so by consent.

Vision of Neighborhood Communities

Similarly, one can implement DG in a neighborhood by working with its Homeowners Association. Perhaps more likely, however, is to work from the grassroots up. When a group of people contacts a lawyer to help them set up legal agreements for a shared project, such as a childcare collaborative, they could be taught DG circle meeting procedures, as offered by the lawyer should s/he become a DG consultant.

After experiencing success in sharing and making decisions together, members of this initial circle might seed new circles, such as one that creates a playground in a shared area or a food co-op, each requiring the services of a lawyer. When several of these third-level circles exist, they could create a General circle made up of representatives from each initial circle to better coordinate efforts. Eventually the homeowners association (or some other group) may adopt DG and become the Top circle and thus create a completely integrated (double-linked) DG hierarchy.

Activist Communities Unite!

I can see various groups coming together to cocreate community, using DG and sharing law. The Transition Town efforts — the grassroots network of communities that are working to build resilience in response to peak oil, climate destruction, and economic instability — would, for example, do well to consider implementing DG. Also the Occupy Wall Street movement may well coalesce efforts using DG. What power in uniting efforts!

Every indicator suggests that we need to live as locally as possible via community relations. Schools, neighborhoods, and businesses set up with DG can be linked together. DG procedures generate a sense of safety and belonging for all people — true community — by building personal and interpersonal skills and enabling effective, collaborative relationships.

This vision is consistent with the brilliant work of John McKnight and Peter Block who help create “competent” communities — where the people are considered the most important resource. Members consider themselves capable of taking care of their own, regardless of economic standing or any consumer index rating. Instead of requiring continual consumption of services from outsiders, community members exchange assets as they share in the work, responsibility, and joy of cocreating an interconnected, interdependent life together.

In short, DG is a scalable, decision-making structure (from a few to countless, interlinking small groups) that guarantees the opportunity of self-directed contribution and optimal development for all within a sharing, caring context. By using DG, we shift our certainty from the forms of previous decisions (the old structures of education, retirement, economic, political, and social systems) to a different kind of certainty. It is certainty that we as individuals have a right to our own unique existence and that we can direct our lives with others effectively.

Occupy Our Human Potential

Human history can be seen as a process of increasing the rights and decision-making responsibility of the individual. We have gone from magical thinking to autocracy or authoritarian decision-making models, to democracy in many parts of the world. Corruption of democracy by transnational corporations, however, threatens to have us step back to pre-democratic social structures. DG is a step forward.

According to Endenburg, when we apply the basic rules and principles of sociocracy, “a further step is not only possible … but inevitable” (1981, p 11). It is a step forward in achieving our human potential — and it all begins with the basic human desire to connect, contribute, and share equitably in a caring context of community.

//

References

Buck, John and Sharon Villines. 2007. We The People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy, A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods. Washington, DC:Sociocracy.info. See GovernanceAlive.com.

Endenburg, Gerard. 1998. Sociocracy as Social Design. Columbia, MD: Sociocratic Engineering Company.

Endenburg, Gerard. 1998. Sociocracy: The Organization of Decision-Making. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Kretzmann, John P. and John L. McKnight. 1993. Building Communities From the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.

McKnight, John and Peter Block. 2010. The Abundant Community: Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhoods. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. See http://www.abcdinstitute.org/.

Orsi, Janelle. 2012. Sharing Law: The Legal Landscape of the New Economy. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.

Orsi, Janelle and Emily Doskow. 2009. The Sharing Solution: How to Save Money, Simplify Your Life and Build Community. Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press.

//

Gaya Erlandson is a psychologist, writer, teacher, social architect, and community consultant. Certified in Imago Relationship Therapy, she loves to coach couples, facilitate groups, and offer trainings related to conscious relationships and living the new paradigm. Gaya lives in Lotus Lodge — a shared home near Asheville, NC, which is situated on 2.5 acres of land with a pond, stream, and organic gardens. Lotus Lodge and its community was the subject of a recent news segment on CBS Early Morning — an experience which in part has inspired the project she is now working on, a how-to book on creating and maintaining shared households.

Dynamic Governance: Key to a Nurturing Community by Larilee Suiter

I began dreaming of alternative families at age 8, sure there was a better way than my personal family had discovered. In junior high I wrote term papers on utopian communities. Later I studied philosophy and psychology at Duke University, still trying to find the core components of a nurturing life. Graduate school in social work led to a 37-year counseling career, mostly working with couples, families, and groups.

Suburban life was barely tolerable for this misplaced zygote. I sent my kids to Quaker-founded Farm and Wilderness Camp in Vermont. I yearned to be with them in that effective intentional community. Then I read about cohousing in the mid-eighties and immediately determined I would someday live in one.

The mix of private home ownership and collective every-thing-else suited my temperament. Finally I joined Champlain Valley Cohousing in 2000 when it was still a kitchen table dialogue. They talked about doing Dynamic Governance (DG), and from my reading I felt that I finally found my nurturing community home. I moved to Vermont in 2002 to be a part of it.

From Dream to Nightmare

Soon after my arrival, however, it was painfully clear that no one in the group really knew how to do DG. People were arguing and some leaving. Our community founder knew John Buck, founder of the DG movement in the US, who thankfully was willing to work with our group for a reduced fee.

John was in the Top circle, advisory board. He helped us find an appropriate architect and developer and stayed through the whole permitting and building of the first quad building, all the while teaching and coaching us when he could, often by phone. I am convinced that we would not have survived as a group those early days, had it not been for John and Dynamic Governance.

With John’s expertise supporting me, I became Project Coordinator in 2003 and have been gratefully living here since June 2006, when my building was finished. At last my inner values and my external life match. Lucky me!

Dynamic Governance in Action

You might wish you could sit in on a DG meeting to witness how it works. Read on for a fictional but representative snapshot of DG in Champlain Valley Cohousing, our community near Burlington, Vermont.

It’s 9:05 AM. The community children are in a nearby room with two lively sitters. Coffee/tea and hot cider are steaming from mugs. The monthly Community Circle Meeting begins.

Each member in turn reveals a glimpse into their momentary reality, e.g., “I’m eager to get started and glad to be all together again”; I’m a bit fatigued and my teething baby may need my attention this morning, but I’m here for now and ready to go”; “I’m anxious to get a final decision on the Common House Design and hope we can accomplish that today.”

First agenda item: An Election of a Circle Chair

The facilitator describes the job responsibilities and asks for nominations. Without discussion, each member writes their own name on a piece of paper and the name of their nominee.

“I, Larilee, nominate Sally Burns.” The slips of paper are gathered by the facilitator and read aloud one by one, with everyone — including those nominated — in the room.

“Larilee, you nominated Sally Burns. Will you share your reasons?”

“Sure. I’ve worked with Sally on two different circles and notice that she is both highly organized and very flexible. She comes prepared to meetings and listens well to all input. Then she is exceptionally creative at crafting proposal language that incorporates everyone’s best thinking.”

“We share some meals, some labor, some challenges and lots of merriment as singles and families, youngsters and elders grow and learn from one another. Conscious of the need to find more peaceful and sustainable ways to live in partnership with each other and with the earth’s natural resources, we engage in ongoing dialogue as we define and refine our community.”

— Larilee Suiter

By the time all nominations are read and their rationale disclosed, we have people to consider. The Chair asks, “Given the ‘arguments’ you have heard for all the nominees, would anyone wish to change their nomination?” It is clear two of the candidates have received multiple nominations. Several people shift their original nomination to one or the other of those candidates.

The Chair weighs the number of nominations for each candidate along with the relative persuasiveness of the supporting arguments for their election and then proposes one of the names for a Consent Round.

“I propose Sally Burns to be our next Circle Chair.” Each person responds with “No objection.” The individual nominated is the last person asked for consent. Since no one has any reasoned or “paramount objection,” including the nominee, Sally is warmly welcomed into her new job.

What has just happened?

A DG election is a wonder to watch!!! By utilizing this process, six people have received public recognition for their competencies and probably feel good about themselves. One person has been selected without any secrecy about the reasons and with openly expressed support from all present. It is an affirming process, without any of the collateral divisive damage that is often the fallout from secret balloting. Fabulous!

Second Agenda Item: A proposal from the Farm and Forest Circle

A Proposal from the Farm and Forest Circle is brought forward: to purchase 8 bare-root fruit and nut trees and plant them in the meadow north of the anticipated Common House. The proposal has been generated by the circle with the most knowledge about the subject and whose consented aims include creating sustainable crops on site.

The Proposal was published in the agenda with requests for feedback several days prior to the current meeting. The Proposal includes a rationale explaining the site choice, the cost consequences, and reason to proceed this spring.

The Community Chair reads the Proposal. She conducts a Clarifying Round: “Are there any questions about the intent of the proposal?” Every member’s input is solicited. After all clarifying questions are answered to the group’s satisfaction, the Chair proceeds to a Reaction Round. One by one, without any discussion, members indicate their support or objections to any part of the proposal.

Objections are noted on a flip chart and suggestions for satisfying those concerns are solicited. Again, no open discussion, no dialogue. Everyone’s voice is heard. The proposal is modified to incorporate some or most of the suggestions and the Chair presents a modified proposal for a Consent Round. Often the proposal receives full consent.

All Objections are Addressed

Sometimes there are still objections. If so, the chair has multiple options, among them are: (1) Take a break while the objectors and proposers meet together for a few minutes to work out an acceptable proposal and try again for Consent; (2) Have the whole group continue in rounds seeking modifying suggestions; (3) send the proposal back to the Farm and Forest Circle to work out the modifications and bring the proposal forward again in a future meeting.

In this imagined scenario, the concerns of some that the proposed orchard site might better be utilized for a kitchen garden is satisfied by agreeing to reserve a 40’ by 60’ parcel closest to the Common House for future use as a kitchen garden. That commitment is added to the Proposal which then passes in a Consent Round.

What just happened?

A rather complex proposal with long-term consequences was deeply discussed and vetted in the Farm and Forest Circle and then improved in rounds by the Community Circle. Objections are encouraged because that is the DG mechanism for soliciting the best thinking of all participants. Although there is some initial disagreement, no one is disagreeable.

Round format, rather than open discussion, assures that each voice is heard. All members have equivalence or parity. While perhaps not the first choice of some members, the final outcome is acceptable to all members. The process is inclusive and efficient. How lovely!

The Final Round of Feedback

The community meeting takes up several other proposals and then ends with Closing Rounds. This is the moment when members give feedback to the leader about how effective the meeting was for them. Appreciations for what worked well are expressed.

Suggestions for improving future meetings are offered, and they might include such things as: posting the agenda items earlier, having the room be somehow more comfortable, or suggestions on any aspect of the facilitation and process. Such feedback contributes to a continuous learning cycle for the community. Closing Rounds end every meeting throughout the community.

Embedded throughout DG is an emphasis on having measurable Aims or goals within each circle. These aims provide clear guidance and direction to circle actions and provide a baseline for clear assessment of progress being made. Closing Rounds offers a public moment to celebrate accomplishments, including the consent of any proposal, and acknowledge individual and collective effort.

Comments on Dynamic Governance

In a start-up community or an organization that already has a governance system, the group may not be large enough or willing enough to fully employ all that DG entails. As an organization grows with more people, more complexity, and more responsibility, it will need to establish a full DG schema, briefly described here.

At the top of this hierarchy of circles is a “Top Circle” typically comprised of the Board, CEO, etc., as well as members from the larger community to bring a broader perspective. The Top Circle has the legal authority, fiscal responsibility, and long-term planning capacity from which it develops the organization’s Vision, Mission, and Aims
(VMA).

In a three-tier hierarchy, such as we have at our community, the third or bottom level is made up of a number of small circles of people who have self selected to participate. Each has a particular area of interest (such as the Farm and Forest Circle mentioned above) and is semiautonomous, with authority to make decisions within their own approved VMA. Each also utilizes a set of tools to evaluate how effectively its tasks or aims are being accomplished.

In between the Top and third tier of Circles is a “General Circle” that is a community-wide managing circle made up of a representative from the Top Circle and from each of the bottom circles (their chairperson). The General Circle also has someone from the General Circle itself that represents it in the Top Circle and in all of the lower Circles, thus creating the double-linking among all circles, both up and down the organization.

Transparency

The double linking is the DG twist that makes it special. DG is not simply another top- down power plot. It is bottom up and top down. Power to influence decisions is held equivalently by every participant at every level.

Agendas for each circle are published ahead of time so Circle members can suggest additions or changes. Members also can attend, vote on the day’s agenda, and speak their preferences in meetings. Thus anyone has the power to influence proposals and decisions. The elected representatives bring the collective thinking of their Circle to the table in the General Circle and afterward take back to their Circles the rationale behind their decisions.

Everything is transparent. Any member can request that a decision be revisited, any time, and objections are required to have “reasoned” ideas. Alfred Whitney Griswold said, “The only sure weapon against a bad idea is a better idea.” In DG, there are mechanisms built in that repeatedly invite the “better idea” person to step forward and share a new view while also ensuring efficiency.

Doing What Works

Because of this surety, members are more willing to consent to a “good-enough-for- now” decision, knowing that if later data reveals a better idea, the group has the power to execute it promptly. I believe more actual work gets done using this consent format (where members have no paramount objection), than can get done while awaiting an often elusive consensus.

When our community membership was too small to operate with all the layered aspects of DG, John Buck said to me:

Larilee, just start somewhere. Incorporate the parts that are most workable for you. As you grow and as the members experience the inherent advantages of DG, more aspects can be added to your procedures. Keep the momentum going by making “good-enough-for-now” decisions. Build in feedback-measuring features whenever you can so that the group “learns while doing.” Nothing is as persuasive as real-time data. Any decision can be revisited if a better alternative appears.

How reassuring! Thanks, John.

We are using a somewhat modified version of DG here at Champlain Valley Cohousing. I personally am a great fan of the format. However it needs some tweaking here and there to work when the organization is small. We are fully utilizing some of the aspects, but not all. And it works.

Frankly, I think DG holds the best possibility of any governance method for dealing with matters as complex as creating intentional communities. More than an improvement upon, or a step better than consensus, I think that DG is a quantum leap better than any other decision-making format I’ve learned about or ever used previously. Try it. I have an informed hunch that your might like it — a lot.

//

Larliee Suiter lives in Champlain Valley Cohousing, a nurturing pedestrian-centered community with 14 attached units, a large common house (pending), and 12 individual lots around an extensive central green — with 115 acres preserved forever for wildlife corridors and farming. One town house and three building lots are still available for purchase. In addition to several edits to the original article, Larilee adds: “I have lived in cohousing using Dynamic Governance now for 7 years and continue to find it stimulating, affirming, and compatible with my deepest beliefs.”

The Sharing Solution by Gaya Erlandson and Janelle Orsi

I had enthusiastically touted her book, The Sharing Solution,1 for nearly two years, so it was a real pleasure to meet Janelle Orsi2 last October at a conference in Colorado on Collaborating for Social Change. Janelle is founder of SELC (the Sustainable Economies Legal Center) in Oakland, CA, a firm which trains lawyers, law students, and citizens in what’s called sharing law. Like real estate or family law, sharing law is emerging now as a specialized area of legal practice. Janelle is taking a lead in promoting sharing law in part by coauthoring this book written for the general public.

The Sharing Solution is a treasure trove of ideas and tools for sharing goods, services, wisdom, space, etc. — almost anything you can think of! — with our neighbors. Its surveys and forms help us be clear about what we have to share and what our expectations are. The useful legal advice details, for example, how to craft agreements that include ways to end the arrangement cleanly when that becomes desirable. The end result of such agreements is we have more while buying less.

The benefits of sharing with people who live in close proximity are obvious: we save money, reduce resource consumption and thus landfill, and live more sustainably. Less obvious, perhaps, is how our interactions and shared interdependence help create a caring community. Sharing becomes a way to break through the isolation and illusion of independent living.

What To Share

Here’s a quick inventory of things we use only rarely: hand tools, lawn and garden equipment, ladders, long extension cords, vacuum cleaners, cars, washing machines, clothes lines, wheel barrows, bicycles and pumps, folding tables, irons and ironing boards, extra TVs, binoculars, telescopes, camping gear, back packs, canopy tents, folding or plastic chairs for special events, car or bicycle racks, inflatable boats or swimming inner tubes, special kitchen ware (crock pot, Vitamix juicer or blender, electric mixer, yogurt and bread makers, picnic baskets, thermoses, coolers, etc.), musical instruments, piano, holiday or special event decorations.

Another category is office extras: dry erase easel, flip chart stand, tripod, FedEx service, 3-hole punch, paper cutter and shredder, pencil sharpener, microphone, karaoke device, loud speaker, clip boards, extra computer, fax machine.

Space also can be shared. Plots of land can become common vegetable and herb gardens or children’s playgrounds. Garages can be used to fix cars, support work projects, or maintain a tool-lending library within a neighborhood community.

We also can share information and skills and create a neighborhood food or business co-op, a barter network, community energy projects, ride sharing, shared food gardens, etc. Time itself can be shared for fun purposes such as going to the movies, sharing meals, a BBQ or holiday gathering, block yard sale, music events, neighborhood talent shows, birthday celebrations, just to name a few.

I hope this quick catalog opened your eyes about the possibilities of sharing. To delve more deeply into the matter, order The Sharing Solution.

//

As is unfortunately too often the case, existing public policies will need to be changed if we are to maximize the social benefits of sharing. The three excerpts below are taken from articles by Janelle Orsi:

  • The focus of the first is on urban agriculture and how cities should be doing everything in their power to facilitate localized food production.
  • The second is about using homes as sharing hubs.
  • The third is on how to make our neighborhoods more sharing environments.

All three are guaranteed to stretch your thinking with concrete recipes for creating community within the neighborhoods where we live. (You may click on the links above to jump to the different articles.)

//

Urban Agriculture (3)

Cities should be doing everything in their power to facilitate localized food production, and a key component of that is enabling urban agriculture and community gardening. Peak oil, the breakdown of our industrial food system, the high cost of sustainably produced food — these and other factors lend an urgent need to use every plot of available city land for food growing.

Sharing is a critical component of urban food growing. First, food growing is labor intensive and requires that community members collaborate and share skills and knowledge. Sharing is also critical to land access; the people who will suffer the most from a food crisis are the urban poor who have less access to resources and tillable land. Much of the land that could be cultivated is owned by middle- or upper-class urban residents, private vacant lot owners, and government entities. A key question for cities is: how can the city incentivize the sharing of land resources to ensure that everyone is nourished?

Here are a few suggestions for ways that cities can adopt policies to facilitate the growth of urban agriculture and community food growing spaces:

  1. Offer property tax incentives for vacant private lots that are used for urban farming: Cities should offer private land owners a property tax discount during years when an otherwise empty lot is used for food growing. The Williamson Act in California already provides property tax incentives to preserve land as agricultural in rural areas, and a similar policy should be applied in urban areas. Generally, land has higher income earning potential when it is built up with strip malls and housing developments. But it doesn’t always make sense to assess a property based on this potential value when the land is actually being used for a more modest activity, like agriculture. Even if a piece of land will eventually be developed, landowners should be rewarded for putting it to productive agricultural use in the meantime. Such a tax incentive could dramatically multiply the amount of available land for community gardening and urban farming.
  2. Conduct a land inventory and prioritize the use of city-owned land for urban farming: Cities should conduct inventories of land available for urban food growing, and prioritize the use of public lands for food growing. In 2009, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, California, asked the city “to conduct an audit of unused land — including empty lots, rooftops, windowsills, and median strips — that could be turned into community gardens or farms.” (Yes, he even asked for a survey of windowsills!) In other cities, private groups have conducted such inventories. In Brooklyn, New York, an organization called 596 Acres has identified and created a map of 596 acres of vacant publicly owned land. In Oakland, California, geographer Nathan McClintock published a report and interactive map of public lots available for urban farming. Conducting land inventories for urban food growing is not a new idea. During WWI and WWII, to relieve burdens on the railroads and reduce demands for materials used in canning and processing, the U.S. government encouraged the cultivation of yards and unused plots of land. Up to 44 percent of the country’s vegetables were produced by individuals and families in small “victory gardens” during WWII. Community organizers were sent out to survey available land for urban and suburban food growing. The National War Commission used the slogan “put the slacker lands to work,” implying that any tillable lands not being used for food production were, basically, slacking off.
  3. Create definitions of “community gardening” and “personal gardening” in the zoning code and allow such activities in every city zone: Many cities simply do not know where to fit community gardens into the zoning picture and, as a result, sometimes community gardens have had to jump through extensive legal hoops to get a permit for operating. Cities should recognize that individuals and communities that produce food for their own consumption or for charitable/educational purposes are providing a public good. Cities should create definitions of “community gardening” and “personal gardening” in the zoning code and specify that such uses are a permitted activity in every city zone. For example, community gardens in Oakland are now permitted in nearly every zoning except certain industrial zones.
  4. Create a simple permitting procedure and allow commercial food growing in every city zone: The next logical step after enabling food growing throughout a city is to allow people to sell the veggies they grow. In some cities, urban farmers growing produce for sale have had to pay thousands of dollars to obtain conditional use permits. However, given the low margins of urban food production and the high social value of localized food systems, a city should require no more than a simple administrative use permit and charge no more than $100 or $200 in permit fees for someone wishing to engage in commercial food growing. For example, in Oakland, it is now possible to get a $40 home occupation permit to sell produce grown in one’s backyard.
  5. Allow people to plant vegetables in sidewalk/parking strips: It is often illegal for people to plant vegetables in the strip of land between a sidewalk and the street, or a permit is required to do any landscaping other than grass. Seattle, Washington, recently changed this law, allowing anyone to plant vegetables in the sidewalk strips in front of their homes. A sidewalk strip could become a micro-community garden for neighbors to enjoy together.
  6. And, for heaven’s sake, allow people to plant vegetables in front yards: Front yards are another ideal spot for community food growing, and cities should not fine and penalize people for planting front yard veggies. A Berkeley, California, resident was fined $4,500 for his front yard veggies, and an Oak Park, Michigan, resident was charged with a misdemeanor for planting a front yard veggie garden. An outright ban on front yard vegetables is bad policy. If a city is worried that front yard vegetable gardens could give the appearance of blight if neglected, the city should simply impose requirements that front yard vegetable gardens be reasonably well-kept and that a significant amount of dead plant material may not be left in the yard for too long.
  7. Subsidize water for urban farms and community gardens: Water is typically subsidized for rural farmers, and the same should apply to urban farms. Cities should at least offer water discounts to organizations that designate land for publicly accessible community food gardens. Cities could also offer rebates and subsidies to urban farms that make use of recycled grey water or that capture and store rainwater that would otherwise drain to the sewer system. Such incentives could make water access more affordable to urban farms, while reducing the impact on the city’s fresh water resources and stormwater run-off.
  8. Create reasonable policies for urban livestock raising: The ability to raise one’s own eggs, milk, and meat is critical to a more sustainable food system, since the majority of such products are currently produced by large-scale factory farms. Cities should give residents the right to raise their own livestock, within reasonable limits to ensure the well-being of animals and to ensure a low impact on surrounding neighbors. A group of students and faculty at the University of Oregon have produced a very helpful guide to Local Land Use Laws to Allow Urban Microlivestock which includes a sample ordinance for cities. Cities should also create guides and resources for urban livestock raisers, such as the helpful resource created by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture.
  9. Exempt certain chicken coops and goat shelters from building and zoning permit requirements: It can be unclear at what point a small chicken coop or goat shelter has become a “structure” or “building” subject to regulation and permitting requirements from the local building and planning departments. Most people build their own simple coops and shelters, and are sometimes surprised to learn that a local building department would have required a permit for such a building, or they may be surprised to learn that the planning department must approve the size and placement of the construction. Cities should define the size and placement of certain small chicken coops and goat shelters, such that residents can construct them without obtaining any permits.
  10. Limit the right of homeowners’ associations to prevent home food production: Currently, most homeowners associations have the right to make rules about how homeowners use their properties. Some homeowners’ associations have been known to tell residents that they cannot keep chickens and bees, or that they cannot grow edible plants in their front yards. Although it would be preferable to make state laws to curtail homeowners’ associations’ powers in this regard, each city can also pass laws that allow people to grow and raise their own food as a right.
  11. De-pave paradise and put a tax on parking lots: The City of Philadelphia imposes a tax on properties based on the size of impervious space on the property. This tax serves to prevent stormwater floods and incentivizes capture, storage, and percolation of rainwater. Because urban farms allow almost all rainwater to percolate, Philadelphia’s tax system creates a huge incentive for property owners to replace paved spaces with urban gardens. Although most residences and commercial properties are required to provide some parking areas, such a tax would encourage property owners to at least remove any unnecessary pavement and replace it with gardens.

//

Homes as Sharing Hubs (4)

Our homes are the most obvious hubs for the sharing and collaborative consumption movements. After all, we live in them, and so does most of our stuff. Sharing our car, sharing our vacuum cleaner, borrowing and lending household goods, offering our homes as a temporary place for others to stay — these are all activities that make a great deal of sense — from economic, efficiency, and ecological standpoints. Generally, there are almost no legal barriers to these sharing activities, so long as they are happening on a casual, occasional, and uncompensated basis.

But what if we want to get more organized about our sharing, and maybe even share the costs of things like owning a car and certain household goods? Perhaps we want to earn a profit. As the folks at Collaborative Consumption have pointed out, there is HUGE potential to make money by sharing what is in our home.

Unfortunately, legal barriers begin to kick in when we turn our household sharing activities into money-makers. We have already discussed these barriers in our article on Collaborative Consumption’s Legal Paradox. To sum up the barrier: in most residentially zoned areas of a city, residents are very limited in the types of businesses they can engage in at home. Home offices tend to be okay, as do some tutoring activities; but any businesses that involve more than a few visiting customers, or that involve keeping an inventory, tend to be disallowed.

Here are a few suggestions for ways that a city can encourage people to share what they have in their homes. We encourage readers to post additional suggestions in the comments area:

  1. Allow community gathering activities in homes: Cities should consider expanding the list of allowable community gathering activities in residential areas. In most cities, zoning barriers could arise if someone wanted to use their home as a community gathering space — for example, to host cooking, garden, or yoga classes; to hold house concerts; to host regular food swaps or underground restaurants; or to offer the yard as a community garden. While we are all allowed to hold a reasonable number of gatherings in our home, cities do tend to object when such gatherings become regular or involve money making. In many residential zones in Oakland, California, for example, residents would need an expensive conditional use permit in order to engage in activities defined as Community Assembly, Recreational Assembly, and Community Education activities.
  2. Allow people to sell produce grown in backyards: Our food system probably cannot get any more local than a neighborhood-based vegetable delivery service. Sophie Hahn of Berkeley, California, began selling weekly vegetable boxes to a few of her neighbors, only to learn that the city zoning prohibited such activities. Cities should follow in Oakland’s footsteps and allow people to sell produce they grow in their backyards.
  3. Expand allowable garage and yard sale activities: Many cities put a cap on the number of yard sales that a property can host each year; for example, in Dallas, Texas, the limit is two per year. Other cities impose limitations that prevent a person from turning their garage sale into a regular retail location. For example, a city might specify that you can only sell your own belongings, and not things you bought for the sole purpose of reselling. Maybe it’s time to open up the way we think about yard sales and consider that yard sales could be an important site for increasingly localized economies, within limits, of course. One suggestion would be to allow people to sell their home-grown vegetables in a yard sale, and to allow sales of baked goods, in those states where cottage food production is legal.
  4. Exempt residential childcare cooperatives from permitting requirements: When parents make cooperative arrangements to provide care for their own and others’ children, they are often exempt from state childcare licensing requirements. For example, in California, a cooperative home childcare arrangement involving 12 or fewer children is exempt from state licensure, if it meets the statute’s requirements. Cities can likewise encourage such cooperative arrangements by offering permit exemptions or lowering the permitting barriers for such cooperative arrangements.
  5. Allow personal vehicle sharing in home driveways and garages: Getaround and Relay Rides are two San Francisco-based services offering car owners the opportunity to share their vehicles through a car-sharing program. Yet, these services could potentially face a barrier, which is that cities may not allow personal residences to essentially be used as car-rental hubs. To reduce traffic and parking problems, cities should clarify that each residential property is allowed to regularly rent at least one car, if not an unlimited number of cars from their property. Furthermore, cities should allow people to park such vehicles anywhere in the driveway, and not just in the legally designated spots on the property map.
  6. Allow a limited number of short-term stays in people’s homes: Currently, many cities have a blanket prohibition on charging guests for short-term stays (usually defined as shorter than two weeks or a month). To charge a guest for such a stay would mean the host is operating a hotel, which is not legal to do without a permit. This is a problem that peer-to-peer rental service AirBNB is facing, as some cities are calling attention to the unpermitted home stays. Ideally cities would allow this to happen, at least on a limited scale, since such activities not only reduce the cost of living for local residents, but also make it more affordable for travelers to stay in the city.

//

Shareable Neighborhoods (5)

A city’s safety and economic stability can be greatly enhanced if a spirit of community and sharing is fostered in every neighborhood.

Here are a handful of suggestions for ways that city policies and programs could foster community-building in neighborhoods:

  1. Create a staff position focused on neighborhood community activities: Each city should hire at least one staff person dedicated to facilitating community-building activities in neighborhoods. This staff person would communicate regularly with neighborhood groups and associations, facilitate permitting and offer supplies for block parties, help organize emergency preparedness meetings, and give neighborhoods other support and resources. For example, in the City of Albany, California, there is a Community Services Manager that facilitates a handful of community-building activities such as neighborhood veggie swaps and block movie nights, for which the city lends neighborhoods a giant screen and projector.
  2. Facilitate sharing and emergency preparedness simultaneously: In many respects, sharing and building community are the most important things we can be doing to prepare for emergencies. The City of Berkeley has a great tactic for getting neighborhoods organized: give them free stuff to share. The city awards caches of emergency supplies to neighborhood groups that have demonstrated that they have gotten organized and done some emergency preparedness planning and training.
  3. Design neighborhoods for sharing: The layout and physical features of a neighborhood can greatly influence the ways that neighbors interact with each other. For example, social interaction is enhanced in neighborhoods with walkable spaces, plazas, parks, and narrower streets. Cities can enhance neighborhoods with initiatives to redesign streets, sidewalks, and intersections, and by imposing shareable design requirements on new planned communities.
  4. Offer neighborhood sharing sheds and pods: In the same way that the City of Berkeley has offered special containers to neighborhoods for storing emergency supplies, a city could offer special containers or sheds where neighbors could store other shared items, such as the neighborhood lawn mower, vacuum cleaner, badminton set, and so on. It would be like having a mini tool library in every neighborhood. Cities could, for example, supply a container that is 6x6x6 feet (something similar to a POD), and designate a street parking spot for that container. The neighborhood group could complete an application with the city that demonstrates that it is organized and has a plan for managing the shared stuff.
  5. Adopt a neighborhood social network platform: Recently, companies like NextDoor, rBlock, and OhSoWe have developed social network platforms for neighbors, and California cities like Redwood City and Palo Alto have begun to adopt these platforms on a citywide basis or actively encourage neighborhoods to use them as a community-building tool. With such platforms, users get daily updates from their neighbors with information like: “Free plums from my tree!” “Has anyone seen my orange cat today?” “Can someone lend me a bicycle pump?” These platforms could grease the wheels of sharing in a neighborhood, and also give cities a more effective platform for communicating with residents.
  6. Help neighbors remove fences: At least one city that we know of, Elgin, Illinois, has created an incentive program to help people remove chain link fences from their front yards. Removing fences from front or back yards helps to increase everyone’s access to open green spaces and facilitates connection between neighbors.

//

Notes

1     Orsi, Janelle and Emily Doskow. 2009. The Sharing Solution: How to Save Money, Simplify Your Life and Build Community. Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press.

2 Janelle Orsi, director of the Sustainable Economies Law Center, is an attorney and mediator focused on helping individuals and organizations share resources and create more sustainable communities. She works with social enterprises, nonprofits, cooperatives, community gardens, cohousing communities, ecovillages, and others doing innovative work to change the world. Previously, she was Executive Director of Women Defenders, a professional organization of women defense attorneys and has worked in a range of legal practice areas, including criminal defense, youth law, immigration, adoptions, LGBT rights, and estate planning. She attended UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law.

3 Click here to post comments to this article on Urban Agriculture and add to the collection of policy suggestions. To view a 9-minute YouTube cartoon on urban agriculture and city policies produced by the Sustainable Economies Law Center entitled “Citylicious,” click here.

4 “How else might a city further enable the use of our homes as sharing hubs? Please post your thoughts at the link below and help us build this collection of policy proposals. Thank you!” — Janelle Orsi
Click here to post comments to this article on Homes as Shareable Hubs.

5 “How else might a city encourage sharing in neighborhoods? Please post your thoughts below and help us build this collection of policy proposals. Thank you! !” — Janelle Orsi
Click here to post comments to this article on Shareable Neighborhoods and add to the collection of policy suggestions.

Intentional Elder-Friendly Communities by Alex Mawhinney

Recall our previous discussion of the essential principles for a successful intentional elder-friendly community: Human scaled, relationship based, resident centered, with an overlay of lifelong learning, later life spirituality, environmental awareness and sustainable lifestyle, and continuing contribution to the greater community. Let’s now consider additional factors and models.

Let us note that, for many elders, retirement comes in two stages: an active phase during which they maintain their homes and usual community activities; then a later phase where they confront challenges that make it more difficult to maintain their earlier lifestyle without assistance of varying degree. Under the current paradigm, this realization often results in a move to an institution. But, with careful planning and conscious protection of one’s lifestyle, the majority of elders will not require institutionalization.

Research demonstrates incontrovertibly that a sense of “community” is an essential ingredient in quality of life and accounts for significantly improved health status.(1)

In an elder-friendly community, the physical design enhances both social contact and privacy. Private residences contain all the features of conventional homes AND are augmented by special features that support a person as they age in place. Residents also have access to common facilities that may include a common kitchen, dining/gathering area, open green areas, or courtyards. Specialty elder-friendly housing that combines special support systems (internal, external, or hybrid) embedded in a larger multigenerational community is the ideal for maintaining the majority of elders in an empowered and relatively self-sufficient living situation.

But “community” can be expressed in a wide variety of models. Here are a few representative choices:

Co-housing Communities

First, a definition: “Cohousing is a type of collaborative housing in which residents actively participate in the design and operation of their own neighborhoods. Cohousing residents are consciously committed to living as a community.”

Homes or condos typically are owned individually or rented, and residents determine what common activities they will engage in. Taking turns preparing and sharing meals a few times a week, doing projects, and having celebrations together are common and effective community builders.

A “common house” serves as the community’s gathering place for shared meals, group meetings, and other activities; it may also incorporate guest rooms for residents’ guests. A part-time caregiver can be hired by one or several residents, or a full-time caregiver may live in a community guest suite to serve several residents.

Elderspirit Community in Abingdon, VA, is an example of a flourishing elder cohousing community that includes both condos and apartments. Members have impressively clear agreements on how they plan to live and die in place and how they will mutually support that commitment.

Cottage Community (including Retirement Trailer Parks)

These typically consist of clusters of cottages or attached units, some built with “aging-in-place” design elements, arranged in groups of 20-40 living units with a common building for gatherings. Most are built in urban areas around a street grid, with relatively little green space.

Newer models follow the pattern of the cohousing community and have more shared outdoor space that encourages interaction. The Cottage Housing Development ordinance of Lehigh County, PA, is a national model for this kind of development.

“Active Adult” Developments

These have been utilized for decades and are especially conspicuous in areas like Florida, Arizona, and other resort destinations where retirees concentrate. Many cities and towns offer subsidized units for moderate-to-lower-income elders.

Too often, these developments — which may consist of apartments, cooperatives, or condominiums — were built without elder-friendly features, so adding such features as special lighting, improved kitchen and bathroom design, wider door and passageways, user-friendly door handles, etc. are necessary. Units can be pre-wired for monitoring by other residents and/or caregivers.

A unique active adult concept is the SOTEL Community™ (Service Oriented Technically Enhanced Living). Inspired by projects in the Netherlands, this is a hotel-like building with multiple floors of apartments surrounding an open, climate-conditioned atrium (think Embassy Suites with apartments instead of rooms).(2)

The apartments provide for both privacy — each has a rear patio or covered porch — and community. When residents walk out their front door, they are in the common house, in the beautiful atrium. The facility has edible landscaping and inviting spaces for dining, gathering, exercise, and socializing.

The SOTEL is designed to be user- and elder-friendly in every respect, including height-adjustable bath and kitchen cabinets, specialty lighting and fixtures with motion detectors, nanny-cam capabilities, modular wall systems that permit customizing apartments for various uses, and computer-controlled environmental systems.

A scaled-down version was approved recently for HUD financing; this model offers an unairconditioned, but covered, atrium and smaller apartments or town homes. Units — whether subsidized or market rate — incorporate the essential elements of the SOTEL concept. They can be resident managed (cohousing style), managed by an outside company, or some combination of both.

Collaborative or Shared Household

This is a home in which two or more unrelated individuals live, usually for social and economic benefit. Life in a collaborative household has been popularized by the TV series, The Golden Girls (currently in re-runs), and featured in The Ladies of Covingtonbook series by author Joan Medlicott.

Each resident has his or her own bedroom that may or may not include a private bath. Some houses or apartment units are designed specifically for this use and have several master suites and a shared living room, kitchen, dining area, and other common spaces.

Residents can live in the home by owning it collectively as a cooperative (a legal structure) or as a tenants-in-common arrangement, or they can be renters. By combining resources, several residents can share a far more elaborate home than any as an individual could afford.

The residents are well advised to organize their arrangements with written expectations and agreements, potentially using models of Dynamic Governance and/or State of Grace Documents.

Community Support

The range of available support services is high and depends, of course, on the resources of the community (nonprofit, volunteer organizations such as churches, for example) and the affluence of the elders. These vary from chore services (see Seniors Helping Seniors and Home Instead Senior Care, for example), to a myriad of home health, volunteer, and concierge services.

Organizing NORC

An example of the naturally occurring retirement community (NORC) is Beacon Hill Village in Boston, MA, a place for residents age 50 and over. A group of neighbors came together and created an organization allowing members to access various services at discounted prices “so members can lead vibrant, active and healthy lives, while living in their own homes… Our social and cultural programs are always changing to support member interests.”

The NORC Aging in Place concept is supported by The Jewish Federations of North America. It is being replicated across the country in neighborhoods with high concentrations of elders who have the resources to purchase services at reasonable group discount prices.

Life Care at Home

The recently emerging model of Life Care at Home is based on a project pioneered by Friends LifeCare located at Plymouth Meeting in Pennsylvania. Friends LifeCare is licensed in Pennsylvania and Delaware as a “continuing care retirement community without walls.” This model includes the benefits of long-term care insurance, as a pre-paid medical model, and direct provision of care through a related organization that assures strict quality of care standards.

The program is capable of providing any level of care to a member at home for as long as the member desires, and in an institutional setting upon a member request. As with any long-term-care policy, the member has the option of selecting the daily dollar amount of coverage and its extent, that is, its time frame. But in this case, the recipients are also members of a continuing care retirement community organization. Each member has his/her own personal care manager who is aware of and coordinates all the member’s services provided. In other words, the FLC member enjoys all the security and benefits of a campus-based continuing care retirement community without having to move away from their family, friends, and community.

This model can be especially advantageous when applied to the wide variety of community housing, including intentional communities of all sorts, cottage cluster neighborhoods, “active adult” communities, cohousing, and other congregate living arrangements.

The Life Care at Home concept is available or under development in a limited number of states at present (including PA, FL, NJ, ME, CT, NC, and unregulated in DE, TN, OH, DC), but is spreading to other states.

Personal Support

Active Adult Communities

“Active adult communities” which are mushrooming across the country, most of them modeled after Del Webb housing subdivisions, cater to the “first retirement” phase. The prime focus in these communities is personal entertainment and diversion, like golf, bridge, and other pastimes. Yes, friendships develop on the golf course or across a card table, but perhaps not deep, personal, enduring relationships. In this setting, when a resident gets to the point where they may need some kind of assistance, they are on their own. Either they hire in-home help or move to one of the afore-mentioned “old paradigm” options, usually an assisted living facility or similar situation.

Comprehensive Concierge Services

Where a concentrated population of elders exists, a comprehensive concierge service can offer an array of services that is limited only by a resident’s imagination and budget: from housekeeping and transportation to party planning and touring excursions. A NORC, an active-adult community, an elder apartment, cluster cottage or pocket neighborhood — the list is long — can create the critical density needed to make this model economically feasible. Concierge services could be bundled with Life Care at Home insurance. Licensed home healthcare can be added, as needed. A “concierge” can coordinate and assure delivery of services to residents, who only pay for services received.

Higher Levels of Care

Inevitably there are individuals whose needs are not met in the intentional elder-friendly community. Perhaps due to traumatic injury, chronic and debilitating illnesses, or issues of dementia, a specialized intentional community or care facility may be desired. Below are two options:

The Green House Project™

The Green House Project was conceived by Dr. William Thomas, a physician whose firm conviction is that “people do not belong in institutions — they belong at home.” A Green House is a 10-bedroom home, a small intentional community that can offer higher levels of care.

The project replaces the institutional nursing home with clustered neighborhoods of “Green Houses” designed so each of the 10 residents has a private room and private bath. Each room opens onto the shared living/dining room area that has a hearth. Residents and caregivers share meals at a single table.

Care in the Green House is provided by a caregiver referred to as a “Shahbaz” (a Persian word for “Royal Falcon”) who protects, sustains, and nurtures residents. The same team of Shahbazim (plural) serves the same house every day which allows for relationships to be built among residents and caregivers. (Unlike conventional nursing homes where staff turnover is very high, turnover in the Green House model is almost nonexistent.)

Residents and Shahbazim plan the menu, order the food, and store it in the pantry together. When meals are being prepared, residents can watch, gossip, offer assistance, and smell the meal to come — as in any normal home.

Residents determine how they will spend their day; their options usually include gardening, individual or group volunteer projects, studying, playing with visiting children, or petting the house dog or cat. They plan together for special events such as barbecues, trips, and sightseeing.

Health care is not the focus of life. In the Green House, residents receive the care they need and still are an integral part of life in the house and neighborhood.

More than 50 Green House Projects have opened since 2002, and many more are under development. Each can be state-licensed for assisted living, dementia care, or skilled nursing care. The Green House is now an initiative of NCB Capital Impact and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and read the fascinating book, What Are Old People For?  by Dr. William H. Thomas.

The Small House Community

Launched in 2006, an ambitious 10-year plan to enhance and expand the continuing care system in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia bears watching to see what new elder housing and care system may emerge through government legislation. The goal of the Continuing Care Strategy (CCS) is to increase local solutions and ensure that care options are widely available, enabling citizens “to live well in a place they can call home.”

The principles that animate the initiative are worth emulating:

  • acknowledge the role individuals and families have in achieving maximum health and independence
  • celebrate and support local initiatives that help individuals remain in their homes and communities as long as possible
  • ensure that caregivers and health providers are well supported
  • offer a range of services to children, youth, adults, and seniors
  • provide long-term care when and where it’s needed

Developing the small-house community is a prime focus of the initiative; the design values that the approach takes are similar to those of the Green House.

Designs of these facilities may have one or multiple households for 10-20 residents that are detached, or may be a larger building that has been divided into smaller neighborhoods and separated by community social spaces. These communities often have loosened scheduling and opportunities for independence and autonomy, and include expanded choice in menus and meal times, strengthened caregiver relationships, and a less stressful workplace for staff.

Intentional Elder Village Concept

While any of the aforementioned elder-housing models can be created as a free-standing, contained community, combining the options into an integrated elder village creates a continuum of choices to meet any need or desire a mature person might have. Add proximity or ready access to urban commercial areas and you have a well-rounded and well-functioning village.

Such a village has all the elements of a continuing care retirement community without the entry fees and legal contractual issues. A resident can buy into or rent a unit in this village and be assured access to any service they may require for the rest of their life.

Incorporating an Intentional Elder Village into the context of a town or village or into a new urban-design community seems very promising. The human-scale, relationship-based, resident-centered elder community is created as a vital, participating, contributing asset to the greater, multigenerational community.

Community Organization and Governance

An intentional elder neighborhood can be organized and governed in a variety of ways. Some of the more typical are:

Homeowner or Residents’ Association — Many elder neighborhoods use consensus. More sophisticated communities have discovered Dynamic Governance, a model from Europe, featuring governance by consent.

Managed community — Owned or rented living units managed by a professional management company, which (hopefully) is attuned to resident input and decisions. This model is rare at present, as resident choice and contributions are diluted.

Other variations on the theme — Limited only by our imagination.

//

The choice to imagine a future as self-directed and institution-free is ours to make. The manifestation of our dream for the second half of life is limited only by our individuality, our desire to live consciously, and the people we include to plan and live with the rest of this lifetime. GO FOR IT!

//

J. Alexander Mawhinney, NHA, FACHCE, MS (in Healthcare Administration), has spent most of the past 35 years developing and managing conventional “retirement communities” including independent, assisted living, dementia care, skilled nursing, and continuing care retirement communities.

A few years ago, he realized that a retirement community, no matter how beautiful or well managed, is still an institution and so began working with Dr. Bill Thomas and others in the “new paradigm elder community” movement. Currently he is a consultant nationwide to developers interested in building elder neighborhoods in human scale — including cluster cottages, atrium houses, and the Green House (replacement for nursing and assisted living facilities). He is also working to introduce the Life Care at Home concept in states in which it can be developed.