> > and I can suggest several entirely rational theories for
> > their apparently irrational decisions, based on my
> > observations. Only theories, would need further
>
>What are they?
I didn't expect anyone would ask that, but probably useful to organise my thoughts on it. First, you need to know some basic facts and history. I mentioned that co-op tenants paid rent calculated on income so of course single pensioners were obviously paying rent at the bottom of the scale. In fact the rent they were paying was less than recurrent cost (rates, maintenance, loan repayments, etc.), even after the reforms were implemented. So that meant there was an element of cross-subsidy at the expense of the larger households in the co-op.
This was all expected. What hadn't been realised in the original business plan (if you want to dignify it as such) was that the percentage of tenants who were single pensioners would tend to gradually increase over time. People don't get any younger of course, but the main factor was that younger people of working age tend be more likely to move on, their lives change, their income changes for the better, they get a job somewhere else, that sort of thing. So, by attrition, the low-income co-op tends not to lose tenants with less options, but does slowly lose tenants who do have better options.
So this gradual change in the income mix of tenants creeps up.
These single tenants were the ones who held out the longest against it. Maybe they were selfish thoughtless people who took it for granted they were entitled to rattle around in their half-empty houses while other people, all battlers themselves, subsidised them. Its not quite that simple though, it was more a matter of having unrealsitic attitudes and being stubbornly resistant to the idea of actually taking responsibility for management. They had this ridiculous notion that it was someone else's responsibility, not just to pay for it, but more importantly to devise a solution.
This is the bane of all co-operatives I believe. People who are simply incapable of taking responsibility. They get set in their ways at some stage in life (sometimes very young) and just cannot even grasp the notion of responsibility. There are a lot of them about, because there's a lot of social conditioning that re-inforces this attitude.
Now associated with this is a slightly less common form of life which thrives on the more common craving for others to take responsibility. They live in a symbiotic relationship with each other though, which makes life damned difficult for autonomous life-forms to gain any oxygen. This of course is the little white father, the petty crook who is all too ready to accept the readily offered chance to make decisions on behalf of the chronically un-responsible. I get the impression you may know exactly what I'm talking about.
Actually, we were pretty lucky in our little co-op. Our little white father had inherited the leadership unexpectantly, after the founder of the co-op (henceforth referred to as Mrs Stalin) buggered off for a few years. So he was pretty harmless, fiddled the books only moderately and basically earned his graft and never got excessively greedy. He was a competent administrator, if an inadequade manager, but he muddled through. Trouble is, being a bit weak, he tended to tolerate all sorts of other minor corruption. Didn't have the balls to say boo to other people's indiscretions. Which is why he was groomed by Mrs Stalin of course.
You couldn't get rid of him from the key post, because too many people thought he was giving them special treatment. The crisis came only when Mrs Stalin breezed back. She was a different kettle of fish entirely, a brilliant manipulator and student of human nature, she had him disposed of within a few weeks, blowing his petty indiscretions out of all proportions and convincing everyone that only she could save the co-op from financial ruin.
I managed to get my rent increases adopted only after she adopted them as part of her rescue package. Though it was a near thing, everyone was very keen to believe that our financial worries were all down to corruption and that with the little white father gone there was no longer any need to actually collect enough rent to pay our bills. Mrs Stalin was not all that bright, but fortunately she wasn't quite dumb enough to believe her own propaganda. She listened and decreed that they'd have to have a rent increase.
Long story, but the picture I'm painting is one of an organisation rotten to the core with corruption which is incredibly petty and insignificant in purely economic terms, but more seriously diseased in terms of organisational viability.
The end result is a group of people, the majority of whom couldn't see beyond their own noses. They perceived the world in terms of petty advantages and privilege, so any proposal which genuinely was a benefit to anyone was literally incomprehensible, inconceivable even, to them. They just couldn't get their heads around it.
I tried to explain it in terms of us grabbing some money the government was offering us on a plate, but that only seemed to frighten them. A couple of them muttered that this would be "fraud". It was all very Dickensian. Of course they few dared to accuse Mrs Stalin of such things and since she had no intention of ever paying any rent, it didn't bother her in the least to support putting the rent up.
As you can imagine, my clash with Mrs Stalin was inevitable. Luckily I was able to narrowly escape Trotsky's fate when she made a technical error, the dagger was not long enough to penetrate the scar tissue on my back. (Been there before.) She simply assumed that she would be able to either blackmail or bribe everyone and when that didn't work she quickly moved to expel me in a rigged vote. Eventually we negotiated an armistice which involved me seceding, but only after I forced her to fight on unfamiliar territory, in the courts. She decided, correctly, that she was better off without me, even if that meant I got to take my house with me out of the co-operative. I decided discretion was the better part of valour, given that I was never going to be the slightest challenge for Mrs Stalin when it came to political intrigue.
We keep in touch though. I freely admit to a grudging admiration (awe really) for her abilities. I also get calls from time to time from some of her more recent victims from the co-op. These are people who "didn't want to take sides" when she was tearing me to shreds, but later find themselves at the sharp end and getting hounded out of the co-op for answering back, or having the temerity to suggest Mrs Stalin pay rent. These victims don't seem to grasp the irony of the fact that there's bugger-all I can do about it, since I'm out of it thanks to the fact they refused to take any responsibility at the time.
Actually, they are not much of a loss to the co-operative movement. I can't help the feeling that Mrs Stalin is the greater loss. In some important ways, I also tend to the view that those who are passive and irresponsible bear bear the blame for it. Without them, she would be a different person.
Anyhow, my theory needs further thought, obviously. But that's the rough idea. Lots of work needed on the social context and material basis of this lack of responsibility. But that's at the heart of it.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas