>While I agree with you that individual rights in any
>collective should be taken very seriously, I also
>believe that this applies to every member of that
>collective, not just "trouble makers." There is a
>difference between a trouble maker and a thug in my
>book. Trouble makers upset others to advance what
>they believe is a common good. Thugs upset others to
>take advantage of them and advance their own selfish
>interests. Therefore, protecting trouble makers
>benefits, in a long run, other members of the
>collective, because it benefits the collective as a
>whole. OTOH, protecting thugs not only hurts other
>members of the collective, but also uses collective as
>a prison that prevents them from defending themselves
>against thugs. In such a situation, the cooperative de
>facto undermines security of other members who are
>affected by actions of thugs.
I see what you are getting at. Its a valid point. I was talking to someone from the Co-housing Co-operative in Hobart about this recently. She related a recent incident about a tenant who had behaved aggressively. It seems that after complaints about the incident, the culprit failed to appreciate the niceties and even confronted with original complainant. The impression I was given was that this was perceived as some kind of intimidation. Anyhow, when several members of the co-op continued to complain about this and threaten action, the culprit left the co-op in a huff.
For the purposes of our present discussion, the rights and wrongs are irrelevant. Hypothetically, let's assume the complaints against the culprit (as I have called him) are true. Is there an effective way to deal with it aside from expulsion is the issue we are concerned with.
Now it seems to me, on the objective facts of the case, that the issue was a tenancy one. Unrelated to the fact that both sides of the dispute are members of the same co-operative. Such neighbourhood disputes are common, we all know that. The only extra issue is that such neighbourhood disputes within a Co-op are between people who also have to work together to manage an organisation.
So a co-op needs to have procedures to deal with it effectively, I'm with you so far I think.
My point would be that, in any event, if a co-operative tenant was intimidating a neighbour who wasn't a tenant, the co-op also has to take some responsibility. Just as any landlord does. Just as the co-op (as a landlord) would want its tenants to have some redress if they were being intimidated by non co-op neighbours.
Now I don't know the legal situation in your neck of the woods, but here there are provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act that bear on this issue. A tenant can be evicted for causing "a substantial nuisance at the premises". I believe a tenant who could be shown to have intimidated neighbours would qualify. A tenant like the one you mentioned, whose "guests" are causing a substantial nuisance, is responsible for those guests, so the co-op would find the landlord has grounds for eviction.
If you have similar legal remedies, why would you need to use the expulsion provisions?
>I understand that distinguishing between trouble
>makers and thugs may be difficult in practice.
>However, I am talking here about principles. The
>application of these, or for that mattter any
>principles always carries a risk of misinterpretation
>or abuse - but that is NOT a reason for rejecting
>these principles; it calls for a due process, not
>immunity from any sanctions.
Yes, unfortunately expulsion provisions are notable for their complete lack of due process. Which is my reason for arguing that they are inappropriate. Meanwhile, I've never suggested complete immunity for co-op tenants from the usual legal sanctions, on the contrary I'm defending the use of the usual legal sanctions.
Those who defend the use of arbitrary expulsion are, in effect, arguing that a housing co-operative should have special rights to arbitrarily evict tenants and be immune from the usual legal sanctions applicable to other landlords.
>You also srgue that coop should educate its members.
>I agree. In fact our coop does quite a bit of
>education. However, I fundamentally disagree with
>your assumption that proper education will put all
>members on the same page, agreeing to act in concert
>to protect their individual and collective interests.
> While most people are rational, there are different
>types of rationality as a result of different
>cognitive framing - and as a result there will always
>be disagreements of what is and what is not in best
>common interests. One person's best solution is
>another person's belly laugh.
Which can sometimes be a good thing. Tragically, it means that not everyone will immediately realise how brilliant my proposed solution is. ;-) Sometimes it takes months or years for them to see the light, sometimes I have to give up on them and sometimes I even have to admit that the others were right right all along.
Seriously though, you're right that consensus is a bit difficult and very inefficient. But the dangers of other methods of decision making in a small co-operative present, in my experience, a much more serious threat in the long term.
>I agree with you that cooperative is primarily an
>economic institution serving its members, rather than
>religion trying to "save" the humankind. I belive
>that any attempt to save the humankind from its own
>vices is a bunch of crock in general, and it is even a
>bigger bunch of crock when such attempt are made by a
>limited-purpose economic instituion, such as housing
>coop. There will always be stupid, lazy, selfish and
>mean people - even under socialism. Let's accept that
>fact instead of deluding ourselves to "save" these
>people against their own will.
We don't attempt to save anyone. In fact our way of operating is very much based on just that assessment. We assume that no-one wants to pay rent if they can get out of it, so we design ways to make sure there's no escape. We assume that everyone would try to get as much for themselves from pooled maintenance funds system and damn the weakest voice. So we methodically allocate everyone a budget and require them to work within it. Tenants of a housing co-op aren't living as part of a socialist utopia, in fact they're living in a privileged enclave. But what I'm trying to get across is that, just as their thinking is largely shaped by the larger environment of our capitalist dog-eat-dog society, to varying degrees the way they interact within the co-op will also be affected by the realities of that environment.
If the structure of the co-operative has incentives to act competitively, instead of co-operatively, then people will certainly compete for extra benefits and of course extra political power with which to leverage extra benefits. If the co-operative's structure undermines peoples insecurity, then all the more reason for them to adopt strategies to deal with that. Whether that be to try to take power, join a faction in power, or become an unquestioning lackey of someone who can protect them. Or, for some people, throw their weight around physically, to intimidate anyone who might think to threaten them.
>This attempt to impose one's vision of morality on
>other people is perhaps the most annoying aspect of
>religion (especially x-tianity) - and it would be
>equally annoying if applied to a cooperative. Giving
>people a chance and protecting them from arbitrary
>sanctions is one thing, but expecting that everyone
>can be "saved" and molded into a moral ideal
>prescribed by x-tianity, buddhism or socialism is not
>only unrealistic but dangerous.
>
>To summarize, the fact that landlords often abuse
>tenants is not a good reason for altogether abandoning
>the principle of sanctions against tenants in a coop.
>There are not only some bad landlords, but also some
>bad tenants. Coops may eliminate the former, but not
>the lattter. Therefore, ther must be a due process
>that protecs the coop agains such bad tenants/members,
>including expulsion, if necessary.
I don't quite understand where you're coming from. There is no need for expulsion to protect the co-op from bad tenants. We have eviction, which provides a ready made legal framework to remove bad tenants.
The only purpose of expulsion procedures within an organisation is to protect against bad members. However my co-op is a fully mutual co-op, eviction would inevitably result in membership being cancelled as well, because a person who is no longer a tenant ceases to be an active member and we are required to cancel their membership.
The point is, housing co-ops DON'T eliminate bad landlords. They are quite capable of being the worst landlords of all, if the circumstances permit. Giving them a legal loophole to avoid the usual protection tenants have from arbitrary exploitation and eviction is precisely the sort of thing which is likely to make your co-op into a very bad landlord indeed.
As a co-op member that is not in your interests, now is it?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas