Below you can find a poll to find a time slot for the extra meeting. Now that we no longer need the société simple in the short term, I would propose to keep the meeting short and do the following:
Quick last round on new things we have learned about the site (light, neighbours, …)
Vote on JET-14
All that needs to be discussed on the paperwork: who would be signing, and what does it imply for each and every one of us.
To make things easier I would propose that the default for the meeting is online, although I’m gonna offer the option of meeting IRL for the dates outside the long weekend (just in case).
To make it easier to schedule, would it please (exceptionally) be possible to indicate all time slots that you could make yourself available (even if that means you need to reschedule something?).
Shouldn’t the 3rd point come before the 2nd one? We need to know what does it mean in terms of responsability in case of the site is bought, unfortunatly blocked and has to be renewed…
My thought is that there are 2 different discussions here : the site itself and buying it (not only paperwork).
I do agree, 3rd point before 2nd, and the vote would be the apothéose
And on the 1st point : I can’t imagine it to be a light discussion. There is a lot of infos going around, and thought we had a round about our personal feelings about the site, there was never a recap présentation about the last proposal of the architects, where we’re at with numbers, what is still possible for the commons,…
This is not a huge site, so there is naturally a feeling that we won’t be able to have it all with this. So I assume some of us still need to get clarity on :
what is still part of the project and what is still possible to negotiate (with the Commune etc…)
what is out of the project
how we gonna work it together with the commons / with le Programme /… Others ?
Should we add to the agenda “Proposal of Team Facilitation for talk/workshop about the Commons” ? Or something so ?
Oki. We’re pushing to get all the information from the notary. Hopefully we can write a post on this soon. Bear in mind though that this is not a site-specific discussion (it will be like this for all sites). Nevertheless important to know how it will all work.
I would prefer to do this on the 26th. It will be easier because we will be meeting IRL, and because we’ll have a bit more time. In my view this is also not a site-specific discussion.
The numbers in my view are those that we got the last time. I’m not sure there is still much to say about them?
Details about the common spaces in my view come at a later stage. In terms of process it was not foreseen that this should inform a delay a vote.
The round on how we feel about the site, in my view, we had at the last plenary (instead of vote).
It’s a site that fits 25 units and a garden of 1100 m², which is perfectly in line with the Blueprint or even beyond, so I would disagree with what you say that the site is not huge.
What can still be negotiated with the commune is not something that is foreseen in the process that can reasonably inform or delay a vote. We have the feasibility study, which has been informally approved, so I would take that as the minimum of what will be possible with that site.
I don’t want to be dismissive, so if more time is needed for something specific that can be done within a reasonable time frame, then let’s do that. What is important to me though is that we stick to our processes and meeting conclusions as much as possible.
@Caro would you possibly like a quick call just so that we can understand each other better?
Yes. The site is thoroughly discussed. I would ask everyone to trust the process and vote. That is the commitment we full members made to one another. If it’s a yes, we build. If it’s a no, we move on. Neither is a disaster. Remember that cohousing groups fail because they fail to decide, and then people get disillusioned and leave. That would be a disaster. Let that not be us.
But I am not saying we should not decide or delay the vote.
I say I fear if we don’t take the proper time to make space for transparency and clarity, for everyone, than the vote can’t be done peacefully. (Not everyone was at the architects meeting, not everyone can read architectural plans correctly, not everyone has followed all the threads, etc etc…).
Is there smthg I didn’t follow and it’s still on the table to postpone the vote ?
@Lee yes surely, I m available still tonight or tomorrow allnday long, call me whenever you can.
@Lee Could we add the topic we postponed on the last plenary?
'Should we continue with AND-28, for pure ‘learning purpose’?
I guess this will be a short discussion after the vote on JET-14.
FYI: i now communicated to the architects to put everything related to AND-28 on hold…
If at the end of the last plenary meeting we concluded “we’ll vote on JET-14 at an extra meeting in the week of 15/05”, after an extensive round on how everybody is feeling about the site, then I would like to be able to trust that if there had been any questions about the plans, that these would have come up then?
So if people need further information before 22/05, I want to trust that they will ask for that themselves. Making assumptions on what other people need doesn’t work very well for me.
I’ll contact you on Signal to see whether we can find a moment to have a quick call one of these days
I rather like having a discussion about the common space before voted. I don’t see myself continuing with that level of uncertainty. I’m already cutting on some aspects of how I see a co-housing. I need more clarity.
In my view people still need to talk about JET and the next steps before voting.
Not that I don’t trust the process, I just don’t feel everyone being heard. I want the collective rises instead of everyone making a case.
On contrary, I trust the process and I can’t wait to vote, I WANT to vote and be released of that to be honest. I’d just like to make an informed vote!
Should we let the collective to be heard? @Chris, @reef-facilitation, what do you think? Let’s do a poll with 2 options :
YES I want to discuss about whatever (how split the common spaces, who is going to buy the site,…)
NO need
Depending of the results, let’s have a discussion before voting.
I have the feeling that some people need to talk ALL TOGETHER, having a discussion about the concrete topics that some might want to talk about.
JET has definitely a great potential, this decision is for some of us a decision not to be taken lightly and a decision for life.
i feel like i am a bit on the same page as you, in the sense that i am not fully convinced about Jette and thus not knowing these last bits of information is making it hard to make a final decision, because it might depend on these last things (for me: where will I have my apartment, how will the commons look like, how will the full group look like/what will the dynamic be).
Having said that, i am a big fan of following the defined processes, they were defined exactly for these moments, and I do believe that if we will not stick to them we will jeapardise the project.
The first FS of Jette was given end of february, we’re now may. We all agreed to vote on Jette during the last plenary, this was postponed with everyone again agreeing on voting for jette in the next plenary.
Concerning the common spaces: they are now defined at 125 m2, that’s a lot less than what we hoped. I think we can imagine them to be similar to brutopia and other cohousings (does anyone have a clear view on that). I imagine that everything that can fit in a multifunctional room, will work, anything apart from that, i don’t think so. And if it does, all the better. So i don’t expect here any big surprises.
Concerning the ‘where will my apartment be’: we are with half the group now, so i believe everyone will get the apartment he/she/they want, focusing on what is really important for him/her/them. I recently discovered my sisters (not so close) friend is living in the Spiegel, and i’ve understood they all ended up with the apartment they wanted, so i do think the architects will manage to do that.
Waiting for the group to be complete: this is not for tomorrow and like i said in a previous message: i prefer taking my time with finding new people. And i think it would be absolutely unfeasible to wait for a complete group to have a vote on a site.
For me, the conclusion is: whe should vote now, as agreed. It looks like it will happen on the 22nd, still time to plan another meeting beforehand to discuss about things if you want (and i’ll try to make it if i can), but i would definately stick to a vote on the 22nd.
Hello everyone,
Let’s vote but let me share my doubts here with all full members as I’m not sure it will be the place to do so in the quick last round.
I do not feel safe about JET-14.
I understand that this site has passed the theoretical blueprint test. However, I deeply feel that it is not satisfying some important practical points.
I’m then really worried that we might make a mistake here and that would be a disaster too.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong on this point.
let’s try to discuss before the 22nd for those interested, even if we might be with few people. I would really lie to hear your arguments @Sebas (we could also discuss after the visit of jette…)
To avoid any misunderstanding, I will also cancel the meeting with the “bourmestre” and the head of the office of the “échevin de l’urbanisme” of Anderlecht.
@els but again : the point is not to not vote or postpone the vote. The point is to make enough space to know what we vote for, on the 22nd yes.
You see you interprete that we have only 125m2 of commons and for some it would equal a no go on this site. From what I heard from the architects with the mezzanine possibilities, I interpretate totally different numbers.
What’s in 16 isolated heads might be different when we confront it all together.
I see the temperature rising again, and I think there is much more common ground than we think.
Here’s a couple of thougths / suggestions:
Let’s go for a drink after the JET-14 visit, and write a short report about what was said for those who can’t make it.
Let’s do another round to share thougths during the extra meeting, ahead of the vote, so that everybody can share their thoughts and concerns. I would personally not set up another meeting for this (there’s already so many), but feel free of course to have one.
On the common spaces:
The Blueprint speaks of 250 m², and the architects estimate that what is in the 2022 wish list would require a good 180 m². That means that the current plan would need more common spaces, which is something that seems feasible financially without raising the minimum and medium price.
In the slide deck to present our project (and even in the Blueprint I think) it is made very clear that we’ll make the decision about the common spaces with the people who will be participating in the final project. That means that further details on this are likely to be filled in only after the purchase of the site.
@Sebas would you be willing to share a bit more details here about your concerns? Or would you prefer to talk about it after the visit on the 13th?
From what I’'m hearing and reading, no-one wants to yet again postpone a vote on Jette. We’ve agreed to do that at an extra plenary, and that plenary is now scheduled for the 22nd.
The contention is about whether or not we have each have enough information to inform our vote. Some members clearly feel that they have enough information to vote yes or no. Others do not.
For those that do not, some of the things they would like to know will not be possible. For example, the full make-up of the group will never be possible to know before we buy a site, unless we take another 3 years to double our size. Similarly, the location of one’s apartment is also something that everyone has to wait for until the site is bought and the architects start to make the actual plan. This was always going to be the case. Having said that, I’m reasonably confident that the architects will be able to accommodate us all.
Regarding the financial side of things, we will know what we know at the point of voting. Some members are working really hard to get us all the information possible for this. But we have all got to the point where a bank has said you can have X amount of euros for your project, a notary (who is the foremost expert on cohousing in Brussels) saying that the legal structures we are putting in place are the correct way forward. There is always an element of risk concerning the as yet unknown, but no-one in this group is taking an overly relaxed attitude where safety is concerned, financial or otherwise.
The area where I think that our process, our discussions and our meetings with the architects have not brought us clarity so far concerns whether this site meets the criteria of the Blueprint. Because it’s neither a clear yes (as some people seem to think) nor a clear no (as others do). And the issue is the common spaces. The Blueprint is a little vague on some aspects of this, which is perfectly understandable in light of when it was written. But this aspect has dropped from 300 square metres, to 250, to 125. Which means that a central aspect of why many people wanted to join a community-led project is very different in this scenario. I don’t agree that discussions about the common spaces are not site specific. Or more specifically, they wouldn’t be site-specific discussions if we were assuming 250 square metres, because we would be confident of having enough space for most of our Blueprint wish list.
If I’ve understood correctly, this 125 square metres is not set in stone, and there are options for increasing it. I don’t know what we can do between now and the 22nd to explore this more, but I feel that it would be a worthy endeavour to undertake, because I think it may be the difference between this site getting a yes or a no…
On the common spaces I agree that this is not what is in the Blueprint, and that this implies that something must be done. I see at least two (mutually compatible) options, but I’m sure there are more, and we should most certainly check this with the architects before the 22nd.
Option 1 could be to move the bikes from the street side to the part of the garden left of Obelix, until the wall with the back neighbour.
Option 2 would be to use part of the street-oriented ground floor of Asterix, and turn it into a cozy common space for Reeflings money. One way to compensate for the cost of this with the 2-4% mark-up that we’ll ask from the people who are joining later on. Alberto and I did a back-of-the-enveloppe calculation that indicated that this should be possible, and we’ll make sure to find a number nerd who can calculate it in more detail.
Other than that I think it’s indeed important that we keep the space open to exchange and ask critical questions. There will be informal opportunities after the visit on the 13th and at the brunch on the 19th, and a more formal one at the meeting on the 22nd, ahead of the vote.
If there is anything else, please feel free to express your need and make a request, and then we’ll see what can be done.
Hi all,
For me personally, to feel more comfortable about a ‘Y’ vote, i am afraid a further discussion still won’t bring the clarity needed , and might even create more worries with the propositions being brought up (e.g. that the maximum price might be higher than what it is now set out to be =10% on top of the average price).
I wonder if it cannot be an idea to give a limited number of people more time to make a final ‘Y’ till after the decision of common spaces/apartments. (@quentin: would this work for you. I don’t know if this would be a solution for @Sebas though)
I know it deviates from the procedure so I can live with a ‘no’ to that without any further arguments.
For me the absolute condition for this to be ok, would be that the future of the project will not be jeopardised…
I see two possible things to ensure that:
we stick to the number of ‘Y’ we need to have (=70% of full members) to buy the site. (if i count well there are only 3 ‘maybe-ers’ so that should be just enough). If we would end up with less than 70% without the ‘maybe-ers’, this proposition is off the table. If that would be the case, we do a second vote, where the maybe-ers need to either vote Y or N.
we allow a vote ‘M’, which would mean, you commit to buy the site. As we won’t have the Sosim yet, i guess it shouldn’t introduce a big complexity on ‘paper’ level (but i might be wrong). After the the decision of the commons/apartment division, there is a final vote for the ‘maybe-ers’. If the vote would be ‘y’, you commit to buy your apartment. If the vote would be ‘n’, than you will need to wait till there is a new full member who pays your share of the land. (to be seen if that needs to be the exact share or not) But you will not enter the Sosim, you will not have to commit to buy for the construction of the apartment.
This - of course- doesn’t rule out the discussions foreseen after jette’s visit on monday and before the vote…
)