I agree that the “spirituality” spectrum as presented is a little strange in that being “Secular” in no way suggests that it would be “less than tolerant” of spirituality. To my way of thinking, being a “secular” community simply means that spirituality does not play a role in the community organization. Think of it as separation of church and state. Individuals within the community could certainly have a wide range of personal spiritual beliefs, and humanists, agnostics, and atheists would be welcome as well.
If I understand Yana’s “Moving Toward” Energy and “Resisting” Energy correctly, “moving toward” means that the community is not antithetical toward society or civilization as it exists, but does want to show the world there is a better way to live, and it’s a gradual process. “Resisting” suggests a rejection of society or civilization as it exists where the status quo may not be tolerated.
I see no real problem with your definition of community “income sharing”, but what Yana is referencing is personal income sharing: that all of your personal income goes to the community. Think of it as 100% tithing or 100% taxation. Not a place either you or I would want to live!
As for resource sharing, I think that needs to be the choice of each individual member or family. Some will be comfortable with high resource sharing and living in a small unit in a multi-tenant dwelling while others will want to live in a more traditional detached single-family dwelling and sharing less.
I like your “New Urban in a Rural Setting” and “Remote Residential Science Station”. Let's remember those phrases.
Very well said!
The reason I chose between “Mainstream Appeal” and “Radical Appeal” is that I want Mirador to be appealing to anyone who is willing to rent their domicile in a rural area with on-site access to a beautiful night sky and no dusk-to-dawn lighting. Other than that, I don’t want to scare anyone away for any other reason. It will be difficult enough to get enough people to make the move to Mirador. Even Chuck Durrett mentioned to me that he has concerns about whether enough people would be interested in the project.
As for decision making, I agree that unanimous consent (consensus) is better than “majority rules” winner-takes-all voting. We have seen what a mess that has made of our country. But when you say “unanimous consent be required in order to change the terms of the contract” are you referring to all the tenants and no one else, I hope?
OK, I’m willing to shift somewhat from Relationally-based to Rules-based if it is done correctly, but the devil is in the details.
Where are the Organizational Chart, Policies and Procedures Manual, and Contract and Consensus documents you are referring to? Or are you saying that we will need to develop these documents?