Last week it was evident that there was a bit of a gap in understanding about how the common garden might be managed.  People said they were upset after different opinions were aired.

I have thought about it quite a lot since then but have not had a chance to have any input into the discussions. I'm not sure when or how the proposal will come to the whole group.  I don't want to be in the position of red-carding a proposal from the garden group, if a bit of prior communication can iron out some issues and we can find something that everyone is happy with.

TLDR;  If private plots for the D units (or anyone else) are necessary, we should have a formal lease arrangement whereby unit owners lease plots from the body corporate at a nominal lease such as $1 per year.

Below I explain why I think this is important.  It's not necessary to read any further if this stuff isn't important to you, or if you're not interested in philosophical musings.  If you think a nominal lease for D units could work, we could just do that?  No reason why we can't be getting on with the garden.

So my primary concern is that I don't want to see (either a formal, or back-door) privatization of any of our common areas.  My top preference would be to manage the common gardens as common gardens for the benefit of all.  If this isn't realistic, then I'm happy to explore other models.  However, if we come up with a model that gives D units or anyone else exclusive use of any part of our common area, that should be formally recognized through a lease.  It's not about money; although there needs to be some payment it could be a token amount, e.g. $1 per season for a bed.  It's about formal recognition of an arrangement for exclusive use.

I understand the garden group are getting on with establishing the gardens with the best of intentions, and that needn't stop.  However at some point we need to be clear about the practices that underpin the common garden.

I have some problems with some of the narratives I've heard:

• "There is an inequity, because the D units don't have garden areas and everyone else does."  Well, all kinds of inequities exist in the world, and the D unit purchasers bought their units knowing they came with no private garden space.  In addition, we had a pricing formula that means that all units have paid for the private space they got, and those who didn't get garden areas didn't pay for them.
  
• "Toiora has agreed to fix this inequity by allowing D unit owners to have exclusive use of private plots."  Really?  Show me the minute.  There is one accepted way of our community making decisions, and that is minutes in our group meetings.  I don't recall such a minute.
  
• "The plan has been shared with everyone."  I've seen the plan that Maria drew up, and think it's a great one.  In the common garden I recall there were some separate garden beds indicated.  If the plan had indicated that the common garden would be split up for private exclusive use, then it must have been in very fine print, as I don't recall that part of it.
  
• "We have talked about this for ages."  It may have been talked about for ages in a sub-group.  It may have been referred to obliquely in garden group notes.  That doesn't mean it's agreed, or even widely understood.  I understand an information day was held in the weekend which is a great idea, unfortunately it was very last minute and I was unable to attend, being away at my parents after my father's surgery.  I would have liked to have been able to be there, and I would have had the opportunity for dialog instead of sending emails.
• "We don't have enough garden to produce all the food for the kitchen."  "There plenty of room, enough for everyone!"  These ideas clearly are in conflict.
  

My vision of cohousing, when we were working towards this, was that there was extensive common facilities available for the benefit of all.

My idea of the common garden was that, there would be some keen gardeners who would plan and co-ordinate the gardens, some others who signed up to provide labour at working-bees, and everyone in the group would share the outputs of the common garden, albeit naturally people actually working on the harvest would naturally get the most.  Personally I'm happy to do some work preparing, planting, weeding and whatever maintenance is necessary in the gardens, but I don't want to do planning, I just want to be given jobs to do.

(My view is it's the garden group's responsibility to engage with and draw in participation from the wider group.)

This might be unworkable and the better plan might be to divide the garden into different areas controlled by different people.  I would accept that, if it's the recommendation of the garden group.  Let's have Rainer's garden and Min's garden if it's necessary and the best way to do it.  However, it's the private, exclusive use of a patch of our common garden without an official lease that I object to.

The principle is that common areas are available for the use and enjoyment of all residents.  (Unless there is a lease.)  If I see a ripe strawberry in Donald's garden and I eat it, is that a problem?

A founding tenant of capitalism is the tragedy of the commons, the idea that privatizing everything results in the greatest production (and welfare).  This of course has elements of truth, however taken to the extreme (as it is in our current society) it becomes problematic and works against welfare.  So cohousing is one way that we push back against the appropriation and privatization of land, by providing common lands.  I'm disappointed if we struggle for 8 years to establish cohousing then immediately decide to manage our common land by dividing it up for private plots.

(Another founding myth of western food production is that state and cooperative growing as demonstrated by the Soviet Union are a failure, while western private farms are the most productive.  Again there is an element of truth to this, but again taken to extremes it's a destructive model.  https://freakonomics.com/podcast/farms-race-rebroadcast/ is an interesting podcast on the rise of the supermarket and America's state subsidization of their private farming system as part of the cold war.) 

So I don't mind if we have gardeners enjoying and even taking control of their own plots in the common garden.  I don't mind them getting 80% of what is produced.  It seems fair that we agree a split of the produce between the gardeners and the owners of the land.  I do object to the narrative that because some units don't have garden areas, they have some kind of greater rights to the common garden.

If gardeners from the D units continuously garden an area for 10 years, and they see it as their right in recompense for not having a private garden area on their title, then it becomes an enclosure, a customary right, a privatised area of the common land.  If instead there is instead a lease, then there is an annual acknowledgement that this land belongs to the commons, and that the community accepts the exclusive but temporary use of that land by the lessee.

I'm very happy that the gardeners have been getting on and doing work in the gardens and things are being planted in time for spring.  I have no desire to stop any gardening activity.  I await the proposal to the group with interest.  And would be happy to help with it if that was useful.

One other thing I think many of us are aware of is that we are in an unusual situation with landscaping money from the company being available to spend on landscaping including establishing our common gardens, which is not something that will be available next year.  I'm glad that some of that landscaping money can be used to establish garden beds since I value food production over aesthetics.  However it does rankle a bit that common resources/money is being spent on establishing gardens, if some of those gardens are going to be for private benefit. It seems at the moment, the common gardens are common when it comes to paying for inputs, but it's suggested that some of it will be private when it comes to harvest.

Thanks,
Alex