Re; Members with blank sites seeking to sell for profit
I see some discussion took place at the recent meeting about this subject. I believe the horse has already bolted here. Any profit that was made earlier by departed members seem to be ellusive in recent times. There have been some sites on sale for quite a while and people are not flocking to buy them. The Co-op is low cost, not no cost. The current members have supported the co-op up to this point and has this now been deemed to be of no value?
However should I say that the block is not sold but the share. The improvements and entitlements that go with it are the variable price over and above the share price. These are not the property of the co-op but the member. Moving to appropriate or regulate this extra value is a step too far in my opinion. Indeed also doomed to failure by my experience with human nature.
If we wished to create a vibrant co-op then some change in attitude generally to bring about an inclusive, friendly, pleasing place to live, would bring more people to the place, in my opinion, than more regulations. Regulations have been shown to be unworkable and unenforceable at Goolawah.
Perhaps the ageing problem will be solved by the usual method of time. Goolawah could put aside some area for a members gravesite. Is ageism covered in the new code of conduct? Should it be ?
John Noonan
Goolawah Co-op Members 
Re; Members with blank sites seeking to sell for profit
I see some discussion took place at the recent meeting about this subject. I believe the horse has already bolted here. Any profit that was made earlier by departed members seem to be ellusive in recent times. There have been some sites on sale for quite a while and people are not flocking to buy them. The Co-op is low cost, not no cost. The current members have supported the co-op up to this point and has this now been deemed to be of no value?
However should I say that the block is not sold but the share. The improvements and entitlements that go with it are the variable price over and above the share price. These are not the property of the co-op but the member. Moving to appropriate or regulate this extra value is a step too far in my opinion. Indeed also doomed to failure by my experience with human nature.
If we wished to create a vibrant co-op then some change in attitude generally to bring about an inclusive, friendly, pleasing place to live, would bring more people to the place, in my opinion, than more regulations. Regulations have been shown to be unworkable and unenforceable at Goolawah.
Perhaps the ageing problem will be solved by the usual method of time. Goolawah could put aside some area for a members gravesite. Is ageism covered in the new code of conduct? Should it be ?
John Noonan