Recap of March 17 meeting and Planning for the next larger meeting

Our first meeting was a bit lonely for the lone male, me, but productivity made up for gender imbalance. We had surprise visits by another interested party Winnie, that wants to start a whole largish village somewhere in the countryside, around this area. Our group seemed to me to have pleasant concordance on issues such as weed killing sprays, and community organization, but we struggled with where we would locate the community. I think i can speak for Sonia and myself in saying that we love access to Nelson and want to make our lifestyle more bike and pedestrian friendly here in this city. There were some other suggestions about Richmond and further afield that i, for one, did not expect. I supposed that we were meeting after the conference in Nelson, meeting again in Nelson, because our central focus was Nelson! You can see my naive logic in this.
So what i want to focus on here is just how we will seek further members to go forward. I think Sonya, Yutta and I are seeking a Co-housing community very much along the line of clustered housing in hi-density with common spaces and facilities. I don't think we have to solve any other income issues for people than affordable housing and engaging community. I am reluctant to consider common businesses or any grand scheme in the mix. I look forward to diversity of ages, experience and ethnicity.
I think several of us did not imagine building our own home and imagined having a central contractor that would do the community building. This is certainly a way to achieve great economy. In our plan(I think Sonia and Yutta would agree), the houses would be nested together so that there are common walls, thermal efficiency, space savings and general measures of economy of density. There would be outright ownership of the housing unit, but not of the land. One could come and live there for years or decades and exit on a whim or in a coffin. We can sell up and move.
I am reluctant to consider more integrated measures other than covenants on the land and our actions on the land. In my view, he houses can be painted any outlandish colour the owner wants, any manner of social orientation is tolerated as long as there are no victims. Exclusivity would be our standard, and we would make investments for children, the handicapped, etc. In my view, incomes are a private matter and we would not go into any redistribution efforts on the community level.

In short, what we would be offering is attractive housing, easy connection with others and inter-generational contact with easy access to Nelson.

I would like others to recap the meeting and their interest in what was discussed. Have I created a central theme here that is attractive to others? Are there omissions or further inclusions that make it more attractive?

I would also like to suggest we meet again in two weeks, same time, same place. Does that fly with each of you?

hugs all around, Jace