Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00534)

> What is the form of the law (not an exact quote; just generally why it 
> makes it impossible)? This is based on interest, not doubt.
Well, you know that at Olcott and at Krotona both have single family 
residents on their sites which are owned and managed by TSA in the case 
of Olcott, and the Krotona Institute, in the case of Krotona. The old 
Point Loma Theosophical community (300 acres) once provided housing for 
about 500 residents. California has since changed the law so that a 
parcel of land, regardless of how large, may only have one single 
residence upon it, and only one family may legally reside in it. If 
the land is used as a ranch, then the law will allow only one additional 
resident, which is to be used for the ranch-hand. There was a time when 
people in California would build or convert their garages into a small 
apartment in order to accommodate an elderly member of the family who 
can no longer live on his/her own but does not want to go to a rest 
home. We called the "granny apartments." That practice is now also 
illegal. Needless to say, the building lobby in California strongly 
supported these changes. The profit advantage of this law for them is 
self evident. 
Oddly enough, some of the larger farms in California are beginning to 
construct small multiple dwellings, in order to provide shelter for the 
migrant farm workers. They remind me of the slave dwellings in the old 
South, but they do have running water and electricity. Actually this is 
an improvement. Before this, the migrant workers just set up camps in 
the open. California tries to make it attractive for cheap labor, so 
they made an exception to the above law, in this case. 
Jerry






Bart Lidofsky wrote:

> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>
>
> > I could envision an international list of speakers where the information 
> > is contributed by each speaker. It might include:
> >
> > 1. Name of speaker
> > 2. Address, phone etc.
> > 3. language(s) spoken.
> > 4. Their background.
> > 5. Subjects they speak upon. 
> > 6. Their availability.
> >
> > I think we agree that the TSA National speaker list, aside from its 
> > declared purpose, also has an obviously political one. This political 
> > aspect is a concern to me. On such a list as you propose, I would hope 
> > that every effort be made to avoid such a political use. 
> 	The easiest way is to make it open to all.
>
>
>
> > I remember John Kern talking about that when the Kern foundation first 
> > started. The decision was indeed a mixed bag. From hindsight, it did 
> > foreshadow Olcott's decision not to support Lodges. Under Dora Kunz, 
> > Olcott had building loan programs. 
> 	Another plan that bit the dust has to do with the so-called "National 
> Lodge". It occurred to me that, with the Internet, there was the 
> capability of bringing back specialized Lodges, so I asked how, by the 
> current by-laws, the "National Lodge" was created. It turns out that 
> "National Lodge" is just a name, and is neither a Lodge nor a study 
> group, yet masquerades as a Lodge. It annoys the hell out of me, because 
> it reduces inducement for people to join local Lodges, and takes away 
> the individual Lodge autonomy which is a key part of the idea behind the 
> Theosophical Society.
>
>
>
> > We still have the 160 acres and occasionally use it for retreats. But 
> > the location is too remote for regular activities, so we since decided 
> > not to establish permanent facilities there. We considered establishing 
> > a spiritual community, but since the Rahneesh incident in Oregon, 
> > California changed its laws so that such communities are no longer 
> > possible, except for those which were previously established.
> 	What is the form of the law (not an exact quote; just generally why it 
> makes it impossible)? This is based on interest, not doubt.
>
> 	Bart
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links