When different groups contribute differently it may not be clear at the outset what each group is entitled to.
I can see a situation where one group is ready to implement a group resource that did not exist before. The others do not have the necessary resources yet. Does it wait until all are ready? Is it implemented now and the others owe for their share? If someone who is not ready vetos an idea, is it simply dead? Conversely, is someone who is not ready to contribute simply powerless about the decision?
So, Joe and Mary are ready to put out bucks for a pool. They can if necessary put out for the whole thing. Greg doesn't want it. Louanne does not want it where Joe and Mary want it.
Maybe everyone agrees that Joe and Mary can do it but the rest have no resourcesto give to it now. Or later. Do Joe and Mary have more control over it? Do they get to pay for all of the upkeep? If the place has to sell, how does this affect how much Joe and Mary get back out of it?
Speaking for myself, I know that if I am contributing more than others I will be expecting a bigger say. I also know that if I were contributing less I would still expect an equal say. This is a contradiction.
In my ideal world, I would pay for everything and be a benevolent dictator. It is true. In every way possible I would see _my_ dream of this come true. I would try to let everyone else's dreams come true. I would try to see to it that everyone else's dreams came true. But, if someone's picture differed fundamentally from mine, mine would win out.
For example, you want to use pesticides in your house? Sorry. It is 'your' house but my dream has no pesticides being used anywhere on the property. Your house has not cost you anything, so... Leave if you don't like it. It gets more difficult when people have paid money to own a share of the property.
One group decides for whatever reason that they have to abandon the homeland. Who takes over their payments? What happens to their share of things? Are they allowed to sell their share to anyone? Are they not allowed to leave until they find a buyer? Does the remaining group get right of first refusal? Who determines the asking price and the price that will be accepted?
Or someone loses their job. They simply can't make their payment. Who takes up the slack? For how long? What if the others are OK with taking up the slack but the unemployed party feels guilty and wants to sell and get out from their obligation? Either way is a potential problem...
A long term plan is essential here. We are in many ways marrying each other. Moving out is the equivalent of divorce. It has far reaching impact for everyone remaining. So, as you consider partaking of this deal, where do you see yourself in 20, 40, 60 years? Is it still on the property? Is it in the same situation that you are getting at the start of this? Do you have to get the consent of others to achieve your goals?
What if they did want to move to the property? How do they buy in? What do they get? How is it decided?