Comments on: Land as community property

By: Sepp Hasslberger

Sepp Hasslberger — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:21:06 +0000

I would say there is no legal impediment for a community (that is a village, a town, a city) to own something. There are plenty of municipal waterworks and similar things that are owned by communities.

The idea – at least as expressed by Gesell – would be that title to the land that is in the community’s area is owned by that community, with plots “rented out” on long leases to individuals and businesses. The process of leasing the land would involve an auction, and the contract would spell out restrictions and conditions under which the land may be used.

By: Todd S.

Todd S. — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:18:37 +0000

Actually, I would say it is correct that a community cannot own anything. What I see in that scenario is a system of un-ownership whereby land is free of all ties until it is being employed in some fashion.

By: Sepp Hasslberger

Sepp Hasslberger — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:47:46 +0000

Scott’s observation is in harmony with what has been proposed by Silvio Gesell in the early part of the 20th century: It’s the communities that should hold title to the land in their areas. Individuals, families and businesses can then work that land, they can build on it, and their assets are protected by long term leases. It provides a source of income to the community (which would no longer be dependent on a share of national or federal taxes) and it provides a measure of control to the community over how the land is used. Eco-compatible use, for instance, can be enforced if the community is the land owner and individuals and groups are the holders of long term contracts of use.