“Our ambition is to bring properties into collective ownership and use”

This interview is an excerpt from the book Funding the Cooperative City: Community Finance and the Economy of Civic Spaces

In what context did you begin to work on Stad in de Maak?

This is an initiative that started from – and currently thrives in – the afterlife of the current financial crisis. A crisis that started out with toxic debts and real-estate speculations, emblematically bringing down Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Amidst the unfolding of this crisis, the non-for profit housing developer Havensteder bought these two buildings where we are today with the idea of demolishing and redeveloping them. At that time, in 2009, this probably still looked like a viable plan but that did not last very long. When the mortgage crisis hit the market in the Netherlands a little bit later in 2010, for real-estate owners, the world in which they operated suddenly changed.

For instance, the value of real-estate started to drop. As a result, they had buildings that in their accounting books were still listed at the pre-crisis value, while their actual value in the real-estate market had diminished significantly, which brought them into financial trouble. At the same time, during the years leading up to this financial crisis, the group of non-for-profit developers, to which Havensteder belongs, would move away from their core mission of providing affordable housing towards other products with a higher return on investment. The government also encouraged them to experiment to yield more return, which could then be invested into housing. During the crisis however, these risky operations started turning against them, resulting in financial deficiencies of billions of Euros. For instance, one of these non-for-profit housing developers, Vestia in Rotterdam, embarked in derivatives for almost 10 billion Euros, something that went terribly wrong. All the non-for-profit housing developers had to come together to rescue the ones which were about to go bust, which made a huge dent in their financial reserves. To add insult to injury, they were subsequently forced to make contributions to the state budget, because the government also found itself in trouble due to the financial crisis. As a result, the investment budget of these developers withered away.

How did housing developers react to this situation?

Building renovated by Stad in de Maak. Photo (cc) Eutropian

At that moment Havensteder found itself in a situation in which it could not any longer sustain part of its real-estate portfolio, so it had to focus on keeping the healthy parts. This means that there was suddenly no budget anymore for troublesome locations such as this one. In 2010, Havensteder made a quick-scan of the two buildings, with the help of two collectives from Rotterdam, Superuse Studio and Observatorium, to see what to do with these locations. It must be understood that within Havensteder this is seen as a controversial idea: why would they start investing in derelict places in times of crisis? There are other priorities. But there were also people within the organisation, who challenged this idea and wanted to protect the quality of the street and maintain the value of the assets, as they owned the majority of the buildings on the street. The commissioned quick-scan revealed that if Havensteder wanted to keep the buildings up and running, they would have to accept a loss of 60,000 Euros in the coming 8-10 years. That is actually not so much, even though it is in a period of crisis.

Following this, things slowed down, and it looked as if the study to revive the buildings would end up in a drawer. One of the people involved in the study, the artist Erik Jutten, took the initiative to push things further. He came up with an unconventional proposal: if Havensteder is willing to take the loss of 60.000 euros anyway over the period to come, why not take that loss entirely in day one instead? In this way, it can be handed over as an investment budget to a group of people that would take care of the two buildings and any remaining risks. In a certain way, this would allow us to ‘common’ the buildings with this group of people for a period of ten years, after which the properties would go back to the owner, if it was still there.

What role did you take in this process?

Meeting in front of the Growery. Photo (cc) Eutropian

Ana Džokić, Piet Vollaard and myself joined Erik and put this proposition together. Our common motivation in the beginning was mainly curiosity: to see if we could do things differently. We spent a lot of time going through the details, like the economic model we had to get in place. The big challenge was of course finding a way to manage the buildings for ten years without us defaulting on it. We figured that, if Havensteder was ready to put in 60,000 Euros, around 75% of it would have gone into contractor costs, therefore we proposed to execute half of that work ourselves instead of outsourcing it. By doing so, we could free up a substantial part of the budget – because we could do things ourselves cheaper than a contractor, but it would also allow us to schedule and prioritise works differently, as we needed to urgently divert money to make some of the spaces inhabitable and create a cash-flow through renting them out. This is because we have to pay the bills, we have to pay the insurances, we have to pay the taxes… And we basically had no money ourselves, so to prioritise works to create an economically sustainable cash-flow was very urgent for us.

How did the housing developer like these ideas?

New workspaces and housing. Photo (c) Stad in de Maak

For Havensteder it was a deal with an untested partner: we had never worked with them before. But it was interesting for them because they hardly had any financial risks, no contingencies, and no management costs any longer. We would take all of this upon us for the next 10 years. After that, we just give back the property with no further economic loss than the 60.000 they had already booked. And while we negotiated over a period of many months, some level of trust began to develop amongst all the parties involved.

In October of 2013, we signed the agreement. A month later, work on site began: the buildings were in ruin and we had to quickly make them inhabitable. We had gone through a huge excel sheet for months and months, but we did not have much experience with doing these sorts of things, so we took on things quite intuitively. Meanwhile, we have grown a handful of buildings, and a few principles have emerged.

How do the buildings function economically?

The principles of Stad in de Maak

First of all, we try to make each building a self-sustaining node (in economic, social and environmental terms) within a network. This is done to foster a more robust network, in which difficulties (or even the ‘collapse’ of one node) do not pose a threat to the viability of the overall network of buildings. In economic terms, this means that each building should generate enough resources to cover its own costs. In social terms, each building should take care of its own governance and use. In environmental terms, it should aim to become resource flow neutral (energy, water, etc.). We aim to create a common finance pool for the maintenance and expansion of this platform. All the inhabitants and users of the buildings, through payment for the right of usage, generate a (modest) flow of finance that contributes to this common finance pool. From this, the activities to sustain the platform (a baseline income for those responsible) are being financed. Given enough nodes in the network (scale), a revolving investment fund to expand the network could be created.

From the very beginning on, we have maintained a minimalist (or no-nonsense) approach to investments. If affordability is at the core, invest what is minimally necessary. For instance, by putting functional, rather than aesthetic concerns at the core. By re-using, upcycling, or working with donated materials. By improvising if the use span of a building is limited, as long as safety is not compromised. And by being prepared to lower the comfort threshold in exchange for lower existential pressures (usage fee).
While working on the first buildings, we discovered that it would be important to replace monetary flows with non-monetary alternatives, where possible. As both the inhabitants and users of buildings and the platform itself face a lack of mainstream money, part of the financial pressure can be diverted by conducting transactions in other ‘currencies’: worktime or materials, for instance.

How do the activities taking place in the buildings impact the neighbourhood?

Stad in de Maak process diagram. Image (c) Stad in de Maak

We try to bring community activity, but also production back into the buildings, into the streets, and into the neighbourhood. Some things are being tested right now, like a workshop. There is a community brewery starting up, a micro-cinema, a launderette, even some production of detergent … In the coming months there we will have a number of trials to see how we can create a neighbourhood economy. It is crucial to keep space open for such uses and experiments. Each building therefore, has a commons (“meent” in Dutch), accessible for social or productive undertakings. We decided to keep financial pressures away from these common spaces, and cover the costs to keep them open through a contribution from all the users.

We said straight from the beginning that City in the Making – with its current temporary use of buildings – is a sort of training condition for what is yet to come. For us, the next step is to go beyond this temporary exploitation of vacant properties. Now we can do this because there has been an economic crisis but this is not sustainable in the future. Our ambition is to take the properties out of the market, to make them available for affordable housing and work, and to bring them into collective ownership and use.

Interview with Marc Neelen on 26 May 2016

The post Stad in de Maak – from crisis to a shared ownership model appeared first on P2P Foundation.

So we keep pondering community investing as a capital-raising strategy for farmers, ag. co-ops, and other food and farm enterprises, especially beginning farmers who often strive to implement sustainable agricultural and fair labor practices.

Although “direct public offerings” and other community investment campaigns have successfully raised capital for many community-based food enterprises including grocery co-ops, restaurants, artisan breweries and creameries, they are less common among farm enterprises. These strategies work well for local food businesses because, for one, people who don’t  think much about investing often feel a strong personal connection to their local cafe, eatery, or grocery store and will invest in a local owner’s business because of that connection. Most people have less connection with their local farm.

We don’t actually know of many agricultural enterprises that have successfully raised money directly (not through a national or global exchange) from the public in California recently. One example is Farm Fresh to You, a multi-farm community supported agriculture (CSA) business that operates multiple farms, and aggregates produce from many more farms, to deliver organic produce boxes to consumers throughout California.

So why aren’t farmers and agricultural cooperatives using community financing options more? We’re not really sure but we have a few guesses. One is that farming is a ton of work even and crowd-financing campaigns are also laborious. It might just be too much for one or a few beginning farmers to do both simultaneously. Another guess is that it may be more difficult to raise capital from the community in rural areas where people are more spread out. Another issue is likely rural poverty. There may be other reasons. In any case, we’d like to find out if community investment campaigns have the potential to transform financing for the beginning farmers of today and tomorrow.

What types of agricultural enterprises or farmers might be good candidates for community investment campaigns? Here’s a list of indicators:

• Farm enterprises seeking to raise roughly between $200,000 and $1 million for purchasing land, equipment, supplies, or for working capital;
• Farmers with experience in farming who can instill a sense of confidence in prospective investors;
• Farmers committed to organic, diversified, pasture-grazing, and/or other sustainable farming practices;
• Farmers who are active in the community and well-connected to their customers (i.e., through sales at farmers’ markets, CSAs, or on-farm tours and events);
• Farmers who are enthusiastic about the idea of asking their customers and community to become investors in their farm business;
• Farmers who can develop a clear and concise business plan, either working alone or with a business advisor;
• Farm enterprises seeking growth capital over a 2 to 3 year period (because community investment campaigns take some time to plan and execute they are not suitable for urgent funding needs);
• Farmers with strong communication skills. English fluency is not essential, but farm enterprises need at least one one person who can communicate, orally and in writing, in a compelling way about the business); and
• Farmers dedicated to the farming enterprise for a long period of time.

Like what you read here? See our Grassroots Finance page for more about what we’re up to and sign up for our newsletter here to get updates in your inbox. Also, coming up September 10 through 13 is the annual ComCap Conference in Monterey, California where members of the Law Center’s staff will be speaking along with other thought leaders, movers, and shakers in the community capital movement.

Photo by gmtbillings

The post Can Community Capital Finance the Next Generation of Farmers? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Description

“Funding the Cooperative City explores experiments in community-led urban development in European cities. This book is based on a series of workshops (Rotterdam, Berlin and Paris in 2014; Budapest, Madrid, Rome, Rotterdam, Bratislava, Prague and Warsaw in 2016), site visits, interviews and research into the new financial and economic models of community-run spaces.
Funding the Cooperative City focuses on the post-welfare transition of today’s European societies: with austerity measures and the financialisation of real estate stocks and urban services, the gradual withdrawal of the state and municipal administrations from providing certain facilities and maintaining certain spaces have prompted citizen initiatives and professional groups to organise their own services and venues. The self-organisation of new spaces of work, culture and social welfare was made possible by various socio-economic circumstances: unemployment, solidarity networks, changing real estate prices and ownership patters created opportunities for stepping out of the regular dynamisms of real estate development. In some cases, cooperative ownership structures exclude the possibility of real estate speculation, in others, new welfare services are integrated in local economic tissues, relying on unused resources and capacities. The new cooperative development processes also witnessed the emergence of new types of investors, operating along principles of ethics or sustainability, or working on moving properties off the market.
Edited by the founders of the European community planning organisation Eutropian, Funding the Cooperative City aims at introducing and contextualising innovative practices among citizen initiatives, socially engaged private practices, financial institutions as well as municipalities when it comes to inventing new ways to enable, finance and govern community-run spaces. By looking at the economic contexts in which these initiatives unfold and the social challenges to which they give answers, as well as by analysing the ownership, management and economic models and urban impacts of the presented projects, the book highlights new urban development tendencies and emerging actors in contemporary European societies.
This collection brings together protagonists from various cities to help shaping a new European culture of urban development based on community-driven initiatives, civic economic models and cooperative ownership; its goal is to highlight the importance, the values and capacities of citizen-run spaces and services to all actors in the field of urban development and management, to give them tools to facilitate and strengthen these initiatives, and to inspire new commitments and frameworks enabling similar experiments to unfold.”

Excerpts

Community Capital

“The question if community capital can really cure the voids left behind by the welfare state has generated fierce debates in the past years. This discussion was partly launched by Brickstarter, the beta platform specialised in architectural crowdfunding, when it introduced to the public the idea of crowdfunded urban infrastructures. Those who opposed Brickstarter, did in fact protest against the Conservative agenda of the “Big Society”, the downsizing of welfare society and the “double taxation” of citizens: “Why should we spend on public services when our taxes should pay for them?”
Nevertheless, in the course of the economic crisis, many European cities witnessed the emergence of a parallel welfare infrastructure: the volunteer-run hospitals and social kitchens in Athens, the occupied schools, gyms and theatres of Rome or the community-run public squares of Madrid are only a few examples of this phenomenon. European municipalities responded to this challenge in a variety of ways. Some cities like Athens began to examine how to adjust their regulations to enable the functioning of community organisations, others created new legal frameworks to share public duties with community organisations in contractual ways, like Bologna with the Regulation of the Commons. In several other cities, administrations began experimenting with crowdfunding public infrastructures, like in Ghent or Rotterdam, where municipalities offer match-funding to support successful campaigns, or with participatory budgeting, like in Paris, Lisbon or Tartu. Yet other public administrations in the UK, the Netherlands or Austria invited the private sphere to invest in social services in the form of Social Impact Bonds, where the work of NGOs or social enterprises is pre-financed by private actors who are paid back with a return on their investment in case the evaluation of the delivered service is positive.
Alternatively, some cities chose to support local economy and create more resilient neighbourhoods with self-sustaining social services through grant systems. The City of Lisbon, for instance, after identifying a number of “priority neighbourhoods” that need specific investments to help social inclusion and ameliorate local employment opportunities, launched the BIP/ZIP program that grants selected civic initiatives with up to 40.000 euros. The granted projects, chosen through an open call, have to prove their economic sustainability and have to spend the full amount in one year. The BIP/ZIP project, operating since 2010, gave birth to a number of self-sustaining civic initiatives, including social kitchens that offer affordable food and employment for locals or cooperative hotels that use their income from tourism to support social and cultural projects. In 2015 the experience of the BIP/ZIP matured in a Community-Led Local Development Network, as identified by the European Union’s Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, which will grant the network access to part of the Structural Funds of the City of Lisbon. The CLLD is a unique framework for the democratic distribution of public funds: it foresees the management of the funding to be shared between administration, private and civic partners, with none of them having the majority of shares and votes. While, as the previous cases demonstrate, the public sector plays an important role in strengthening civil society in some European cities, many others witnessed the emergence of new welfare services provided by the civic economy completely outside or without any help by the public sector. In some occasions, community contribution appears in the form of philanthropist donation to support the construction, renovation or acquisition of playgrounds, parks, stores, pubs or community spaces. In others, community members act as creditors or investors in an initiative that needs capital, in exchange for interest, shares or the community ownership of local assets, for instance, shops in economically challenged neighbourhoods. Crowdfunding platforms also help coordinating these processes: the French Bulb in Town platform, specialized in community investment, gathered over 1 million euros for the construction of a small hydroelectric plant in Ariège that brings investors a return of 7% per year.
Besides aggregating resources from individuals to support particular cases, community infrastructure projects are also helped by ethical investors. When two artists mobilised their fellow tenants to save the listed 10.000 m2 Rotaprint in the Berlin district of Wedding, they invited several organisations working on moving properties off the speculation market and eliminating the debts attached to land, to help them buy the buildings. While the complex was bought and is renovated with the help of an affordable loan by the CoOpera pension fund, the land was bought by the Edith Maryon and Trias Foundations and is rented (with a long-term lease, a “heritable building right”) to ExRotaprint, a non-profit company, making it impossible to resell the shared property. With its sustainable cooperative ownership model, ExRotaprint provides affordable working space for manufacturers as well as social and cultural initiatives whose rents cover the loans and the land’s rental fee.
Creating community ownership over local assets and keeping profits benefit local residents and services is a crucial component of resilient neighbourhoods. Challenging the concept of value and money, many local communities began to experiment with complementary currencies like the Brixton or Bristol Pounds. Specific organisational forms like Community Land Trusts or cooperatives have been instrumental in helping residents create inclusive economic ecosystems and sustainable development models.”

Case: La Casa Invisible

“Two years ago, the cultural centre La Casa Invisible collected over 20.000 euros for the partial renovation of the building including the installation of fire doors and electric equipments to assure the safety of their revitalized 19th century building in the centre of Málaga. A few months later, East London’s Shuffle Festival, operating in a cemetery park at Mile End, collected 60.000 pounds for the renovation and community use of The Lodge, an abandoned building at the corner of the cemetery. In order to implement their campaigns, both initiatives used the online platforms Goteo and Spacehive that specialise in the financing of specific community projects. The fact that many of the hundreds of projects supported by civic crowdfunding platforms are community spaces, underlines two phenomena: the void left behind by a state that gradually withdrew from certain community services, and the urban impact of community capital created through the aggregation of individual resources.”

Photo by Dagon Hoyohoy

The post Book of the Day: Funding an Economy of Civic Spaces in the Cooperative City through Community Finance appeared first on P2P Foundation.