displacement – P2P Foundation

How We Can Reshape the Politics of Housing

The Next System Project — Wed, 03 Oct 2018 09:00:00 +0000

Displacement Battles on Two Continents Show How We Can Reshape the Politics of Housing

Isaiah J. Poole: Communities can do more than just put a Band-Aid on the problem of gentrification and displacement, and a panel of researchers who held a forum at the Democracy Collaborative’s offices in Washington discussed the best thinking and work happening on both sides of the Atlantic to keep housing affordable for everyone.

In a panel entitled “The Politics of Land and Housing,” The Democracy Collaborative’s Jarrid Green and Peter Gowan were joined by Laurie Macfarlane, who is based in Edinburgh, Scotland and is co-author of The Economics of Land and Housing and editor of openDemocracy. (Watch the full panel discussion below.) Together, they discussed the financial-sector-driven processes that keep housing costs spiraling upward and how we can move toward a world in which housing is a social good for all rather than a profit center for a few.

“The place that we’ve landed in is suboptimal for a whole range of reasons, and inequality is growing between those who own property and those who don’t; those who are facing higher rents and higher costs versus those who are riding the wave of increasing asset prices,” Macfarlane said.

Macfarlane stressed that “there is no single-bullet solution to what we do about this,” but the two speakers that followed laid out a set of strategies that are beginning to bear fruit either inside or outside the United States.

Gowan drew a contrast between the housing market in Ireland, which mirrors the United States in that it is driven largely by borrowing and rent-seeking, and Austria, where 40 percent of the residents live in “social housing” that is publicly owned and regulated. While in Ireland housing prices soared in the early 2000s before entering a crash that paralleled the U.S. financial crash in 2008, Austrian housing prices have remained stable throughout the past 20 years. One reason, Gowan said, is the attraction of good-quality affordable social housing to middle-class as well as lower-income households, who therefore don’t feel compelled go to into 15-to-30-year-debt to buy a home.

To Gowan, Austria’s example suggests that the US should overcome the negative stereotype of “public housing.” He concedes “there were legitimate issues” with the low-income housing built in decades past, but “that’s not to say that we can’t do better in the future. It’s not to say we can’t have a democratic community- or publicly controlled housing sector that is racially integrated, socially just and fit for the future.”

Green discussed work he did with the Alliance for Housing Solutions to help community leaders in Alexandria, Va., just outside Washington, to grapple with a market that has become increasingly inhospitable for low-income people.

The set of solutions that are being discussed around community control of land and housing, through such strategies as community land trusts, limited equity co-ops, land banks, resident ownership communities and community benefit agreements – together make up less than one percent of the housing economy in the United States, Green said. “It’s a mix of things that are approved by voters at the ballot box as well as some things that agencies can do on their own” with state or local funding. The challenge is to scale-up these solutions in the midst of what is increasingly acknowledged as an affordable housing crisis.

The strategies to address gentrification and displacement discussed in this panel will be explored more deeply in a report by Green that the Democracy Collaborative plans to release in August.

Originally published on The Next System

Photo by Ted’s photos – For Me & You

The post How We Can Reshape the Politics of Housing appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Community Control of Land and Housing

The Next System Project — Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:00:00 +0000

Jarrid Green: Exploring strategies for combating displacement, expanding ownership, and building community wealth

A historical legacy of displacement and exclusion, firmly rooted in racism and discriminatory public policy, has fundamentally restricted access to land and housing and shaped ownership dynamics, particularly for people of color and low-income communities. Today, many communities across the country are facing new threats of instability, unaffordability, disempowerment, and displacement due to various economic, demographic, and cultural changes that are putting increased pressure on land and housing resources.

As communities and policymakers alike consider ways to confront these threats—especially within the context of the urgent need for community and economic development—there is an emerging opportunity to develop strategies related to land and housing that can help create inclusive, participatory, and sustainable economies built on locally-rooted, broad-based ownership of place-based assets. This report provides an overview of strategies and tools that, as a group, represent an innovative and potentially powerful new approach—one that establishes, in various ways, community control of land and housing.

These strategies and tools can 1) begin to institutionalize democratic control of land and housing, 2) support racially and economically inclusive ownership and access, and 3) catalyze the deployment of public resources to support new norms of land and housing activity. Importantly, “anchor institutions”—large not-for-profit entities, such as hospitals and universities, that are rooted in local communities—can play a key role alongside community organizations and local governments in catalyzing and supporting such strategies.

Download and read the full report now.

We are making printed copies of this new report available to policy advocates, community organizers, and anchor institution stakeholders interested in advancing on the ground work to shift control of land and housing to communities through democratic ownership. Request copies now.

Jarrid Green – Senior Research Associate

Jarrid Green joined the Democracy Collaborative as Research Associate in March 2016 after three years at the Center for Social Inclusion (CSI), a national public policy strategy organization based in New York that aims to dismantle structural racial inequity. At CSI, Jarrid provided research, policy analysis, advocacy, partnerships and administrative support across CSI’s programs. Jarrid also authored two case studies profiling cooperative ownership in the sustainable energy sector including a profile on the worker-owned solar installation company, Namaste Solar, and a profile on the multi-race, multi-class consumer-owned cooperative, Co-op Power.

Prior to his tenure at CSI, Jarrid served as a Researcher for the Smithsonian Institution’s Office of Policy and Analysis where he supported studies of museum visitorship and strategic planning for Smithsonian museum units and external organizations. While at the Smithsonian, Jarrid also served as a Project Coordinator for the Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies where he worked in partnership with MIT’s Education Arcade to coordinate the development of a national education program that sought to increase middle-school-aged students’ interest in science-based careers.

Jarrid is a 2016 Council of Urban Professionals Leadership Institute fellow, a former White House intern, U.S. Department of the Interior fellow, and a recipient of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s Earl Warren Scholarship. In 2012, Jarrid also served on the Obama reelection campaign in Iowa as a Regional Get-Out-The-Vote Director. Jarrid holds a bachelor’s degree in English Language and Literature from the University of Maryland, College Park and will begin studies at Bard College in August 2016 in pursuit of a MBA in Sustainability.

The post Community Control of Land and Housing appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The Favela as a Community Land Trust: A Solution to Eviction and Gentrification?

Shareable — Sat, 08 Jul 2017 08:00:00 +0000

Cross-posted from RioOnWatch.

Though areas facing eviction threats may be safer if they hold land titles, with regards to gentrification, favelas with land titles are those most at risk. This is because by titling, favelas effectively enter the formal, market-rate, market (informal property markets are quite dynamic in Rio, but effectively create a parallel affordable market to the completely unregulated formal one that dominates the city). With rising property prices, poorer residents, even those with title, are forced to the outskirts of the city as they can no longer afford the rising cost of living generated around them. Though gentrification and displacement have slowed with the current economic crisis, they are expected to continue to exert pressure on favelas in the long-run.

In a city that lacks adequate quality public housing infrastructure, keeping favela neighborhoods affordable as they develop is thus crucial to the overall success of the city. Market-rate housing by definition does not meet the affordability demands of the bottom socio-economic tier (normally 20-30 percent) of a city’s population, so transferring favela housing to the formal market will not address the needs of that group — it will only displace them, causing new favelas to form. Socio-economic segregation leads to increased conflict, as we witness daily in Rio. And tension and unhappiness lower the quality of life.

So how to protect the desire of low-income favela residents to remain on their land, while giving them access to the benefits of owning property and the ability to accumulate wealth and access credit? Giving out individual land titles has long been the assumed method to gain these benefits, following this strategy’s popularization by Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto in the 1990s.

However, much has been learned since then and this “consensus” is today subject to debate and exceptions. Though titling and documentation are incredibly helpful, the assumption that individual titles are the solution can be questioned, since with them comes a single-pointed focus on the individual inhabitants’ benefit, which may not align with maintaining neighborhood qualities and community benefits and may negatively affect other individuals, or him or herself, if consequences to community that impact individuals are not contemplated. Titling also causes local costs to rise and often forces existing residents — even those with title — out.

Aware of the affordability value and other benefits of favelas, Brazilian federal legislation was proactively passed to ensure these benefits persist through the federal Areas of Special Social Interest (AEIS) policy. Unfortunately, like many of Brazil’s well-intended policies, implementation has been largely ineffective in Rio. Locally implemented as Special Zones of Social Interest (ZEIS), the program is supposed to bring favela land into compliance with the law while preserving affordability and the built blueprint of these communities. Although this process had brought nearly 171 plots of land into compliance for nearly 120,000 people as of January 2014, if a favela is located in a highly desirable area, individual titling does not protect a community from being eroded by real estate speculation. Further, if property rights are not adequately enforced, there is a risk residents can be taken advantage of as they adjust to being title holders.

Another policy option available is the Community Land Trust, or CLT. A brief history of this policy option can be found here, but this text will focus on the specific logistical measures that could make CLTs a reality. In the United States, CLTs have been shown to be the most robust affordable housing policy solution in both market extremes — those of foreclosure and of speculation.

Communities must acquire land or designate it as a land trust

The first step in creating a CLT is to acquire the land. In most places introducing CLTs, this is the most difficult step because of the large capital costs of buying up private land. In favelas, however, this step is actually easier, since the land is already occupied, owned by the state, and at least in theory constitutionally protected for favela residents’ use based on need, through adverse possession after five years. And since the Special Zones of Social Interest are intended to help facilitate land compliance, Rio has at least some experience designating favelas in unique ways to guarantee they maintain their qualities including affordability. So one might be hopeful these conditions lead to a consideration of a CLT policy to maintain the affordability of favela homes and right to remain of favela residents. This would start with the transfer of state-owned land harboring favelas, to community-managed Community Land Trusts.

Residents in CLTs lease the land in the trust, but own the buildings

Having the land in a trust means the community owns the land as a whole. However, in order to allow residents to accumulate wealth, a CLT gives them ownership over the improvements they make to the land. This arrangement not only allows the community as a whole to benefit from increases in land value, but also lets individual homeowners benefit from investments and upgrades they make to their homes. Again, this arrangement shares some similarities with most favelas’ current situation: Residents don’t technically own the land they live on (even the “titles” given today are actually leases, often for 99 years, such as the ones given to Vila Autódromo in the 1990s which, unfortunately, we have all attested to their precariousness) and the primary form of investment is in the individual home. Under a CLT residents might thus be even more protected from forced eviction than through individual titles, because the land would be owned by the community and not the state or individuals, and thus could be protected by the community. And through a CLT model residents would also be kept safe from market speculation because the land is not owned by individuals and thus its value does not affect house price.

CLT membership and leadership

Leadership in a CLT is unique and important to its success. CLT community residents elect the leadership council for the trust. These volunteer boards may vary in size, but are entrusted with managing the day-to-day activities of the trust. CLT trusts are usually divided into thirds, where one-third of the trust leadership is residents from the CLT community, one-third is people from the neighborhood surrounding the CLT, and one-third is made up of technical experts and municipal officials who provide particular expertise (legal, architectural, engineering, political, etc.) and speak in the general public interest. This allocation is not set in stone for every CLT and a special policy could be designed specifically for favelas based on their needs. A CLT policy could mandate the addition of housing advocates to the trust, a requirement Rio already uses in its official housing policy.

Key to the CLT’s success is its mission. Each CLT establishes a mission which includes protecting the assets of their community. Traditionally, affordability and guaranteeing affordable housing is the number one goal of a CLT, meaning that new members are screened based on need. To guarantee this, it is the CLT that determines who buys into the community. This is done by mandating that residents selling their property do so to the CLT. The CLT has access to capital and buys the property at an agreed-to rate based on established tables. It then offers the housing to those on a waiting list who have passed its criteria (again, all established by the community). But a favela-based CLT may add other factors — beyond need — to determine who can buy in. For example, those with ties to the community, born and raised there, may have priority. Or those with strong cultural work in the community or other ties there. Or, for example, a favela with a strong vocation for funk may prioritize funk culture; one with a strong vocation for sustainability may prioritize those engaged in developing sustainable practices. And so on.

Key components to incorporate in CLTs

Community Land Trusts have been implemented around the world with structures that vary in many ways. However, there are some characteristics that must be included in order for a model to actually be considered a CLT model. These characteristics include:

Community control and ownership: Land and other assets must be managed, bought and sold in a way that benefits the overall community. There must be a high level of trust among members within the CLT for it to be successful.
An open and democratic structure: People who live and work in and around the area designated as a CLT should have the ability to join. The leadership of the CLT must also make an active effort to engage all relevant stakeholders in important community discussions.
Permanent affordability: CLTs, by definition, are a means of preserving a long-term community structure. Affordability must be preserved since it is a crucial component of a CLT.
Not-for-profit status: Any profits from the management of assets in a CLT should be reinvested in the CLT for the betterment of the community.
Long-term stewardship: A CLT continues regardless of whether individual homes that make it up are sold or rented.

Limitations to the CLT in favelas

The CLT has many beneficial features to protect the autonomy and affordability of favelas . However, there are key considerations to keep in mind if this option is considered as a policy in Rio. Assuming full ownership (which again, is rare in Rio’s favelas where instead leases are the preferred “titling” option), creating a CLT means giving up some of the autonomy of owning one’s own piece of land. This means some of the transactions that can normally be made with private land are unavailable to people in CLTs. It is important that CLT membership is voluntary and that residents are not forced into this arrangement.

Furthermore, CLTs are very different than traditional land titling methods that are currently more common in favelas. With this growing trend of titling, there is a greater likelihood that a community will already have some residents that have received a lease to their land. For residents who do have individual titles, it is important that they are compensated for their land if the land is incorporated into a CLT.

Article and images re-posted from RioOnWatch. This is the second in a series of three articles summarizing reports on Brazilian housing law, organized by the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice at request of Catalytic Communities.

The second report, summarized in part below, with additional information compiled by Catalytic Communities’ team, was produced by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP. To read the actual report, click here. Full Series: Brazilian Housing Law Memos

The post The Favela as a Community Land Trust: A Solution to Eviction and Gentrification? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Peace vs. Development: The Untold Story of the Colombian Civil War

The Rules — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:00:00 +0000

By Martin Winiecki and Alnoor Ladha, originally published on Truthout.org

San José de Apartadó, Colombia — This is a significant feat, given that it is the leading peace community in Colombia, born in the heart of a civil war between the Colombian government, right-wing paramilitaries and the guerrilla army of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-Ep). Dignitaries from around the country and the globe have gathered in San José de Apartadó, including high-level officials from the United Nations, European ambassadors and heads of international non-governmental organizations like Peace Brigades International. Despite the international awareness of this community among certain circles in the human rights movement, most notably Noam Chomsky’s deep admiration for the community’s work, most people have never heard of San José de Apartadó. A little history might help us better understand why this is the case.

A Peace Community in the Heart of a Civil War

Founded by 1,350 displaced farmers in March 1997, after paramilitaries roamed the region pillaging and massacring, the community came together to protect themselves and their land, declaring themselves neutral in the war. The armed groups made them pay a huge price for this decision, killing more than 200 of their members, including most of their leaders. Almost all victims died by the hands of paramilitary and national armed forces, largely trained by the US government, working in the service of local landowners and multinational corporations.

Despite the horrors they have faced, the members of this community have stood their ground and continue working together bound by a commitment to nonviolence and reconciliation. Eduar Lanchero, one of their late leaders, once said, “The power of the community consists of its ability to transform pain into hope …” With their community, the people of San José have shown other communities in the region and country how to break the vicious victim-perpetrator cycle and to create a self-sufficient community outside the dominant resource extraction economic model that surrounds them. This level of economic autonomy and independence from state influence has been seen as a grave threat to the interests of multinational corporations looking for development opportunities in the region.

Conscious of the larger systemic effects of their resistance, Lanchero further elucidated,

The armed groups aren’t the only ones who kill. It’s the logic behind the whole system. The way people live generates this kind of death. This is why we decided to live in a way that our life generates life. One basic condition, which kept us alive was to not play the game of fear, which was imposed upon us by the murders of the armed forces. We have made our choice. We chose life. Life corrects us and guides us.”

Peace vs. “Development”

Despite international accompaniment through various non-governmental organizations, the persecution of the community has actually increased since the peace deal was signed. According to the February 24, 2017, newsletter of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, the community has faced paramilitary invasion, with their remote hamlets continually occupied, threats that the community remain silent about the atrocities they have been afflicted by or face further retaliation.

As Todd Howland, Colombia representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights told Truthout, “Many claim that now there’s peace, there’s no longer any need for a peace community” and according to sources who wish to remain anonymous for their safety, the state has offered community members money to lure them out of the community. Gloria Cuartas, the former mayor of Apartadó, the municipality governing the region, says, “Parts of the government and multinationals use the cover of apparent peace to manage what they so far haven’t — ending the peace community.”

Why is the Colombian state so worried about a community of peaceful farmers? And is the answer to this question the same reason the story of San José de Apartadó has been so hidden from international media? The Colombian army has been clear on this answer, often stating that the community is in the way of”development.” What do they mean by development? Clearly, they are not referring to peace and human well-being, but rather the standard narrow definition of extractive-based GDP growth.

Edward Goldsmith, one of the fathers of the British environmental movement, reminds us, “Development is just a new word for what Marxists called imperialism and what we can loosely refer to as colonialism — a more familiar and less loaded term.”

For 20 years, the community of San José de Apartadó has been living a working alternative of nonviolent resistance to the brutal agenda of displacement and oppression. It seems to be the imperative of the state to dismantle it so it won’t be replicated or emulated by other communities living through the same struggles across the country.

Ati Quigua, leader of the Arhuaco people, who served as a spokesperson for Colombia’s Indigenous nations in the Havana peace negotiations, mirrors those worries. “They are making ‘peace’ in order to get rid of the guerrillas, so that paramilitaries can take over the countryside, drive out farmers and Indigenous Peoples and carry on with what they call ‘economic development’,” Quigua told Truthout. “This isn’t our peace. We want peace with the Earth. If things don’t change, Colombia is going to face a cultural and ecological genocide.”

The Possibility of Genuine Peace in Colombia

Colombia is a country at the tipping point, at a fragile moment of uncertainty, pregnant with both the prospect of a genuine humane transformation and the imminent danger of a violent backlash that could be even more brutal than the violence of its recent past.

One thing is clear: Peace will only be possible by addressing the root causes of the war. In other words, peace cannot be achieved without changing the rules of the global system that require perpetual exploitation of natural resources for maximum private profit, and therefore, necessitates the displacement of people from their lands.

Communities like San José de Apartadó can serve as living laboratories for the necessary next phase in the Colombian peace process: initiating a process of reconciliation and social peace-building in the country. They can also provide an alternative to traditional Western-led economic development. This is why knowing about this community and its peace work is an important part of creating a post-capitalist future. What better place to start than communities that have fostered reconciliation and resilience in the heart of violence and oppression?

Photo by Fellowship of Reconciliation

The post Peace vs. Development: The Untold Story of the Colombian Civil War appeared first on P2P Foundation.