The post De Besturing – From tenancy to collective ownership appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>De cultural center De Besturing in The Hague found an interesting individual solution. They started paying rent for the free space, and used the accumulated capital as down payment for rebuying the space from the city.
From Cooperative City:
De Besturing was founded in 2006 in an industrial area of The Hague and over the years it has been transformed from a temporary studio complex into a sustainable collective of artists and designers. Initially rented out for free on a temporary basis from the municipality, the community nevertheless collected the rent from tenants, constituting a capital that made possible the building’s purchase in 2017.”
The post De Besturing – From tenancy to collective ownership appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post Errekaleor Bizirik Crowdfund: A Little Light In The Darkness appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>Errekaleor Bizirik is a project based in Gasteiz that is founded on the ideals of self-determination and communal life. It is a neighborhood that we have reclaimed from gentrification and real estate speculation and is now called home by over 150 people.
We organize ourselves using an assembly process, which allows us to build the overarching ideas of the project and to coordinate the many activities that are taking place in the neighborhood. Our project is based on the fundamental principles of self-management (autogestion), food sovereignty, feminism, Basque cultural reinvigoration, horizontal organization, and emancipatory culture. We regularly have concerts, movies, workshops and lectures, art expositions, and much more in order to encourage and create space for free cultural expression in Gasteiz.. All these events take place in the spaces we have built together in the neighborhood, such as a concert hall, theatre, social center, and more.
We have a 5-acre community farm and a bakery where we grow produce and bake sourdough bread, both for ourselves and for individuals who live in other parts of Gasteiz who want to know the true quality of their food. We also have free Basque language classes in our social center and a sports center where anyone can come to play pelota (a traditional Basque sport), participate in our boxing classes, or try out acrobatics. To build ties with other cooperative organizations, we have a printing shop where we create various types of pamphlets and books in collaboration with other organizations in the region.We have built a recording studio for local bands, where they can record for free and not tie themselves to labels or contracts. In Errekaleor Bizirik we have created these spaces, and many more, in order to continue to bring life into an abandoned neighborhood, creating a neighborhood full of life for all.
We are immersed in a system that requires a constant consumption of energy in order to propel constant economic growth. In an era where we have proven ourselves incapable as a society of rejecting fossil fuels, we have also reached the limits of our possible oil production. Peak oil will arrive in the coming decades, and we expect the same for uranium. As climate change effects clearly show, we are nearing the physical and biological limits of the planet, destroying the global ecosystem. The symptoms of this crisis go by many names: the energy crisis, the social crisis, the ecological crisis. But these are just symptoms, and the disease remains the same: capitalism.
In Errekaleor we work towards a different way of living. In a world where things are meant to be thrown away, we have spent four years turning rubble into homes, weed-filled land into gardens, and empty streets into a community. We have done this under the broad banner of self-determination and self-management. Now the time has come for energy sovereignty. Luckily, in Errekaleor the sun always shines! To accomplish this new task, we want to install around 550 solar panels in order to cover the energy needs of our 150 inhabitants, a process that will be accompanied by a large decrease in our consumption of energy overall and the use of alternative systems of refrigeration and water heating. We will do this in our communal way, which is to say that these solar panels will be accessible equally to all residents of Errekaleor Bizirik, and will be accompanied individual and DIY projects such as our new solar showers and bicycle machines that generate extra electricity for our communal living spaces.
This plan is organized to centralize the solar panels in the space that has the most sun, and to equally provide energy to all residents. With this, we will create the largest energy self-sufficient and off-the-grid space in both Basque Country and Europe. We want a renewable and ecologically-friendly neighborhood. We believe in creating a new model for energy independence. Will you help us accomplish our dreams?
Webpage: www.errekaleorbizirik.org
Facebook: Errekaleor Bizirik
Twitter: @Errekaleor – Errekaleor Bizirik
Youtube: Canal Errekaleor Bizirik
Email: [email protected]
The post Errekaleor Bizirik Crowdfund: A Little Light In The Darkness appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post Homes by people appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>WikiHouse Foundation is a non-profit registered in the UK, please donate to support us at http://www.wikihouse.cc/support/
@WikiHouseUK
Supported by Wikihouse Foundation http://www.wikihouse.cc
Production by Dynamichrome http://www.dynamichrome.com
The post Homes by people appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post The Favela as a Community Land Trust: A Solution to Eviction and Gentrification? appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
]]>The post On the Necessity of Transforming the Fictitious Commodities into Commons (1): Land appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>“When looking at real estate prices it is important to remember that rising house prices reflect rising land values, not buildings. Buildings depreciate as they wear out. Their replacement price may increase due to the normal inflation rate, and their value may be maintained by investments in repair and maintenance, but buildings do not increase in value on their own. By contrast, land values are what are subject to rising real prices.
There are three important problems with land as a market commodity. First, periodic booms and busts of land prices due to speculation are extremely disruptive of the economy and cause recessions and massive unemployment. The crash of 1929 was due to an asset bubble including real estate, and it is widely understood that the “sub-prime mortgage crisis”, i.e.; a land bubble, was behind the global financial crisis in 2008, as real estate prices rose to unheard of levels historically, and then crashed.
Second, land prices rise faster than incomes driving average wages to subsistence due to mortgages and rents crowding out other expenditures by average wage earners. Housing costs rise to unaffordable levels, and households respond by putting both partners to work, increasing working hours, or working multiple jobs so they become trapped by debt peonage. Third, rising land values, or the economic rent of land, are generated by society and not by the individual land owner. Therefore society has the right to recapture it. Allowing some members of society to benefit from social progress and leaving others behind is inequitable. So there is a moral component as well, since landowners accumulate capital gains from land while doing nothing to earn them. “Did you ever consider the full meaning of the significant fact that as progress goes on, as population increases and civilisation develops, the one thing that ever increases in value is land?” (George, 1887)
Furthermore, it is a zero-sum game. For every person who makes unearned gains from land someone else must pay. Rising prices and rent benefit land owners, while renters must pay ever increasing rents. These factors sum up the essential problems with the privatization of land rent, and commodification of land.
Treating land as a market commodity destroys consumer welfare, and creates boom-bust economic cycles. For a sustainable economy, land must be removed as a commodity leading to asset bubbles. There are several ways this could be done. Municipalisation, taxation on economic rent of land, and community land trusts. In Singapore, Hong Kong, and formerly in Canberra, Australia all land is owned by the city and leased out on long term contracts such as 99 year leases. Covenants restricting profit on resale would be necessary to avoid turning land into a commodity.
Arnott and Stieglitz sum up another solution to the land problem as follows: “…since a confiscatory tax on land rents is not only efficient, it is also the ‘single tax’ necessary to finance the pure public good” (Arnott and Stieglitz, 1979, p. 471-471). If holding costs are less than the annual capital gains, then financiers will continue to speculate on land and housing. If land tax or capital gains taxes removed the unearned income from real estate, then land would no longer be subject to speculation or bubbles.
Another viable method of removing land from the market is to place land in community land trusts, where land is owned by a non-profit organization, and is leased to homeowners who own the buildings. Limited or shared-return contracts on homes prevent homeowners from capitalizing land prices into their house prices when sold. They are most often used for affordable housing, but can also be used for commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses. These three methods essentially remove land from speculative markets, and remove the distortionary impact of land from markets of all goods and services containing a land component.”
The post On the Necessity of Transforming the Fictitious Commodities into Commons (1): Land appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>