The problem with co-housing from an affordability point of view is they do not separate the land tenure from the house. Therefore there is no way to protect affordability. To participate in such ‘commons’ in Vancouver is expensive. On the north shore a small co-housing condo with only one bedroom goes for over $500,000.

Let me first respond to Roberth. I agree with you, I’m advocated for commons property, i.e. terra comunes, not terra nullius, as the Romans would say. For example, how did we get a breakthrough for the digital commons such as free software and open design … NOT by denying property, or just continuing with public domain production, but by hacking contract law to create the General Public Licenses and other free and open licenses. It is this working with property, that allowed us to create protected common property.

To Michael Lewis: I fully agree that there have to be multiple modalities, including un-alienable land commons that cannot be privatized. In Germany there is this mittglieder common housing, which I believe allows people to leave and get their investment back; this is what I mean. My concern is that is everything is unalienable, such as in CLT’s, then individuals have no recourse against the collective, and can’t leave the collective. Thus, in that context, specific forms of collective property which allow people to retire and invest their ‘contribution’ to another commons, would insure that freedom of choice for individuals.

From my perspective legally robust land ownership by the commons a is vital to where the real balance needs to be achieved, that is, removing the means by which private ownership of land pockets the unearned income that comes from the investment of the community (schools, transit, parks etc). This unearned increment concentrates private gain and excludes community benefit being recognized. Moreover it is a major contributor to wealth concentration and poverty creation, all in the name of the sanctity of private property and the freedom of the individual. Meanwhile in a community like where I live in B.C. the poor go homeless and the middle class can hardly make ends meet because of the appropriation of value through private property rights. My worry is the vagueness of your argument and its assumption of individuals maintaining land ownership that can be contributed and withdrawn from whatever kind of commons you are imagining can unintentionally feed this mentality, one which I know is counter to your values and intent.

Here is my view in a nutshell. We must maximize the reclamation of land out of the private property market and place in a commons which is democratically governed by non-profit stakeholders to achieve social, ecological and economic objectives, for example affordable housing, workspace, access to land from renewable energy and food production. The buildings can be private but they must lease the land, with strict covenants embedded in the terms of the lease to ensure community benefits are realized and the ‘market return’ to, for instance, a home owner, is restricted in a way that is fair but insists on ensuring affordability in perpetuity. In this way we can link commons to a blended ownership model that works for everybody. As you know there are many models that are amply demonstrating the value and efficacy of this approach – conservation easements, community land trust, cooperative land banks etc.