Month: April 2019

In Community Land Trusts in the United States, Karen A. Gray describes the community land trust, a form of affordable housing for low-to-moderate income people facilitated by community ownership of land. In a classic Community Land Trust scenario, a low-income person or family will join the trust before purchainsc a house from the CLT while also leasing the land on which it stands. To avoid falling prey to the pitfalls of absentee landlords, “members must live in the houses, but may sell the home back to the CLT or to another low-income house” (Gray 69). For Gray, community land trusts differ from private property principally in that they bypass capitalist processes that seek to maximize profit above all else. As she puts it, “the key difference between these nonprofit developers and for-profit developers is the initial and perpetual affordability; for third-sector housing organizations, perpetual affordability is central to their work” (Gray 67.) Where for-profit developers must obviously consider profitability when designing affordable housers, the developers of community land trusts can focus solely on providing their communities with sustainable models of affordable housing.

The root of this distinction lies in the United States’ historic relationship with private property. Community trusts are innovative precisely because the concept of collective-owned land is so foreign to American society. Gray relates the American preoccupation with private property to capitalism’s emphasis on the individual: “The primary responsibility of the CLT membership organization is the community, not the individual homeowner, which is also a radical notion most Americans. The CLT must balance the need of he homeowner’s real estate investment with the need of the CLT to provide affordable homes for future residents” (Gray 69). If the concept of the Community Land Trust appears revolutionary, or even radical, to some, it is because it departs from an individualist approach central to the American ethos.

Nonetheless, Gray does not demand that the reader consider the Community Land Trust with rose-colored glasses. She discusses the aforementioned advantages of the Community Land Trust– it eliminates the greed-motivated evils of speculation, benefits the community at large rather than the individual homeowner as sole beneficiary by “growing the pie,” and also allows CLT homeowners to participate in and enjoy the distinctly American pride in home owning, “a symbol of ‘making it'”–but not without also acknowledging the model’s disadvantages (Gray 74). Interestingly, these disadvantages are largely philosophical, and return to that same American preoccupation with individualism. She refers to a 1996 study that indicates that “even community members and residents who initially seem to understand and agree with CLT’s philosophies still required reminding” (Gray 74). Moreover, although CLT’s can provide homeowners with a Western symbol of prestige that has far-reaching consequences (homeowners generally describe themselves as happier than non-renters and homeowner’s children are less likely to drop out of school and become teenage parents), Gray concedes that CLT’s do not fulfill all of an individual’s desires for home-ownership. “For example,” she elaborates, “many Americans use homeownership as a wealth generation vehicle and CLT’s limit this for their homeowners” (75). By not participating in the United States’ obsession with and reliance on private property, Community Land Trusts limit an individual’s ability to participate in the American Dream by pursuing conventional avenues dependent on concepts of private property.

Evidently, an examination of the comparative advantages of disadvantages of Community Land Trusts points to a larger problem of how to address a single issue (in this case, affordable housing) while working within a system of beliefs antagonistic to the resolution of that issue. Community Land Trusts are a bandaid solution, rather than a systemic overturn of Americans’ relationship to property. I was particularly struck by the disadvantages which concerned the individual motivations of the homeowner. Even for those who seek and benefit from affordable housing and community land trusts can find themselves struggling to confront their own deep-seated preoccupation with the individual, rather than the communal. I was reminded while reading this of a striking experience I had while staying overnight on a kibbutz. The residents of the kibbutz asked everyone present to label a sheet of paper with various concentric circles radiating out from the center. The innermost center was to represent our foremost concern, with the outer circles depicting our more peripheral concerns. Nearly every American placed themselves or their family at the center of the circle, whereas all of the residents of the kibbutz, including the children, placed the kibbutz itself at the innermost circle. It is difficult to acknowledge just how deeply American individualism and its historical relationship with private property has determined our conceptualization of the world, but the kibbutz experiment reminded me that a me-first attitude is not the natural human way to be, nor is it impossible to shake.

The interest of community land trusts in the Unites States appear to provide many under-served, marginal groups with a reprieve from the constant pressures of mere survival. At its best, community land trusts are supposed to empower members of the community by preserving affordable housing, through rental or ownership, thus relieving many households of exposure to at market housing rates, unaccessible loan terms, and homelessness. At its worst, these partnerships can be maintained at high operating costs born both by the City and the renters, with the owners using invariably low costs to increase his or her return as the property is sold at a high market rate. While a spectrum of possibilities exist for how CLTs can manifest, these questions remain: Why are there so few CLTs in existence? Why isn’t there a greater push towards adopting the CLT model in other metropolitan areas?

Tom Angotti presents a number of potential reasons why CLTs have had varied degrees of success in a given area. Many conditions apply to the preservation of affordable housing in a given community, Angotti cites a number of them. Primarily, a community’s predisposition to single-family homeownership versus multi-family leases provided a great consideration for the purpose of a CLT. If a population was more inclined to single-family dwellings, as is the case in Burlington, VT, providing resources for low-income homeownership seems to be the greatest opportunity to remedy plight beset by the community. However, in the case of Cooper Square, the densely populated Lower East Side created conditions under which renting was the only option, as many community members were accustomed to living in multi-family buildings and did not have the means to satisfy mortgage minimums. Additionally, many families at risk of being displaced by city intervention were historically excluded from the existing low-income co-op buildings once championed by the labor unions. Therefore, the purpose of the Cooper Square CLT lay not in subsidizing homeownership but in providing below-market housing to community members in need, indefinitely. 

Learning from unintended consequences of previous partnerships between the city and shared-equity co-ops, the Cooper Square CLT was born out of a resistance to land banking by those who opted to sell their property to at-market buyers during times of speculation or development. This process generated immense wealth for many previously impoverished community members, and the programs that supported it had forsaken intentions to preserve affordable housing(in perpetuity). By concentrating its efforts on rental opportunities, the Cooper Square CLT removes a layer where speculative incentive entices owners into selling because it places a ceiling on rent born by households. Angotti believes this model to be superior for other densely-populated metropolitan areas because it releases the pressure of exorbitant housing costs by keeping the rent prices well below market. In theory with lower housing costs, members of this community will have greater access to disposable income, which will consequently be recycled within the community. This ideal closed loop is an intended consequence of rental-based CLTs. Additionally unlike other CLTs that rely heavily on government subsidies to balance development and operating costs, the Cooper Square CLT limits its exposure to government subsidies or integrates loan repayment into its structure. This narrowed relationship between the city and the CLT lends itself to being a relatively better investment for the city (opposed to ownership-based CLTs), thus can and should be used as a successful example of socially controlled land in the interest of preserving affordable housing in densely packed metropolitan city (where a great proportion of the low-income community rents). Hopefully, in the age of rampant and aggressive gentrification, community members can rally themselves together as in the case of Cooper Square to delineate safe haven boundaries. As affordable housing continues to disappear as if it was never there in the first place, CLTs offer a means for a community to mobilize against corporate community renewal and exert their own control over their space. What are the barriers for entry for CLTs? And how can we get other communities on board?

Two things stood out to me in the Angotti/Jagu and Gray texts, one being the fact that I’m still working through how exactly a CLT is maintained financially over time, the other being the biases and debates surrounding the pros and cons of homeownership versus ‘rentership’. Before delving into these topics further, I will summarize the concept behind a Community Land Trust as I understand it: Residential buildings for low income families and individuals owned by a mutual housing organization or cooperative (nonprofit and tax exempt organizations) which tenants control democratically. By various means, CLTs are able to keep the rent affordable, and aim to maintain a low cost of living indefinitely.

The why is fairly clear to me: Mainly, CLTs limit the increasing value of property, which allows low income families to afford housing and stabilizes neighborhoods against the threat of speculative development and gentrification. Not only does this give low-income families a place to live, it also gives them an opportunity to save capital and hopefully exit poverty. The how is a little more complicated. To maintain perpetual affordability, as is the goal of most CLTs, sounds like a nearly impossible task in a location like the Lower East Side. Here is the information I’ve gathered as to methodology: The buildings are often bought for a lower price after being abandoned (rehabilitation), then many rely heavily on subsidies from the government to fund development (this can benefit the government as it limits the need for future subsidies). In the case of the Cooper Square, the developer does not have any land or finance costs, and doesn’t need substantial public subsidies to operate–the rent is so low that most tenants don’t require “Section 8 Vouchers” from the government (part of the federal government’s program for assisting low income families). Therefore most of the few subsidies received by the Cooper Square CLT are through property tax abatements.

Both readings address notions around homeownership and renting. Agnotti acknowledges the ways in which homeownership has been framed as more desirable than renting since the Reagan era; homeownership is a priority of public policy over constructing low income rental housing. Angotti and Gray both acknowledge the mythology around homeownership, citing ideologies such as that homeownership is the “panacea for all urban ills” (Angotti). Gray writes that “Hypothetically, homeownership promotes wealth accumulation, property maintenance, and neighborhood stability and participation,” to which she responds, “however, there are few empirical studies to support these claims.” Renting has historically been portrayed as something for the poor, owning a home as a sign that one has “made it,” despite the fact as Angotti notes that most expensive properties on the Upper East Side are rented. The Cooper Square CLT stresses the benefits of renting for low income families, stating that homeownership, regardless of its possible benefits, is often inaccessible. Gray stresses the idea of renting in a CLT as a means to homeownership, once enough capital is saved, as she acknowledges the known psychological benefits of homeownership including increased happiness and a lower risk of a child dropping out of school or teen pregnancy. The Cooper Square seems to advertise itself as a long-term rental situation, and I wasn’t able to immediately decipher whether/how it also encourages a financial journey to eventual homeownership.

Additionally, Angotti writes that “by producing more housing in multifamily buildings CLTs can achieve economies of scale.” The phrase “economy of scale” refers to the concept in which proportionate savings are gained through an increase in production (I had to look that one up). Because CLT’s help limit speculative development, in theory they limit increases in property value. If housing costs are in relation to the income of the tenants and not in relation to the market at large, does this mean that to maintain economies of scale CLTs have to continuously expand to keep up with the market? And if so, is this actually viable in a place like NYC for the long term? I could really use an economics-informed friend to tell me if I’m on the right track here.

A Community land trust is a model with the foundational purpose of creating affordable housing for low to moderate income people through community ownership of the land. It was a concept that I was entirely unfamiliar with prior to this week’s readings, and one that is of particular relevance to people in NYC’s Lower East Side and San Francisco Bay Area, where prices of homes and rents have exponentially increased in the last few years, leaving many unable to afford housing in the area. Yet aside from these two notorious locations, a similar scenario is also increasingly playing out across the country, leaving many people priced out of the housing market where they live.  The Community Land Trust is a vehicle created to address this imbalance, and will play an ever-increasing role in the years to come. As Karen Gray made clear in her piece, Community Land Trusts in the United States, “nearly half of the current CLTs started in this century… [and] the number of CLTs has grown most rapidly in the last decade.”

Community Land Trusts are a manifestation of a mindset that stands in stark opposition to the unquenchable thirst for money & profit that dictate the lives of many in our current capitalistic economy. CLT’s place limits on people greed and ability to achieve colossal profits, in favor of the welfare of the people in the community and the environment. This innovative land ownership model replaces greed, corruption, and selfishness, with compassion, equality, and security.

The now fabled American founding father Thomas Paine, in his 1797 pamphlet Agrarian Justice, asserted that the land itself belongs to everyone, that it is the common property of the human race. The Earth, Paine argued, “in its natural uncultivated state…was the common property of the human race”. Yet, the notion of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, which made it impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. To this Paine proposed a detailed plan to tax land owners once per generation to pay for the needs of those who have no land. The resulting “National Fund” would fund universal old-age and disability pensions, as well as provide a fixed sum to all citizens upon reaching the age of 21. To Paine, private property was necessary, yet he also acknowledged that at the same time that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their “payment” to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.

Thomas Paine’s late 18^th century Agrarian Justice underlines many of the modern discussions in countries around the implementation of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). The UBI is the idea that the government would provide every citizen regular payments in order to cover their basic needs, such as food, water, and shelter. The call for such a movement has emerged in response to the growing notion that “work” has monopolized so many aspects of human existence, the inability of many to acquire employment and/or physically perform labor, ever-rising rents, and the overarching threat of automation.  

Concepts such as Community Land Trusts and the Universal Basic Income are ideas that seemingly hold a much more permanent place in the horizon of humankind, promising to change the how society as we know it functions. With compassion at the center, these movements have the opportunity to bring about unparalleled positive change for both the Earth and humanity.

 

In Karen A. Gray’s text, Community Land Trust in the United States, I was fascinated by the concept of community land trust. This fascination stems from the connotations of what CLTs exemplifies regarding the mentality of people, as well as the role of government in resolving the affordable housing crisis.

In this text, Gray states that “Through that work, they [the community] started a school, daycare center, a hospitality house, and other projects, and over the years they realized that housing was a serious need. The housing need led them to form the CLT.” (Karen Gray, 72). This line reminded me of the trip taken to the Museum of Reclaimed Urban Space where the tour provided and expressed the initiative of the people within the area when faced with housing hardships. This ‘do it ourselves’ attitude demonstrates the ability of people to come together and tackle problems that otherwise would go unsolved. However, what is essential at the root of communities that need to act can be summed up in lacking actions from the government. By failing to expediently tackle problems, the government presents only two options for the community to choose from: either continue with the way things are or take action to alter the status quo. Ultimately when things are as dire as it is, people would finally choose the latter option.

Despite the government not playing the expedient problem-solver role as many would desire, they too cannot be characterized as the villain of this situation. Both the people, as well as the government, want to resolve this issue. As Gray states, “The number of CLTs have grown most rapidly in the last decade in part due to support from government entities.” (Karen Gray, 73). Government is indeed trying to play its part in mediating the problem while generating solutions; however, the root of the affordable housing crisis is the problem that the government must tackle. Community land trusts are a “…innovative form of community development.” (Karen Gray, 73), that act as a band-aid to the problem of some people having an inability to afford to house themselves. The government can support CLTs goals; however they must not place a heavy emphasis on CLTs being a solution, rather its true nature is only just a remedy. Gray states it best when she writes, “…CLTs have been criticized for focusing on small solutions to affordable housing rather than structural changes such as federal housing policies… Private-sector models cannot become the only providers of affordable housing.”  (Karen Gray, 74). Solutions to massive scale problems can be lessened by the involvement of the private sector; however, the government must take part in providing a framework towards the end goal solutions.

CLTs do provide an alternative to the default framework of how the real estate market operates, however in the very end the housing crisis cannot be stopped. “…housing costs are skyrocketing because of economic growth and the influx of high-paid labor.” (Karen Gray, 72) However, this would never change. The economy will always grow, and the demand for high-paid labor would be too. In my opinion to solve the housing crisis would ultimately not require the elevation of those in poverty into not a higher class. Instead, it requires those in the poverty class to be supported by the government in the sense of preventing natural poverty. There must be protections established to brace against falling behind with economic development, in the sense of inflation, as well as other factors that make the poor poorer.

 

 

 

 

In “Defending the Cross-Subsidy Plan: The Tortoise Wins Again,” Janet Abu-Lughod writes, “In the East Village, although properties were too downscale to warrant private auctions and many residents were already so marginal to the economy that it collapse left them relatively unaffected, the wind was definitely out of gentrifiers’ sails” (314). I find the use of “sails” interesting and worthy of unpacking. When I read “sails,” I immediately thought that Abu-Lughod attempted to convey that gentrifiers go with the waves. But that idea was quickly dispelled once I discerned that gentrifiers are not solely new residents; they can also by city planners and real estate companies. I then concluded that gentrifiers flow from place to place. The person steering the boat is the gentrifier, the wind is the market and the boat/wind/waves/water is gentrification—they system that the gentrifier works/participates within.

The East Village underwent a massive transformation, which produced mixed results. Although the area was “improved,” there was displacement. The question I ask then is who is the city for and who can claim certain places? In “New City, New Frontier: the Lower East Side as wild, wild West,” Neil Smith describes the way West of 42nd street was “tamed,” “domesticated,” and “polished.” The real-estate industry is pinned as the impetus of such development. Abu-Lughod would argue that the best way to combat such development would be to mobilize people by getting them mad. If people do not recognize “urban scouts” (who are hired by the real-estate industry) searching for their next targets before they attack, then the attack, which is the buying up of land, displacement, and flipping homes, would be difficult to fight off. This reminds me of when I attended the “A Livable New York: The Future of Community Green Space and Affordable Housing.” In the talk, Alicia Boyd encouraged the audience members to get mad, which, at the time, I thought was not the best way to approach the situation surrounding the Elizabeth Street Garden. Now, though, I believe getting mad is a prerequisite for organizing and resisting gentrification. For example, after JPC activists were able to organize people by getting them mad, they dedicated themselves to creating alternative plans for city-owned properties and politicking at City Hall (321). I wonder if there were substantially more people at Tompkins Square Park if the city would have failed in “improving” the park. The park was the site of the first major anti-gentrification struggle and served as a “liberated space.” How far are people willing to go to fight for space? The Tompkins Square Park activists were pushed out through blunt police force and warded off when rat poison was sprayed. Are people willing to put their bodies on the line? Become a martyr? As a New Yorker, I don’t know if I can participate in such activism, which is vital to fighting gentrification. Everyone has mixed reactions to gentrification and once brought up, would lead to intense debates. The East Village has been fighting gentrification for years and although they have made great strides, are they just fighting against the inevitable?