Author: Philippe de Gaspe Beaubien

I found in the article by Bill Weinberg extremely interesting and very telling of an anarchist punk’s take on communal empowerment through a peaceful economic and political revolution. His ideas of collective organization stem from a distaste of external/occupying forces and trends influencing the value placed upon development and the subsequent shape a community takes. Though not solely based around economic tools of extraction (markets) or organized crime this distaste for external power structures is channeled towards all forms of the top-down civic administration which limits true communal empowerment.
This removal or rather a refusal of exterior urban infrastructure though incredibly badass in its revolutionary spirit puts the otis of maintaining an independent collective of individuals on the resident’s ability to fight off self-interested predatory parties. This is done through the legitimization of the community, not through the begging the city from a place of weakness, the ‘defanged community board 3’, but rather it must come from a revolutionary communal board. Bull Refers to the organization of the community to be representative of the popular opinion of residents and not token sentiments of understanding in the face of constant private interests.
Stemming from local neighborhood meetings “the Popular community board’ will exist as a tool of democratic chaos using resident’s votes to create a narrative separating the Lower Eastside into an autonomous zone dubbed LESAZ. The extreme revolutionary spirit found within this LESAZ manifesto pays tribute to the background of the area of protest and revolution, though in contemporary markets such actions may be detrimental
When discussing the presence of external economic actors, I complete agreeing with Bill’s opinions that they would need to rely on the taxing of large economic figures such as corporations for support. Though to seek to revolutionize the taxing systems of one of the most valued systems of private development in the world may prove to take much longer than feasible for a ‘revolutionary’ transition. This coupled with the innate distaste for any external influence top-down systems project onto the community, aesthetically or economically, adds to the list of strong enemies, or lack of wealthy allies. As I highly doubt there would be a violent extraction of Mcdonalds and corporations like it, the removing of uncharacteristic’ behemoths may be more effort than its worth. The litigious fees as well should corporations such as McDonald’s chose to fight a forced removal would be enough to cripple early economic markets severely. This lack of strong financial support safe would not be conducive in maintaining self-sufficiency especially in the expertise and labor that would be required. These strong ideologies would, in fact, lead to the alienation of many New York Institutions in their survival perhaps evolve them but without a doubt end many of the jobs and systems of individual economic participation today. I would be interested in supporting such a community though for an agrarian sustain revolution in New York City doesn’t seem to be economically feasible in the way Copper Square Land trust has historically created a means in which to balancing its economic survival with growth and not separation.
Though I agree entirely the idea of converting vacant lots to agricultural centers and employing residents for maintenance I’m concerned with the prioritize notions of agriculture as the preferred tool for economic empowerment.
We saw on the tour from Bill that though many of the communal Gardens are under the administration and governance of the Parks Department, they are in fact the results of historical and continued community engagement, participation, and democracy. Through these parks, I agree that there exists a plethora of economic potential and possibilities but not to fight the system but to grow within it.

Personally, I worry that this plan seems to value the economic independence that an agrarian revolution can offer vs. arguably the real strength of gardens, the strengthening of the neighborhood’s physical and social environment.

In this week’s readings, we saw the potential of community focus towards residential empowerment and long term affordability through CLT’s, contrary to traditional narratives of personal ownership and economic development. Community land trusts differ from historical land trusts as they focus not solely on the conservation and protection of the land but actively promoting affordability and continued communal ownership/responsibility. In many ways, CLT’s function through shared equity while maintaining control on the value and growth of said equity for the continued sustenance of its residents. Karen A. Gray in “Community Land Trusts in the United States, refers to how commonly CLTs can be misjudged as Non-governmental organizations or corporations due to their alternative approaches and prioritizing of their stakeholder’s needs. However, in terms of the sustainability and productivity of such a model at scale, The example of Cooper Square trust offers valuable insight into the foundations necessary for conscious and sustained development.

Seemingly Harkening to the commonality of land and Ownership discussed earlier by Henry George, CLTs seem to treat property through collective forms of value. Though I’m sure, their often tax-exempt status aided in continuing such a philosophy. The classic models of CLT’s focus on united self-governance promoting a collective responsibility to the maintenance and use of the communal land. The notions brought up in in the ‘classic tenants’ p of CLT’s seem to resemble the George Caffentzis and Silvia Federici article on how communal ownership and governance can function counter to the market in securing sustainable housing.

Throughout the reading, I found myself increasingly interested in the model of the CLT as a means to engage in positive communal growth through ownership and value. However, I saw concern with how such a system would function at scale, operating in contrast to competitive markets, the model itself requires a cornucopia of government, financial, and public support. Without the assured stability and protection from predatory capital systems, as the case with Cooper Square Trust, many of these organizations may fall prey to the danger of prioritizing expansionary economic practices in hopes of providing greater affordability at scale. As the Karen A grey article points out on p.69-70 from (Davis,2004)
“This tripartite boards leaves two-thirds of the control with residents; (9) CLTs are committed to expanding their acquisitions, thereby increasing their community development role; (10) While affordable housing is the most common community development tool of CLTs, they are flexible enough to promote other forms of community development such as providing sites for neighborhood businesses, social services, and community gardens.”

Though unlike CDC’s which seemed to maximize value as forms of communal profit, CLT’s seem to fall in line with a standard ‘Trust.’ Its goals to focus on the development of the community as a means of maximizing persistent affordable engagement. Though some of the tenants of the “basic CLT Model”(p.69) seem hilariously Roman in their reference to a tripartite government and expansionary market practices. Their willingness to invest in alternative forms of development through business and social services could hold complications with its current NGO tax status. At scale, it seems that without a greater philosophical and or political revolution, the responsibility and power of creating a large CLT in a contemporary urban environment would inevitably conflict with goals of the surrounding political and economic markets. Though CLT’s hold a unique tripartite board in regards to discussing creating an open dialogue to resolve issues that could arise between internal and external stakeholders, they lack impartiality in prioritizing the ‘common good’ of their tenants vs. some of the private interest that would inevitably be steamrollered in utilitarian property management, ironically much like a would be the Roman empire of old the majority of bureaucratic say would fall upon the residents of CLT, further enforcing a divide between tenants and market stakeholders.

Perhaps in a Capitalist dystopian Herngy George inspired nightmare Large CLT’s roam the free market bringing all private landowners into a hegemonic system of land valuation and supplying affordable housing too all in demand! Unfortunately, as we see contextually, CLT’s have been unable to compete within competitive housing markets and so have largely been ignored in mainstream conversations on the housing issue. Though seemingly political CLT offers a unique alternative to contemporary deficient markets and should be once again looked at by state actors as a viable means of continued protection and empowerment for and residential communities.