“On Common Ground”: Valuable Lessons for CLT practitioners
Author: Connor Nakamura
On Common Ground is a recently published book edited by John Emmeus Davis, Line Algoed, and María E. Hernández-Torrales. A collection of essays written by various community land trust (CLT) practitioners and experts from around the world, the essays covers five main areas: bright ideas, national networks, CLTs in the Global South, urban applications, and critical perspectives. The essays within these broad categories cover the historical roots of CLTs, the “classic model,” innovative policy methods, and much more.
The Bay Area is one of the most dynamic metropolitan regions in the world, and CLTs here face a wide array of obstacles around land stewardship. Through On Common Ground, Bay Area CLT practitioners can gain a fuller perspective on policy and organizational solutions drawing from experiences around the world. The broad description of CLTs at the beginning is a great resource for us to compare our CLTs with the “classic model,” while keeping an open mind to some of the alternative structures that may better serve our region. The chapters covering the historical roots of CLTs remind us of their radical and self-sufficient origins. Also, as On Common Ground, is an international assessment of CLTs, can learn from many of the perspectives from outside of the US. From Puerto Rico, we can draw from their successful employment of grassroots activism and community forums in order to further the CLT movement. And from Brussels, we can model our education programs after their ambitious “project groups,” where potential residents attend workshops and dialogues before joining a collective. The American examples are just as relevant. The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative exemplifies the community control aspect of CLTs, while the Champlain Housing Trust paints an ambitious picture of the CLT as a primary source of affordable housing. Lastly, we can learn how to strive for a financially independent CLT through the essay “Community Control of Land.”
The collection of essays is grounded in the history and origins of CLTs. Yves Cabannes and Philip Ross write about the CLT’s connection to the “Garden City” movement. These planned communities combined community leadership, environmentally friendly design, and self-sufficiency. “The Garden City owns itself [...] The Garden City was not to be a charity or something held benignly in trust; it was to have community ownership.” The legacy of the first CLT, New Communities Inc, is also emphasized where African-American activists sought to gain community access to farmland in order to protect their political and economic independence. The egalitarian and racial justice origins of CLTs should inform our work today, as economic justice and community access is still extremely relevant.
One of the central case studies presented in the collection is the Caño Martín Peña CLT, established in the Martín Peña region near San Juan to serve the residents of informal settlements. This region was experiencing rapid increases and decreases in value due to the combination of austerity programs and natural disasters, which caused many residents to seek stewardship options. Additionally, the Martín Peña Channel was polluted, and residents were worried that the renewal projects would attract speculators.
Residents voiced these concerns around gentrification to an urban planner, and “from 2002 to 2004, more than 700 participatory planning, action, and reflection activities were held in the Martin Pena communities.” Through the community’s activism, this typical redevelopment project became the ENLACE Caño Martín Peña Project, a locally-led organization that would democratically decide the region’s future. After residents heard about the benefits of each type of land stewardship, they decided on CLTs because it aligned with their interests in individual surface titles, but with the democratic governance of the whole community through a special planning district. While the Bay Area has a different housing context than Puerto Rico, there are valuable lessons we can learn from Caño CLT’s use of government support, and community activism.
On the other side of the world, Brussels was in a very different housing crisis, where residents did not have enough government-subsidized social housing to meet their needs. Local efforts led to the creation of Community Land Trust Brussels, which has a unique focus on the community aspect of CLTs. When launching a project, “futures residents are selected from the waiting list and brought together in a ‘project group.’” In this group, they learn about community obligations, building architecture, finances, and more. This preparatory “project group” is an ambitious model for CLTs, but it ensures a sustained commitment and shared knowledge of decommodified housing.
Another innovative use of CLTs is urban farming, which has recently become popular among individual organizations. Authors Nate Ela and Greg Rosenburg suggest the “central server” method, where “a central entity [...] would provide a variety of technical services including accounting, development and real estate transactions” in a specifically urban farming context. This “central server” would facilitate the development of urban farming and possibly commercial properties, while taking the burden off of housing-focused CLTs,
All the examples of American CLTs are very useful to CLT practitioners. The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in Boston used eminent domain to gain access to vacant land. A movement initially centered around illegal dumping, DSNI was transformed by activists into a community project where residents gained community control of affordable homes, parks, playgrounds, community spaces, and more. Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont, promoted many innovative policy methods that greatly influence urban CLTs today. For instance, Mayor Bernie Sanders established the CLT as an NGO, in order to secure exclusive sources of funding for projects, and protect it from changes in city administration. Because of its status as an NGO, they were able to independently lead efforts to prevent the defunding of the organization under a Republican mayor. In 2005, the CLT entered into a merger with the Lake Champlain Housing Development Corporation, adding many members under their classic tripartite governance structure.
One of the most potent essays was “Community Control of Land: Thinking Beyond the Generic Community Land Trust.” The author, Olvia R. Williams, ties back the mission of CLTs to the original outline of New Communities Inc. which included plans not only for agricultural land and housing but also cooperative businesses and entire new villages.
Williams believes that nowadays, in contrast to New Communities Inc, CLTs are mainly being promoted as an “economically efficient affordable housing strategy” instead of a radical form of stewardship. She states: “The dependence of CLTs on external institutional sources of funding can make the goals of community control and non-housing development difficult to achieve, since foundation and government funders tend to be most interested in encouraging CLTs to develop housing as quickly as possible. [...] To radically change the way decisions are made about what we want our neighborhoods to be – and to create and maintain community-owned institutions and common amenities that are accessible – community land movements must look beyond the most common, generic ways that the CLT model is being operated, funded, and applied, seeking more independence from external funders.”
Williams provides two examples of organizations that are attempting to reduce their reliance on external money: East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative and the Ecovillagers Alliance in Pennsylvania. Both are models where “non-resident members (and tenants) can invest in property that will still prioritize resident control of development.” No matter how much money a tenant invests, they have the same voting power. And in turn, non-resident members have limited voting power compared to residents. A related financing method has been utilized by OakCLT where they have been partnering with local organizations to acquire community-financed sites, thus building up relationships with the community and reducing reliance on grant and government funding.
In all, On Common Ground presents a comprehensive view of the international CLT movement, providing diverse solutions that arose out of diverse situations. CLT practitioners in the Bay Area must be ambitious with policy, resident governance, and financial sustainability, drawing upon these experiences of CLTs around the world. Many of the most successful and widely adopted CLTs were also on the cutting edge of forging relationships between communities, local government, and NGOs. We must remain grounded in the contemporary CLT movement and its historical roots, while also adapting to changing urban landscapes.