Unfortunately making residents pay for the cost of land erases the
affordability gains made by removing the land value from the equation,
so you aren't really looking at a community land trust as utilised in
The issue of government co-option has largely been tackled in the US
by the three-part Board structure, which was as unfamiliar at the
onset as it is here. Co-option hasn't been too much of a problem with
CLTs yet; however, there have been two fairly large ones (about 10,000
homes each) recently set up with government funds and/or land and the
government, while still agreeing to the three-part Board, have the
final say over the appointment of directors. It remains to be seen
whether that creates any problems. Fairly large CLTs such as Champlain
and Dudley St have government on their Boards, use government funds
and/or have utilised government land without co-option. Dudley
actually steered the City around to accepting their vision as the
formal development guidelines for the area and have power of veto over
development on government land in their area, and yet don't exhibit
the NIMBYism you might then assume.
If you want to do a buy out, those costs ultimately need to be passed
on to residents or other tenants, which to date has proven too
difficult for communities in the US, and often stops intentional
communities or community title developments in their tracks in
Australia as well. One group that has managed to privately fund a
group purchase and then partner with an affordable housing provider is
BEND in Bega, but that was not government land and required a lot of
private philanthropy. They are not set up as a CLT. They are at
Ultimately I think the costs of land require government involvement to
get CLTs to scale, which means the terms of engagement and governance
have to be kept equitable and transparent to avoid domination by any
particular stakeholders. I think better co-operation and communication
between the public and community sectors are a key lesson that can be
taken from the US and UK uses of the CLT model.
I'll email you the lawyer's details.
On Oct 1, 5:59 pm, Leo Foley <fole...@gmail.com
> Thanks, Louise
> I would indeed like to discuss CLT legal structures with the lawyer in
> Please feel free to pass this on, or my contact details, below.
> Don't worry about Champlain at this stage. I'm aware of some of their work,
> but all I'm after is a model where the rent paid for the land by residents
> of the CLT is returned to the government (or other land provider) to
> purchase the land. Sort of like buying via mortgage or even hire-purchase.
> It would seem to be a necessity to arrange to pay back the initial grant
> (land) if the CLT doesn't want government restrictions and bureaucracy - and
> I don't. I think bureaucratic involvement (interference) spells the
> death-knell for any initiative. I've worked in the public service. Without
> going on too much, I understand just how limiting it can be.
> Anyway, for the time being, I'd really appreciate some dialogue with the
> Thanks, Leo
> Leo Foley
> 31 Brushy Creek Rd
> Lenah Valley, Tas 7008
> ph 62 286486
> 0427 286486
> > australian-clt-ne...@googlegroups.com
> > .