Community Land Trust Keeps Prices Affordable - For Now and Forever

[E L Cobb]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM, E L Cobb <elco...@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe that this article, entitled

Community Land Trust Keeps Prices Affordable—For Now And Forever by Daniel Fireside

An agenda that puts people first: Housing

has some practical information that will add some value to LCCH brainstorming...

here's the link to the article:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=2834

cheers, liza
(quiet but not gone)

[Oldefar]

The article is interesting, and the site http://www.yesmagazine.org
offers a wealth of information.

The one aspect that bothers me is the income qualification. I can't
help but think that whenever an income restriction is established, a
class distinction is also established. Of all the reasons I may want
to associate or not with others, their material wealth is the least
important. Since working capital is always a potential barrier,
excluding those with the most access to capital seems counter
productive.

The community land trust (CLT) approach seems to offer some
opportunity as well for the problem of disaster response and
evacuations. Up front, a CLT might be better than zoning and building
codes in disaster preparedness, and in preventing speculators from
driving long term residents out of their homes. The same CLT might
also hold an evacuation destination. By having a specific destination
where a certain amount of personal items waits, with known neighbors
for the duration of the evacuation, much of the stress associated with
evacuating is avoided. When not needed for evacuation, this same
location might support any number of uses that are essentially
"temporary" (recreational, for example) and sufficiently non-essential
that a disruption in use is not significant. This approach also eases
the evacuation itself through shared travel.

[E L Cobb]

your comments give a lot of food for thought.  i especially like what you offer with regard to disaster response.  it makes me think that in days when community was stronger, disaster response *was* community-based, and therefore, probably much more effective, as long as the community remained cohesive.  i'm not exactly sure when the nuclear family came about, but i guess that's when community started going south, as it were...

[Matthew Whiting]

I'd prefer my first post on the group not to be negitive, but I must disagree with the idea that the nuclear family is detrimental to the community (and I hope I just misread the comment).  Community life is not hurt by strong nuclear or extended families in other areas of the world, nor here.  We've lost community in the US because we have cared more about ourselves, our privacy and our independence than we have about others.  There is always lots of discussion about diversity in community, but comm-unity is essentially about unity.  That takes trust and is often perceived as being risky and something to be afraid of.  I would argue that being raised in a strong family makes it easier to trust, and teaches one to courageously unite with others, instead of hide from others out of fear.

 

I certainly agree with the thoughts on disaster response and how both community and land trusts could enhance that.

 

- Matt Whiting

Working on cohousing in Provo, Utah

www.UtahValleyCommons.com

[Sharon Villines]

On Sep 16, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Matthew Whiting wrote:

> We've lost community in the US because we have cared more about
> ourselves, our privacy and our independence than we have about others.

There are other major factors --

1. Vastly increased mobility means people are not neighborhood present
for entertainment or recreation during non-working hours

2. Huge reductions in the number of homemakers. Homemakers built the
neighborhood bonds, cared for children at home, cooked at home so
meals were eaten at home. Entertaining was done at home. With all the
adults working outside the home, the children are at daycare or
school, and meals are more often eaten away from home. Society is less
home based and thus less community based.

3. Smaller families mean less family-based interaction and bonding
because there are far fewer sources of relationships built
incrementally on the primary family relationships,

4. Transience. In early 1990s figures, 10% of households move
annually. Children are less likely to settle near their parents.
"Going home" is not as standard as it was even as recently as the 1950s.

5. Much greater diversity in co-existent cultural values. Immigration
brings very different values side by side. America has always been a
country of immigrants but they are less likely to live in "ghettos".
Increased openness to shared schools and neighborhoods also means the
people next door are much less "Like me" than in the homogeneous
neighborhoods of the past. People form closer bonds with those they
feel are like them. Tolerance and caring are not necessarily
synonymous with feelings of "like family."

6. Greater disparity in education levels within families and
neighborhoods. Education divides as well as brings together. People
have and take the freedom to choose, not inherit religious and
political beliefs, dietary habits, etc. than in the past. This creates
divisions. People use distance to soften the effects.

What cohousing has the promise of doing is to overcome/reverse/
compensate for at least some of these community-negative factors

This is a good topic and I thank you for raising it. It gave me a
chance to think about the reasons why my old neighborhood is no longer
there for me or anyone else.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing,Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org

[Sherman Johnson]

What an excellent post, thank you Sharon!

To say you've obviously put some thought into this subject would be a huge
understatement. You could easily expand on each of your points below and
turn this into a magazine article or even a book.

I plan to respond to Matt's post as well later this afternoon, but now I
don't have to type nearly as much!

Sherman

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

[Sherman Johnson]

Hi Matt,

I'd like to reply your statement, "We've lost community in the US because we

have cared more about ourselves, our privacy and our independence than we
have about others."

Many people in the US enjoy their independence and privacy. This has been
true since before the Revolutionary War, so I would suggest that there is
something else responsible for the loss of community we've experienced.

As for people caring about themselves more than others I think if we're
honest with ourselves we'd admit that is human nature and has always been
the case. It is a rare individual who truly cares more for others than they
do for themselves (with th exception of their children, spouse, and/or close
family members).

It seems to me that some people really value community and interacting with
other people on a regular daily basis, while others prefer to have some
privacy and seclusion. I don't see anything wrong with either.

While there are certainly those who "hide from others out of fear", I think
it's safe to say that most people who choose not to live in a community
simply prefer that way of living.

That said, I do think that American society has been going in the wrong
direction for a while now.

Sherman

----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Whiting
To: low-cost-comm...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:33 PM
Subject: [LCCH] Re: Community Land Trust Keeps Prices Affordable - For Now
and Forever

#####

[Matthew Whiting]

Wonderful Sharon!  Thanks for such a well thought out response.  I'm going to put some comments below your original wording.  I also think these points feed off each other and don't just act by themselves.  It was good to think through this more.

 

-Matt Whiting

>1. Vastly increased mobility means people are not neighborhood-present

>for entertainment or recreation during non-working hours

 

This stretches to vacation time as well.  It's cheap, relatively safe, and easy to travel so we do.  Its even expected in many instances to visit family even if they live long distances away.  This takes time away for maintaining the property as well as the relationships in the community.

 

>2. Huge reductions in the number of homemakers. Homemakers built the
>neighborhood bonds, cared for children at home, cooked at home so
>meals were eaten at home. Entertaining was done at home. With all the
>adults working outside the home, the children are at daycare or
>school, and meals are more often eaten away from home. Society is less
>home based and thus less community based.

 

This could be viewed (as I do) as the break down of the nuclear family contributing to the breakdown of the community.  So much could be said here.  The cost of housing is often a strong force in motivating families to have both parents working outside the home.  I think the point of this list is to look at addressing that issue.  Also, the desire (or even the perceived right) to have a "better life our our parents" and the availability of credit to pretend like we can live a lifestyle that we can't really afford, (although the credit debuncle seems to have caught up with us to some degree).  Homemaker = community-maker seems to me like an appropriate equation.

 

>3. Smaller families mean less family-based interaction and bonding
>because there are far fewer sources of relationships built
>incrementally on the primary family relationships,

 

Less opportunity to learn how to be social - that makes sense to me.  I also thought when reading this that smaller familes also means a greater number of adults-to-children ratio.  I imagine that this has changed the balance of priorities for communities.

 

>4. Transience. In early 1990s figures, 10% of households move
>annually. Children are less likely to settle near their parents.
>"Going home" is not as standard as it was even as recently as the 1950s.

 

Agreed.  I live in a very transient area of town being close to the university.  I think transcience poses many problems to community building, but it also allows us to interact with more people within the community.  If there is a core group in the community who are welcoming of those that are transient then I think the problems of transcience can be overcome and benefits accrued - thinking of the transient as well as the community.  It certainly takes more effort on the part of the core group, but the positive effect of the community is multiplied.  Where transience hurts the most is when people get discouraged and decide not to put in the additional effort to get to know each other - speaking for both for the core group and the transient.

 

>5. Much greater diversity in co-existent cultural values. Immigration
>brings very different values side by side. America has always been a
>country of immigrants but they are less likely to live in "ghettos".
>Increased openness to shared schools and neighborhoods also means the
>people next door are much less "Like me" than in the homogeneous
>neighborhoods of the past. People form closer bonds with those they
>feel are like them. Tolerance and caring are not necessarily
>synonymous with feelings of "like family."

 

I agree this has a large impact.  Creating community could be viewed as creating a very local and specific culture, melding the diversity that exists in the community into a unified culture.  We have far more that makes us similar than that makes us different - it's just hard to remember that when the difference is what is annoying us in the moment.  Also, it's really a skill to look for similarities and patterns, one that maybe we don't practice enough - we certainly don't teach it enough.  I certainly need to do better at this in my current neighborhood.

 

>6. Greater disparity in education levels within families and
>neighborhoods. Education divides as well as brings together. People
>have and take the freedom to choose, not inherit religious and
>political beliefs, dietary habits, etc. than in the past. This creates
>divisions. People use distance to soften the effects.

 

In this context this was a new thought to me but it rings true.  I usually have thought of this in terms of religon, being an active Mormon now living in UT, but not having grown up here.  When someone decideds, for whatever reasons, to not take part in the church, they remove themselves from a "community," (by not attending church on Sunday, participating in socials, including meals sometimes, etc).  Speaking for myself, this creates discomfort in interacting with that person unless (or until) I talk with them about it.  Once we both know we understand each other most of that discomfort disolves, though certainly not all.  My observation is that not many people make the effort to address the discomfort so it persists and over time increases.  Possibily religon holds the largest sway in this area as it influences the values and perceptions so much, but certainly the areas of politics, diet, environment, health care, etc would also be prominent depending upon how strongly held the beliefs are.