Community Land Trusts (CLTs)
(All research comes from websites that are proponents of Community Land Trusts)
Community Land Trusts defined
The National Community Land Trust Network describes a Community Land Trust (CLT) this way: “Community land trusts (CLTs) are set up and run by ordinary people to develop and manage homes as well as other assets important to that community, like community enterprises, food growing or workspaces. CLTs act as long-term stewards of housing, ensuring that it remains genuinely affordable, based on what people actually earn in their area, not just for now but for every future occupier. “
Community land trusts (CLTs) are nonprofit, community-controlled corporations that take land out of the private real estate market permanently and steward it for community interests. “We can understand community land trusts as both a mechanism to remove land from the speculative marketplace so as to have communities decide what to do with the land,” said Monxo López, and “as a mechanism that fosters transparency, accountability, and democratic participation in the way that the community decides what to do with their assets and the land.”
According to an article in Shelterforce – “The Original Voice of Community Development”, (be sure to read who wrote this and their backgrounds at the bottom of the article): Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are traditionally private nonprofits that hold land in trust to provide affordable housing and other community assets in perpetuity. The “classic” CLT has a corporate community membership and a balanced board structure composed of lessees, dues-paying community members, and public representatives. Established in the late ‘60s, CLTs are an effective tool to gain community control of land in order to address community needs. To date, there are roughly 225 CLTs in 46 states.
“In perpetuity” means “forever”, and the designation of the land can never be changed. So if the land was needed for a better use at some point in the future, it couldn’t happen. It essentially removes the land from its possible “highest and best use” by second-guessing what will happen 20 – 50 – 100 years from now.
The article further states, “What sets CLTs apart from other nonprofits conducting or supporting mindful development, however, is their steadfast commitment to ensuring that the land held in trust remains a lasting community asset and that any homes on the land held in trust remain affordable permanently through lasting affordability controls and shared equity homeownership models.”…”Ultimately, CLTs are often interested in being the recipient of donated land from a local government because it decreases their costs for creating lasting community assets.”
A Brief History:
According to neighborworks.org, the history of community land trusts date back to 1969 when a 5,000 acre farm in rural Georgia was designed to ensure African-American farmers could farm land securely and affordably. The project’s founders drew upon the models of existing planned communities, including Gramdan village in India and moshav and kibbutz communities in Israel. These communities focused on communal ownership or labor. During the Gramdan movement, a village would “donate” itself to the society as a whole. The private ownership over land ceases to exist, with villagers working together according to ability and sharing in resources according to need. (Note: The statement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, was attributed to Karl Marx, and was common within the socialist/communist and Marxist movements. The idea is a “utopian” society.
In a utopian society:
- Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
- Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.
Today, this utopian idea is being promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF). The WEF has become an outreach of the United Nations. One solution put forward about housing is “Partnerships between community land trusts, which own and steward land on behalf of a community, and municipal land banks, which acquire vacant land and prepare it for development. “
Further Insights into CLTs
An article titled “The Transformative Vision of Community Land Trusts” reflects the end goal of creating CLTs:
“While CLTs provide a model for a non-capitalist approach to stewarding land, there are real challenges in reaching scale when faced with the pressures of the existing market. Redefining property rights ultimately would require amendments to the Constitution. It’s a distant goal, but one that can help us situate our individual projects within a larger political vision, that makes the logic of CLTs the norm instead of an exception.
“In trying to build economic democracy and a long-term alternative to capitalism, we seek to use CLTs as an example of community-controlled land development, while simultaneously building political power to democratize public land use and planning. Elected neighborhood councils and efforts to allow residents to vote on development projects build infrastructure for replacing markets mechanisms with democratic processes to allocate land. An evolution from current capitalist property relations should make participation in local land and natural resource planning a regular part of a new civic life.”
According to “On Common Ground: International Perspectives on the Community Land Trust, “On Common Ground comes out amidst a push for “social housing” by DSA chapters across the nation. Social housing is run by the government. And unlike CLT’s or traditional nonprofit housing development corporations, social housing is not “community based.” In the traditional CLT model residents have a say in running their building, which is a more “democratic socialist” model than social housing provides.”
An article at Urban Omnibus discusses property ownership versus community land trusts (and they are in favor of the land trusts):
“Property ownership is a deeply held national ideal, and homeownership is the backbone of the American Dream. Community land trusts challenge the system of parceling out land to the highest bidder in favor of land as common heritage. The view of land as for the common good rather than for individual possession is rooted most strongly in the ideas of progressive Henry George. While little-known today, he was a leading public figure of his time. His bestselling 1879 book Progress and Poverty laid out a land value tax policy proposal that centered on distributing the economic value derived from land among all members of society equally, preventing landlords from profiting from mere ownership of land. In contrast to Karl Marx, George “tried to understand the problem of inequality and the problem of poverty not so much from the labor perspective, but rather from the land perspective,” said López. “He understood speculation as a national pastime.”
In an article titled, “The Transformative Vision of Community Land Trusts, “Unlike in traditional capitalist models of ownership, land in a CLT is owned by the nonprofit and leased to home and building owners at an affordable price….This framework—of public ownership and private leases—is an attractive one for redefining property rights as a whole.
Housing Matters, an Urban Institute Initiative, says: “Foundationally, local, state, and federal governments can support and expand community land trust activities by removing regulatory barriers. Government housing policies should specifically encourage and prioritize lasting affordability by offering preference or greater funding to nonprofits utilizing shared equity models, including community land trusts.”
Hey, if they can remove regulatory barriers for nonprofits, why not for the rest of us??
The Problems with Community Land Trusts
Here’s an example of how the trust can be set up: “The trust is governed by a board of directors, usually composed of: one-third leaseholders or prospective leaseholders of the CLT, one-third residents of the CLT catchment area who are not leaseholders, and one-third public representatives such as community development experts, funders, nonprofit service providers, politicians, and other stakeholders. This tripartite structure is important, ensuring that a broader community supports the CLT and has a stake in its success. The corporation’s bylaws establish membership requirements, voting rights, and other decision-making controls.”
In an article on Shelterforce, entitled “Are We Diluting the Mission of Community Land Trusts?”:
“CLTs’ dependence on external grant funding to acquire land and maintain their operations make them particularly susceptible to mission drift. Coming in with this knowledge, organizers may still be able to use the tool adequately or opt for other collective land ownership strategy.”
“Community control of land” sounds straightforward, but in practice it can be limited, fleeting, or difficult to achieve due to high property costs and the social, legal, and financial challenges of collectivizing property ownership.
“Over the course of my research project, the tensions inherent in the community land trust model became clear. CLTs’ dependence on external grant funding to acquire land and maintain their operations make them particularly susceptible to mission drift. In short, CLTs have largely followed the path of their Community Development Corporation (CDC) predecessors: losing their focus on grassroots community organizing in favor of professionalization to chase grant opportunities.”
“Most, if not all, CLTs face a common financial problem: the monthly lease fees (for the land) paid by residents to a CLT organization are so modest—typically $25 to $50 per month—that they cannot sustain the organization. Theoretically, there’s a point at which the number of housing units would be enough to sustain the CLT on lease fees alone, but the number of houses required to sustain the organization (the “magic number” as some have called it) may be well into the thousands, and few CLTs have reached it. So if the CLT wants to sustain itself, it has to bring in external grant money by actively pursuing new development projects on a rolling basis. The most readily available sources of grant funding for CLTs in the United States are from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or foundations focused on affordable housing, so most CLTs stay alive by continually acquiring land and adding housing to their portfolios to bring in grant money.”
(It’s a Ponzi scheme! And your tax money is what pays for it.)
Leftists in federal government move to implement more socialist treatment of land, leaving Americans working hard for the American Dream in the dust:
The stealing of the American Dream – land and home ownership
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked “homeowners” saying that they are hurting people that can’t afford to own land. Her rant comes as the crooked congresswoman Rep. Ilhan Omar proposed a bill that would strip property owners of their property if the federal government deems it necessary.
“It makes no sense that we are squeezing people that already cannot afford to purchase their own home for more money than a person who already owns land and is a land-owning member or a home-owning member of our economy,” said a video posted by the Congresswoman on Twitter.
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota at the same time introduced a bill that would strip property rights from Americans; it’s called the Rent and Mortgage Cancellation Act, which is a socialist dream. The bill would cancel all rent and mortgage payments regardless of income or employment throughout the duration of the pandemic.
“The bill would constitute a full payment forgiveness, with no accumulation of debt for renters or homeowners and no negative impact on their credit rating or rental history,” a news release from Omar’s office says.
A fund would be created “to fully finance the purchase of private rental properties by non-profits, public housing authorities, cooperatives, community land trusts, and states or local governments — in order to increase the availability of affordable housing during this downturn.”
This means private property owners would be undermined and the power of government entities would be greatly increased.
This is just another fine example of the Democrats trying to use the pandemic to pass as many socialist policies as possible.
As more regulatory and restrictive laws and rules are passed on landlords, essentially forcing them to sell their properties as it becomes no longer feasible to own properties where no rent can be collected for long periods of time while they must continue to pay for mortgages, insurance, taxes and maintenance of the property, we may witness the change in direction toward a more socialistic form of government removing private property rights.
A recap of community land trusts:
- The private property to be purchased by city government or “the community” would be “in perpetuity” – forever removed from private property ownership, becoming instead, “community-owned” property, or “communal” property – a socialist program.
- “The community”, according to CRTs already in place, usually consists of ⅓ of the people who buy the building or portion of the building in the case of multi-family units, ⅓ of the owners of the land beneath; and ⅓ by bureaucracies from various governmental and/or nongovernmental agencies.
- The land is separated from the buildings constructed on it, creating a “leasehold” interest for the purchaser. (Land usually rises in value, while buildings usually depreciate.) If/when the purchaser sells their interest, they are limited by the initial agreement to only a certain amount at the sale; the balance would go to the community trust.
- The purchase of the land by the government or a community trust can be through taxpayer-funded grant money. “local, state, and federal governments can support and expand community land trust activities by removing regulatory barriers.
- There are reported problems with CRTs from areas that have instituted them, including the complexity involved, bureaucratic oversight, and how the continuing funding to keep the payments “affordable” would be achieved.
- One of the drawbacks expressed by proponents of CRTs is that the idea of privately owned property is deeply held by Americans, and the Constitution would need to be amended to change it. A revealing statement made by Mary Houghton, Co-Director of Burlington Community Land Trust, who says, “I think private ownership of the land is a really bizarre concept. It makes no sense. It makes no more sense than private ownership of water.”
What is a land bank?
According to an article in Shelterforce – “The Original Voice of Community Development”, (be sure to read who wrote this and their backgrounds at the bottom of the article):
“Land banks are public entities, usually public nonprofit or governmental entities, which specialize in the conversion of vacant, abandoned and foreclosed properties into productive use. Typically, land banks are granted special powers via state enabling legislation. These powers include the ability to remove legal and financial barriers, such as delinquent property taxes, that often render vacant and abandoned properties inaccessible or unattractive to the private market. Land banks acquire properties through different means, but the most common pipeline is the property tax foreclosure system.” The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), says basically the same thing.
The article further states: “While land banks most commonly operate in weak to extremely constrained housing markets, the ability to efficiently access tax-delinquent properties, with a goal to achieve more community-driven, predictable development outcomes, gives a land bank the flexibility to intervene wherever vacancy or blight might hinder or harm the health and vitality of a neighborhood.”
According to HUD Exchange, As defined in the Unified NSP1 and NSP3 Notice issued October 19, 2010, “A land bank is a governmental or nongovernmental nonprofit entity established, at least in part, to assemble, temporarily manage, and dispose of vacant land for the purpose of stabilizing neighborhoods and encouraging re-use or redevelopment of urban property. For the purposes of NSP, a land bank will operate in a specific, defined geographic area. It will purchase properties that have been foreclosed upon and maintain, assemble, facilitate redevelopment of, market, and dispose of the land-banked properties. If the land bank is a governmental entity, it may also maintain foreclosed property that it does not own, provided it charges the owner of the property the full cost of the service or places a lien on the property for the full cost of the service.” This definition is also applicable to NSP2.
Definition of “Urban Sprawl” by World Economic Forum (WEF): Page 18 – “Urban sprawl in developing nations is decreasing the density of the built environment. Factors contributing to urban sprawl include land-use patterns that prioritize personal vehicles, social norms that favour low-density housing, land-use segregation, economic incentives favouring low-density development (e.g. higher property taxes for multifamily units than single family homes in the US12) and mortgage financing favouring single-family dwellings (ULI, 2018)”
Private Property Ownership vs CLTs & Land Banks
This is a “top-down” international idea. In researching Community Land Trusts, we found several interesting tidbits:
The World Economic Forum (an active promotional arm of the United Nations), addresses the “problem” this way: “The reasons for a lack of affordability vary from city to city, but commonly include housing costs rising faster than incomes, supply of houses not keeping up with demand, scarcity of land, and demographic changes such as population growth, ageing and changes in household composition.”
In Houston, Texas, government leaders are balking at using community land trusts. In an article in the “Black Youth Project”, titled “The city of Houston is experimenting with land trust to fight gentrification” it states:
“Across America there are more than 220 land trusts, varying in size and location but mostly tending to exist close to the coasts. In a trust, a community-controlled nonprofit owns land makes rules for how buildings on that land should serve the community, which are largely aimed at undoing centuries of oppression and dispossession.
“However, there are barriers to a community-led effort to establish a land trust in a business-friendly city like Houston. As Jeffery Lowe, Texas Southern University assistant professor of urban planning and policy tells The Houston Chronicle, “The difficulty here in Texas and in Houston is that we really place a high appreciation on the commodification of land,” explained Jeffrey Lowe, an assistant professor of urban planning and environmental policy at Texas Southern University and a Kinder Fellow. “Many of our policies basically promote private property ownership, not only that the land should be commodified, but that it should be commodified to its maximum value.”
“Gentrification” is the process of changing the character of a neighborhood through the influx of more affluent residents and businesses. Because it tends to change the character of said neighborhood, it is a common and controversial topic in politics and in urban planning
“Commodification of land” simply means that land appreciates, and when a landowner works hard to buy land and build on it, that property will appreciate in value, so the owner can sell it and gain financial opportunities that they wouldn’t otherwise have. It’s one reason private property ownership is so important in our nation.
In the ‘20s and ‘30s, most families rented apartments or houses while they were raising a family. They often needed a 50% down payment to get a bank loan for a home purchase. It was before the time of social security. They had to be frugal, and sacrificed luxuries and even some necessities to save for the future. Most women were homemakers and raising and educating their children. Saving and investing wisely over time brings the reward and satisfaction of owning one’s own home and building equity for retirement and the future generations. It was difficult, but they did it through hard work – finally achieving the American Dream. Going back further in time, the federal government would open land for homesteading, which allowed families to own a piece of land to build and develop as they saw fit. As slavery ended in America, former slaves were given 40 acres and a mule to get their start in building their lives and fortunes.
Perhaps government could take a lesson or two from the past. Open up land for homesteading and/or development of more towns and homes. Reduce or eliminate taxes and regulations that cause the cost of housing to skyrocket. Lower taxes on gas so the cost of transporting goods and supplies drops, which lowers the cost of housing and everything else. It’s the opposite direction that our nation is currently taking – moving away from the current socialist/Marxist/communist trend and returning to the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every American.
In an article titled “Why Private Property Matters – Prosperity-Stability-Freedom”, Tom DeWeese writes:
“John Locke advocated that if property rights did not exist, then the incentive for an industrious person to develop and improve property would be destroyed; that the industrious person would be deprived of the fruits of his labor; that marauding bands would confiscate, by force, the goods produced by others; and that mankind would be impelled to remain on a bare-subsistence level of hand-to-mouth survival because the accumulation of anything of value would invite attack.
“One only has to look to the example of the former Soviet Union to see clearly what happens to a society when an outlaw government exercises brute force to take control of private property. Under that tyrannical government, each of Locke’s predictions came true there.
“Private property ownership is much more than a house. It is the root of a prosperous, healthy, human society based on the individual’s freedom to live a life of his own, gaining from the fruits of his own labor. Take that option away and the people always react the same way. They stop producing.”
Government should not be in the land buying, developing, and selling business. Government’s scope should be limited to what our US and State Constitutions have set out:
What is government supposed to do?
Government has crept into the minutiae of our daily lives. Was it intended to be that way under the Constitution our founding fathers so thoughtfully crafted? America has grown and prospered since its beginning under the guidance of that great document. So, what does it say about the purpose of government?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In Washington state (and most state constitutions are fairly similar), the first article tells why state government was created:
Article I, Section I of the Washington State Constitution: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
Also in Washington State, in a “Fifth Amendment” treatise by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97), he writes: Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense.” That definition is as follows:
“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.”
According to a brief from the Cato Institute: “America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights — the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely. With the growth of modern government, however, those rights have been seriously compromised.
If we don’t stand up, speak out, and elect representatives that will truly support individual freedom, we may see the loss of all private property ownership at some point in the future.
Follow