Alperovitz is Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland. He is one of the founding principals of The Democracy Collaborative. Previously, he was a fellow at King’s College at Cambridge University, a founding fellow of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and a guest professor at Notre Dame University. He has also served as a legislative director in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, and as a special assistant at the Department of State.
A land trust is simply a nonprofit corporation or a government agency that owns land, so that when development occurs, the profits of that development accrue to the owner, which in this case is public or nonprofit. And that’s very important in the context of gentrification, because if there’s a housing boom and the prices go up, poor people are kicked out because the prices are too high. So, if the land trust owns the land under the housing, it can stabilize housing costs. They already do this in many parts of the country because they are nonprofit corporations committed to low- and moderate-income housing.
Another example: when a city builds a subway system, land prices go up and the land becomes very valuable around every exit, because it’s a high-traffic area and commercial development is possible. So, who should own that land? If the city gives it away or sells it, then profits are made by the real estate developers. Many, many cities don’t do that now. They own the land and lease it so that they can make the profits from that implicit form of land trust, and pour it back, usually, into support for the mass transit system. That’s conventional now. What’s interesting about these various forms of democratizing ownership is that they’ve spread around the country in the last decade and a half and their numbers have gone from just a handful to hundreds. They answer a problem nothing else can. So, land trust development is an interesting example of what happens when there’s great pain. Traditional answers don’t work, and democratizing ownership in one or another way very often becomes a pattern.
You can read the entire interview here. It is well worth the time.
Bookmarked Cats.
I used to live in the town of Beverley in North Yorkshire and we had a town ‘common’ or ‘pastures’ – where any guildsman of the town had the explicit permission to allow his/her livestock to graze on the land. The pastures were administered for the good of the town by elected ‘freemen’ of Bverley.
Sorry – East Riding of Yorkshire…. sheesh.
TtT – if we want to prosper, we need to share and work together. All boats rise with tide.
One idea I would like to see advanced is the encouragement of microsized power cooperatives – where one house has a wind turbine, two more have heat pumps, another a solar roof…. and between them then generate enough juice to run a small cul-de-sac plus a church or a shop … and with net-zero metering selling the surplus back to the grid.
Here’s westwood pasture:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1315330
The truly tricky part about this sort of logical and intelligent action is that is like taking a sledge hammer to the Right’s knee cap. Socialism, communism= evil. Blind worm seeking grotesque profit =good.
As long as profit is king, emperor, god, the human race is going to continue to suffer.
And on the other end of the spectrum, Utah is pretty much for sale.
If the teabaggers and the righties don’t like socialism, then they should stay off the interstates and out of airplanes and trains.
TtT – that is such a wonderful idea. We really would prosper and thrive if we shared resources. There would be no need for guns.
TtT – I didn’t realize you once lived in the UK.
Ruc – there are some beautiful places in Utah. Should we start a commune? I understand that communal living is beginning to gain popularity. This isn’t the old hippy communes. These are communities where each family has their own living facility and have shared and common areas and responsibilities to each other and the community. My husband and I have considered a commune as an option for our next move which will be to the west coast.
Communal living is pretty functional. I’ve been doing it for the past ten years. There is always someone in the family or their friends that needs a place to live and this big old barn has been temporary home to many of them.
Hooda – I love it and I love you, too.
Cats, we might be back to that by necessity when Jim Kunstler’s ‘Long Emergency’ comes about….
Yup Beverley was my last domicile before being exported – was not a ‘freeman’ of Beverley but could be found in the Monks Walk (freehouse purveyor of fine Youngers and Sam Smith Ales) near the beautiful Minister being ‘free’ with my opinions, 2 maybe 3 night a week…?