W(h)ither the<i>community</i>in community land trusts?

DeFilippis, James; Stromberg, Brian; Williams, Olivia R.

doi:10.1080/07352166.2017.1361302

Cited by 43 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That rallying cry was not only part of the forming of the first CLT, but also one that has recurrent (if too sporadic; DeFilippis et al. ) saliency in CLT thinking and practices today; as we will see with the Rondo case discussed below. Analytically, Williams () defines community control as a relationship between a place‐based population and a governing institution with authority over a resource.…”

Section: Lenses Of Transformationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Those incentives are geared towards property acquisition for single family homeownership, rather than other forms of intervention (DeFilippis et al. ). What Rondo CLT demonstrates is that community control of development can be an organisational priority, but the economic incentives are often antithetical to community control efforts.…”

Section: The Politics and Meanings Of Clts To Those Involved In Themmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the broader CLT landscape, decisions to work toward greater community control are few and far between because the institutional and financial incentives are not there. Those incentives are geared towards property acquisition for single family homeownership, rather than other forms of intervention (DeFilippis et al 2018). What Rondo CLT demonstrates is that community control of development can be an organisational priority, but the economic incentives are often antithetical to community control efforts.…”

Section: Potentially Transformative Moments In Cltsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the Transformative Potential of Community Land Trusts in the United States

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing interest in non‐capitalist ownership models raises empirical questions about the political implications of such models. In this paper we ask: are non‐capitalist property ownership models inherently politically transformative? A study of community land trusts (CLTs) based in Minnesota illustrates that alternative property models do not necessarily produce transformative political outcomes. Interviews of those involved in CLTs revealed that they most often engage in affirmative politics, rather than challenging structural problems. Seeds of transformation were evident in these CLTs as well, however, and we explore these moments through four lenses of transformation in order to see the potential building blocks toward other worlds. To this end, we highlight changes in participant subjectivities, collective relationship building, the cultivation of community control, and the subversion of power hierarchies. While these moments offer pathways toward greater transformation, this study reveals the necessity of intentionally transformative practice in alternative ownership models.

show abstract

Section: Lenses Of Transformationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Politics and Meanings Of Clts To Those Involved In Themmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potentially Transformative Moments In Cltsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Transformative Potential of Community Land Trusts in the United States

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How will their potential exclusion articulate with the mission of both organisations to defend housing as a human right? How can they preserve their activism when they are also, in effect, learning to operate as developers and landlords (DeFilippis et al)? In some ways, the limitations of the CLT were foreshadowed early for these groups: both fought for more expansive public (or publicly funded) housing systems for the very poor in their early years.…”

Section: Toward a Deal: Placing Hopes In (Insurgent?) Cltsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Victories from Insurgency: Re‐Negotiating Housing, Community Control, and Citizenship at the Margins

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers how insurgent campaigns for housing the poor in New York City and Chicago succeeded in engaging the local state, non-profits and financial institutions in the creation of community land trusts. These campaigns had long arcs in which victories and losses built from each other, neither as permanent as they initially seemed. The campaigns moved iteratively between spaces of "invited citizenship" (courtrooms, planning committees) and "invented" spaces of collective action (property takeovers). They found their greatest success when, exploiting state incapacity to defend abandoned property, they elicited a degree of complicity from local governments in their takeovers of housing and land. The article thus contests dichotomised accounts of social movements that oppose losses to victories, cooptation to resistance, and movements to institutions. Instead, we call for situated and dynamic accounts of insurgent practice, capable of theorising the long, messy, co-constituted evolution of political contexts and popular struggle.R esum e: Cet article examine comment des campagnes populaires pour le logement des d emunis a New York et a Chicago ont r eussi a engager l'Etat et des institutions financi eres locales dans la cr eation de community land trusts. Dans la trajectoire de leurs luttes, victoires et pertes se sont construites les unes des autres, ni aussi permanentes qu'elles semblaient au d epart. Les campagnes ont jou e de mani ere it erative sur des espaces de «citoyennet e invit ee» (tribunaux, mairie) et des espaces «invent es» d'action collective (squats). Elles ont trouv e leur plus grand succ es lorsque, exploitant l'incapacit e de l' Etat a d efendre des propri et es abandonn ees, elles ont suscit e une certaine complicit e des gouvernements locaux dans leurs prises de contrôle des terrains. L'article conteste donc les r ecits dichotomiques de mouvements sociaux opposant les pertes aux victoires, la cooptation a la r esistance, et les mouvements aux institutions. Au lieu de cela, nous favorisons des comptes rendus contextualis es et dynamiques de la pratique des «insurg es», cherchant a th eoriser l' evolution longue, nuanc ee et co-constitu ee des contextes politiques et de la lutte populaire.Every decade, housing for low-income people in the United States becomes more precarious, amplified by the threat of eviction, homelessness and a disappearing subsidised housing stock. As we go well beyond a crisis point, housing activism appears to be reviving as are municipal government responses that draw much on local context and history. In 2017, after over a decade of activism, Picture the

show abstract

“…Defining the CLT has become increasingly difficult in recent years because the term has come to characterize a variety of different models. The key feature of the CLT structure is the permanent transfer of land from the speculative market to a trust, which is typically control by a nonprofit organization for common benefits (DeFilippis, Stromberg, & Williams, 2018), yet other CLTs are sponsored by local governments (Curtin & Bocarsly, 2008).…”

Section: Concept Of Institution For Transfer Of Public Housing Ownersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer Control of Public Housing Ownership in Indonesia

Jibril

Maretta

2019

JHN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction to The Problem: Resettlement/Shelter is one of the basic human needs and plays a strategic role as the formation of character as well as national personality. However, there is still a problem concerning the availability of public housing in Indonesia. The root of this problem is because people are free to transfer their ownership over their public housing, which leads to the escalation of public housing price. One of the situations where an escalation of public housing price occurred and inaccurate-ownership is in Kalibata City. Kalibata City was supposed to be public housing, but in the present, it 3is occupied by upper-middle-income families as well as an investor. Purpose/Objective Study: The purpose of this research article is to observe, analyze, and criticize the transfer of public housing ownership in Indonesia and provide a comparison with the Community Land Trust in the United States of America. Design/Methodology/Approach: The research method employed in this research article is normative research method, whereas the types of data utilized are literature studies. The literature studies comprise of various sources in the form of laws, books, and journals related to public housing. The data is analyzed by employing a qualitative method and presented descriptively. Findings: The result of this research article indicates that the Government Regulation which is a follow-up to Article 55 paragraph (5) Law Number 1 of 2011 regarding Housing and Resettlement Area which mandates to regulate further related to the appointment and establishment of the institution has not been formed yet. Furthermore, to realize intergenerational justice, the transfer institution must be burdened with specific duties. Paper Type: Research Article

show abstract

W(h)ither thecommunityin community land trusts?

Cited by 43 publications

References 15 publications

On the Transformative Potential of Community Land Trusts in the United States

On the Transformative Potential of Community Land Trusts in the United States

Victories from Insurgency: Re‐Negotiating Housing, Community Control, and Citizenship at the Margins

Transfer Control of Public Housing Ownership in Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About