In October 2011 we wrote an article, The Urban Collective, in which we suggested that community ownership might offer some hope in the aftermath of government-led regeneration programmes. However, we stressed that, despite the common usage of the term, ‘community’ is never a homogenous entity where there is unanimity of perspectives, values and objectives. Our suggestion was that community ownership models will ‘emerge from shared problems and small bases’ that over time will draw in ‘new members and different resources’. This was an argument for the piecemeal and anarchic in the absence of co-ordinated state action and funding.
From our observations we have noticed that it is not the amorphous idea of community that matters, but rather how these small groups work to improve their neighbourhoods through a shared vision. We cannot expect a stampede of the ‘community’ nor can we expect everyone in a neighbourhood to share a consensus view and an agreed plan. Our experience increasingly shows that it is small groups of dedicated individuals who come together and seek to regenerate their local environment. Their projects will be focussed around deliverable outputs – housing, food, improving the local park. So rather than attention being focussed on the impossible task of including everyone, we suggest here that what matters is how support and finance are made accessible to these groups to realise these ambitions. In return we can expect improved neighbourhoods and open membership.
A lot has changed since we wrote that article. It is fair to say that the shortage of housing is now further up the political agenda than it was; that state investment in our most deprived areas is, and will continue to be, minimal; and that the poorest in our society are getting poorer.
In response to this, more and more groups are taking over under-used assets and starting to act for themselves. From community growing projects and (informal) food co-ops that help reduce food costs, to community land trusts that aim to provide new and improved housing, the seeds of an urban collective movement have been planted.
Some of the projects we have supported, such as Homebaked CLT in Liverpool (pictured), are finding their feet and working out how such collective models can work in areas with low land values. But what is needed now? The old challenges of support structures and finance remain and community needs to be reconstituted in relation to these projects. In this article we explore a couple of creative solutions to these issues of support and finance, both of which major on mobilising new actors and agents in the development of collective ownership schemes.
HOW TO BUILD LOCAL CAPACITY
Start anything new and we all have questions. Our work supporting urban community land trusts shows how technical issues (e.g. planning, legal structures, finance) raise questions, yet the answers are hard to find. This can sap the energy and enthusiasm of groups trying to take collective ownership of land and buildings. Technical advisors can help groups quickly get beyond these and focus on important tasks such as defining aims, widening involvement and lobbying the right people. But there’s a problem: firstly, that this resource is currently inadequate; and secondly, because of their privileged position (i.e. holding valuable knowledge) advisors can thwart the very thing we value about collective ownership – local control. How then to make independent advice accessible in the right form?
One solution is timebanking. In a timebank, hours are exchanged between members, and each hour is of equivalent value. As a way of valuing time equally, this could be a system for reciprocal relations between community groups and advisors. A community group could request some advisor time, and give their time in return. Alternatively, groups may give time to other groups, or advisors time to other advisors. In essence, it creates a structure that oils the wheels of advice-giving, and recognises differing skills and knowledge equally.
This raises a big question, what would advisors want from community groups in return? We pondered this question and came up with a substantial list that included; providing first-hand experience of setting up collective ownership schemes to develop better guidance, toolkits and resources; providing contextual knowledge about localities; and offering insights into the barriers and obstacles to collective ownership. There are then opportunities for reciprocity, but such a timebank would not be without its challenges. We are continuing to explore these in our blog, but we see merit in systems that increase support and shift relationships.
HOW TO RAISE FINANCE
Land, buildings and equipment all cost so how can we raise the necessary finance to ensure community projects deliver?
The community projects we are discussing are enterprises, successful only if based on a sound business model. This further emphasises how such ventures are not all-inclusive forms of community, but organisations run as businesses for the benefit of the community and as such participation has to be managed as in any stakeholder owned business. But ensuring fairness within these organisations requires a new relationship between stakeholders. No unfair requirements from either state or private providers, financial or otherwise. Rather it is about providing a mutual contract which balances inputs and ensures fair dividends as a return.
These are new and potentially radical ideas but they offer
a way forward from the present stagnation and reliance on outdated regeneration forms
The benefits of mutualism are largely derived through enterprise, albeit where the economic purpose is motivated by the social benefits delivered, i.e. a social enterprise. Therefore could estate regeneration be reorganised around a mutual company where the residents, the landlord, and the state all have a financial share, receiving the shared benefits of improvements? And what potential is there in better linking personal investment opportunities for those with wealth to the development of new housing through a mutual housing bond which provides an assured rate of return but a lower cost access to capital for new housing? These ideas are not beyond the realms of fantasy but are pioneering in the way they provide a new direction to the same old problems.
HOW TO BUILD MEMBERSHIP
And if we are to consider a mutual approach to collective action it is important to consider how people become members of the project. Membership offers a means of defining the way in which community engages with any project or business and has been a cornerstone of many mutual organisations. Open, democratic, active membership, an important distinction and deviation from the representative and all-inclusive model of community favoured by policy makers. Those who opt in to these ventures are members, a demonstration of active citizenship where recognition can be given to the range of transactions between different types of members.
In our opinion creating mutually beneficial solutions provides a better balance between what people invest (in time and money) and what they get back. It is a redistributive model in which all stakeholders gain. It does not give to one whilst taking from another and in so doing it seeks to maintain productive and sustainable outcomes. It is based on the idea that when people make an investment of time or money in a mutual enterprise, it is a civic act and a means by which a bigger society can become a reality.
Though these are new and potentially radical ideas, they offer a way forward from the present stagnation and reliance on outdated regeneration forms. The proof will be in their application and we welcome the opportunity to work with others in taking these ideas forward.
Really interesting, thought provoking article Tom. Thanks for posting. I and my colleagues at BlueFish Regeneration and Restoration People are always looking at new ways of offering advice which can get projects or ideas moving, while staying solvent! I like the idea of timebanking between communities and advisers – you could be on to something here.
I’d be happy to discuss this further and throw in a few ideas if you’re interested, based on our experience. Find me at http://www.bluefishregen.com or http://www.restoration-people.com
Imelda
Thank you for this article. It chimes with our learning from the national Young People Friendly Neighbourhoods programme across 20 neighbourhoods seeking sustainable youth work support through community partnerships. First, a shared vision is essential, yet often hard to develop among factional and self serving outside organisations. Second, housing partners have been essential, on occasions bringing long term commitment and leadership. Third, any positive moves at a local community level still need to be appreciated and engaged with by commissioners and funders who are struggling to move from being control centres of power and money to enablers of community conversation and supporters and investors in locally owned and managed solutions. We have a range of stories and resources at http://www.ypfn.posterous.com and would be delighted to hear from you.
Thanks for this. I agree with Imelda – the the idea of a more reciprocal arrangement between communities and advisors is a really interesting one and has the potential to lead to the development of more mutual networks.
At Shared Assets we’re interested in the development of commons approaches – creating access to and control of land and assets without the high cost of ownership. These would require the development of more shared approaches to governance between the state, private sector and communities, and an approach to management based the on the replenishment of resources.
As you say these ideas may be radical, but they have the potential to provide real, sustainable, alternatives to the models of regeneration that have failed us thus far.