The Growth of Community Land Trusts in England and Europe

Introduction

On Common Ground

John Emmeus Davis, Line Algoed,

and María E. Hernández-Torrales

Fifty years after the appearance of the first community land trust (CLT) in the United States, CLTs have proliferated. They have been increasing in number and spreading to other parts of the globe. There are now over a dozen different countries where CLTs have already been established or are presently in development.

The growth of CLTs in England and Europe has been especially robust. Over the past two decades, market pressures across the region have relentlessly pushed prices for land and housing beyond the reach of low-income and middle-income families. Problems of affordable housing, social displacement, and degradation of the existing housing stock have become steadily worse. Governments in England and Europe have struggled to provide effective policy responses, prompting NGOs and community activists to seek creative solutions of their own. Looking beyond conventional approaches to housing provision long promoted by the market and the state, many have embraced an innovative strategy for community-led development on community-owned land where privately owned homes remain permanently affordable—the community land trust.

In England, the first CLTs were developed in the early 2000s. On the European continent, the first CLT was established in Brussels in 2012. The first Organismes de Foncier Solidaire (OFS), the French version of a CLT, was established in Lille in 2017. The first Stadtbodenstiftung, the German name for a CLT, was established in Berlin in 2021.

There are now 327 CLTs up and running in England, with another 200 in various stages of being formed. A National CLT Network, started in 2010, and the gradual establishment of regional support organizations throughout England, known as umbrella CLTs or Enabling Hubs, have helped to spur and to sustain this proliferation in the number of local CLTs. In France, 64 OFS entities have been created and are now being supported by a national association named Foncier Solidaire France, incorporated in 2021. In Belgium, new CLTs are emerging in Leuven and in a number of other cities, inspired and informed by the pioneering work of the CLTs in Brussels and Ghent. Interest in community land trusts has been rising in Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland, and Spain.

A cross-national partnership funded by the European Union has helped to nurture this growth. Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities (SHICC) was started in 2017. The initial partners were four urban CLTs in Brussels, Lille, Ghent and London, working together with the National CLT Network of England and Wales and the Global Fund for Cities’ Development. They were joined in the final year of the SHICC project by CLT initiatives in Berlin and Amsterdam and by two organisations in Scotland and Ireland: South of Scotland Community Housing and Self-Organised Architecture. This partnership has been enormously effective in raising the profile of CLTs among policymakers and housing activists across North-West Europe, in planting the seeds for new CLTs, and in providing essential resources for CLT projects.

Featured in the present monograph are local, national, and cross-national efforts to grow the CLT movement in this particular part of the world. The monograph’s chapters were selected from On Common Ground: International Perspectives on the Community Land Trust, a collection of twenty-six original essays published in June 2020 by Terra Nostra Press. In the years since these essays were written, however, there have been significant changes among CLTs in London, Brussels, England, and Europe — and within the networks supporting them. Postscripts have been added to most of the monograph’s chapters, therefore, bringing the story of common ground in these cities and countries up to date.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Community land trusts are not all alike. Among the hundreds of CLTs that already exist or are presently being planned, there are numerous variations in how these organizations are structured, how their lands are utilized, how development is done, and how the stewardship of housing is operationalized. What is called a community land trust can vary greatly from one country to another, even from one community to another within the same country.

The basic features of the modern-day CLT were originally outlined in a seminal book that appeared in 1972. The design for what was called in this book a new model of land tenure for America was drawn mostly from New Communities Inc., a rural settlement founded two years earlier by African-American activists in the Civil Rights Movement. They had sought to combine community ownership of land, individual ownership of multi-family and single-family housing, and the cooperative organization of agricultural production. The book’s authors drew, too, on a number of historical precedents, including the collectively owned lands of indigenous peoples, the town commons of New England, the moshav ovdim of Israel, the ejidos of Mexico, the Ujamaa Vijijini of Tanzania, and the Gramdan villages of India.

The model described in 1972 also bore a resemblance to the mixed-ownership scheme that Ebenezer Howard had proposed in 1898 for the Garden Cities of England. The houses, stores, orchards, and factories in the new towns he wanted to establish on the outskirts of major cities would be privately owned by individuals, cooperatives, or for-profit businesses, but the underlying land would be owned forever by a nongovernmental organization, created expressly for that purpose. These scattered parcels of land, despite their removal from the speculative market, would be made available for planned development and productive use through long-term ground leases, executed between the nonprofit landowner and myriad individuals who owned buildings or operated enterprises on the leaseholds. Land was to be held and managed on behalf of all residents—rich and poor, present and future—enabling a community to direct its own development, to determine its own fate, and to capture for the common good a majority of the gains in land value that society as a whole had helped to create.

To the mixed-ownership model pioneered in England, India, and elsewhere, the visionaries who created New Communities, Inc.—and the reflective practitioners who followed in their wake—added organizational and operational features of their own, turning the model into something different, something new. Community-owned land remained the foundation on which a CLT was to be established, with a private, nonprofit corporation holding and managing scattered parcels of land for the benefit of residents of a particular locale, especially low-income families in need of housing. What got added were mechanisms for ensuring that the development done by a CLT would be guided by the community, as would the organization itself. This was not development from above, dictated by a governmental body, a charitable investor, or a benevolent provider of social housing. It was development from below, directed by residents of the community a CLT had been organized to serve. Ownership and empowerment went hand-in-hand.

Added, too, was an operational commitment to the stewardship of any lands entrusted to the CLT and of any buildings erected on its lands. Projects pursued by a CLT were designed to ensure that housing, nonresidential buildings, and other land uses would remain continuously affordable, long after development was done.

These distinctive features of ownership, organization, and operation, overlapping and interacting in a dynamic model of place-based development, became known as the classic CLT. Almost as soon as nearly everyone came to agree on this particular conception and configuration of the community land trust, however, the model began to be modified in countless ways. Variations arose in every feature of the classic CLT, as practitioners in different places adapted it to fit conditions, needs, and priorities in their own communities or to fit customs and laws in their own countries.

Fig. 0.1. The Classic CLT

This continuing process of innovation and adaptation has helped the CLT to spread across a disparate international landscape and to thrive in a range of settings. At the same time, the diversity of meanings attached to the model and the variety of ways in which CLTs are structured has introduced a degree of difficulty to the task of explaining exactly what a CLT might be. Today, there is ambiguity—even a dose of controversy—to be found in the description and implementation of every component.

Community. Throughout the world, most organizations that call themselves a CLT are committed to involving a place-based population in their activities, incorporating a participatory ethos into their organization’s purposes, practices, and structure. People who live on the CLT’s lands and those who live nearby are encouraged to become voting members of the organization. They are recruited to serve on its governing board.¹ They are invited to participate in shaping the uses and projects proposed by the CLT. Development is community-led, along with the organization that initiates and oversees that development.

Ambiguity enters the picture because of the varying arrangements that CLTs employ in striving to engage and to empower their community. Controversy arises because some CLTs have dispensed with community altogether, causing critics to question whether they should even be considered a real CLT. The traditional model’s distinctive features of ownership and operation might be present, but residents who are served by the program neither govern nor guide it; that is, community is missing from the organizational make-up of the entity doing development. Variations like these create perennial challenges for CLT advocates whenever they try to reach a consensus as to what deserves to be deemed a community land trust. ²

Land. The typical CLT is a nonprofit organization that removes land permanently from the marketplace, managing it on behalf of a place-based community while making it available for long-term use by individuals and organizations. Title to the buildings on a CLTs land, either those existing when the CLT acquired the land or those constructed later on, is held individually by any number of parties—homeowners, cooperatives, businesses, gardeners, farmers, etc. The underlying land is leased from the CLT by the buildings’ owners.

This mixed-ownership arrangement blurs the legal and conceptual boundary between conventional categories of tenure, where real property is presumed to be one thing or the other. A community land trust messes up this tidy picture, for it is balanced half-way between the two extremes of individual property, owned and operated primarily for the purpose of promoting private interests; and collective property, owned and operated to promote a common interest. The CLT tilts toward the former in its treatment of buildings. It tilts toward the latter in its treatment of land, making the CLT a first cousin to cooperatives, co-housing, and various forms of communal, collective, and tribal land.

Although a CLT’s lands are frequently and fairly characterized as community-owned or, in the parlance of the present series of monographs, as common ground, these landholdings are neither collectively nor cooperatively owned by the people living on them or around them. Title is held exclusively by the CLT. A community land trust is ownership for the common good, not ownership in common.³

There are places, however, where the separation of ownership is made difficult (or impossible) by quirks in the property laws of a particular country or by the quibbles of prospective funders. CLTs have sometimes been compelled, therefore, to retain ownership of buildings as well as the land or to relinquish ownership of both, while imposing long-lasting restrictions on the use and affordability of these properties. Another variation has been developed in Puerto Rico, where the Caño Martín Peña CLT holds the underlying land but uses a durable surface rights deed, rather than a ground lease, to provide security of tenure for people who own and occupy houses on the CLT’s land. Some of these residents live on sites which their families have inhabited for nearly a hundred years.

Trust. Although trust is part of their given name, CLTs have rarely been established as real estate trusts.⁴ Most are NGOs—private, nonprofit corporations with a charitable purpose of meeting the needs of populations who are regularly underserved by both the market and the state. Trust refers not to how a CLT is organized, but to how it is operated. Trust is what a CLT does in overseeing the lands and buildings under its care and in performing the duties of stewardship. Foremost among these duties is the preservation of affordability, ensuring long-term access to land and housing for people of modest means and preventing their displacement due to gentrification and other pressures. Stewardship also includes such responsibilities as preventing deferred maintenance in housing and other buildings on the CLT’s land and intervening, if necessary, to protect occupants against predatory lending, arbitrary eviction, mortgage foreclosure, and other threats to security of tenure.⁵

Model. The first book to describe the community land trust called it a new model of land tenure. It has been regularly called a model ever since. A number of practitioners and researchers have grown uncomfortable with the term, however. Some object because model, from their perspective, carries a negative connotation of something experimental, unfinished, unreliable. They point to fifty years of success, saying that the CLT is no longer a working prototype, but a road-tested, high-performing vehicle that has gone the distance and proven its effectiveness under challenging conditions.

Others object because model seems to imply there is only one proper way of structuring a CLT, when the reality unfolding around the world is the emergence of many different structures and strategies. Each country and community is composing its own variation on the theme of CLT classic. Model tends to be especially problematic for organizers in the Global South, for whom the term is tainted with a whiff of Yankee arrogance, as if there exists some universal blueprint for building a CLT, indelibly stamped with Made in America. Most organizers outside of the Global North tend to avoid the term, therefore, preferring to describe the CLT as a mechanism, instrument, or tool.

On the other hand, there are still many practitioners and researchers for whom model remains their term of choice. It holds for them a positive, prescriptive message of a design, pattern, or practice that is exemplary and worthy of consideration by anyone involved with affordable housing or community development. They are unconcerned that model may also suggest that the CLT is still being fine-tuned, still in a state of flux. After all, a restless search for better ways of configuring and combining ownership, organization, and operation is part of the reason that CLTs have been able to thrive in so many political and economic environments, some of which were initially hostile to their germination.

A few of the contributors to the present monograph have continued the custom of referring to the CLT as a model, but we have not discouraged contributors who have preferred to call it something else. Even authors who regularly refer to the CLT as a model also describe it, on occasion, as a strategy, platform, mechanism, vehicle, construct, or tool—sometimes within the same essay. These terms are used interchangeably throughout the monograph.

WHAT’S SHARED?

While there is a lack of conceptual uniformity in the current collection of essays, when it comes to describing what a CLT is or