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

DeFilippis, James; Williams, Olivia R.; Pierce, Joseph; Martin, Deborah; Kruger, Rich; Esfahani, Azadeh Hadizadeh

doi:10.1111/anti.12509

Cited by 35 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, it tends to be grounded in more expansive understandings of possession by focusing on "stewardship" for future as well as current residents, and democratic control of land that involves members of the wider community as well as those who directly use or occupy the land (ibid.). Transferring land to CLTs through the Land Bank could provide one means of at least partially taking back possession from the ownership model, even while recognizing that CLTs often reside "within but not opposed to a wider private property system" (Hodkinson, 2012, p. 435), and may ultimately reify conventional property relations (DeFilippis et al, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking back vacant property

Noterman

2020

Urban Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking back" has long been a rallying call of urban social movements asserting land rights. This call often involves seeking to ward off dispossession by taking possession. Scholars rethinking property beyond the normative "ownership model" have explored the seeming paradoxicality of resisting dispossession through legal forms of possession that reproduce deprivation. In this paper, I consider the possibilities for taking back the concept of possession itself by examining claims to "vacant" property in Philadelphia. I put taking back through a citywide "land bank" in conversation with the taking over of a poor people's movement that occupies government-owned properties as a means of survival and political mobilization. I argue that outside or on the edge of legal recognition, the effort to take back property functions not as an end in itself, but rather as an explicitly political taking on of the notion of possessive ownership. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking back vacant property

Noterman

2020

Urban Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Park Slope Co-op, in complying with pandemic distancing rules, suspended members from working in the store and hired employees instead, reducing one of the ways that mutuality and solidarity are practiced and shifting its large and economically diverse membership base more into the role of a consumer. Recent critiques of the community land trust (CLT) movement portray how some have become more of a tool for individualist home ownership and affordable housing production, than building community and changing relations between people and land (DeFilippis et al 2019 , 2018 ).…”

Section: From a Matter Of Concern To A Matter Of Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Fight and build: solidarity economy as ontological politics

Loh

Shear

2022

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay explores the potential of solidarity economy (SE) as theory, practice, and movement, to engender an ontological politics to create and sustain other worlds that can resolve the existential crises of ecological destruction and historic inequalities. We argue that such a politics is necessary to go beyond the world as it is and exceed the dictates of a dominant modernity—capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy—that positions itself as the only singular reality—or One World World (Law J (2011) What’s Wrong with a One World World. Heterogeneities. http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2011WhatsWrongWithAOneWorldWorld.pdf ). What is needed are alternatives to development in contrast to alternative developments. Over the past decade, the SE movement in Massachusetts has advanced a fight and build approach, which has reframed economy as a matter of concern, as something that communities can, and already do, shape themselves—and that powerfully disrupts the reality of a singular capitalist economy. At the same time, the heterogeneous elements of SE are caught up in and assembling political projects with multiple orientations: modernist, social justice, and ontological (Escobar, Pluriversal politics: the real and the possible, Duke University Press, Durham, 2020). SE movement can remain stuck in a modernist politics of growing and scaling businesses and jobs. Even though a social justice approach attends to power and is more amenable to a relational view of reality where things only exist in interconnection, it too can remain mired in One World World liberal politics of redistribution and market ‘solutions’. How SE movement might actualize an ontological politics is a matter of care, an attunement to how relational worlds are coming into being and maintained. As an ontological politics, SE is not about economy qua economy at all, but about creating and sustaining worlds, pluriversal realities where we can be in solidarity with other people, beings, and planetary life systems.

show abstract

“…Beyond territorial commons as a resource or a stake of social movements, a broad range of literature has addressed the trend toward depoliticization within commons. Reasons for such trends include changes of generations (Hettlage, 1987) or fluctuations among commoners through moving in/moving out bringing in new ones who are not acquainted with the process of (re-)appropriation and the involved political struggle (Huron, 2015;DeFilippis et al, 2019). DeFilippis et al (2019) argue that living in what we may call commons does not automatically lead to a transformative subjectivity.…”

Section: Legal Engagements and Depoliticizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Territorialized Commons and Social Movements: Legal Appropriations of Collective Spaces in Berlin and Santiago de Chile

Amacher

Kip

Opazo

2022

Front. Sustain. Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to explore the relationship between territorialized commons and movements and how the use of legal strategies of appropriation mediates this relationship. We study two recent commoning practices for collective space in Berlin and Santiago de Chile that have appropriated publicly owned land for their initiative, engaging with legal institutions to meet the ends of the movement. This type of relationship to movements has not been given serious consideration in the commons literature and we ask how these commoning initiatives make the appropriated land a common resource for the movement and resist privatization. Based on secondary sources and interviews with activists, we conclude that both initiatives in Berlin and Santiago de Chile have drawn on legal frameworks for transformative purposes while also politicizing the question of public land as an asset for civic and commoning use. However, said frameworks do not replace activist engagement and self-organization as the main element behind commoning processes.

show abstract

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

Cited by 35 publications

References 24 publications

Taking back vacant property

Taking back vacant property

Fight and build: solidarity economy as ontological politics

Territorialized Commons and Social Movements: Legal Appropriations of Collective Spaces in Berlin and Santiago de Chile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About