Lincoln Place Struggle Continues
By Sheila
Bernard
People are eager to engage in a
struggle that either tangibly improves their lives or expresses their values.
The battle waged by the Lincoln Place Tenants Association (LPTA) does both. The
tangible need is obvious. The philosophical foundation of our movement is less
obvious, but equally important.
“Doesn’t the owner get
to do what he wants with his
property?”
Yes, within
limits. Our struggle at Lincoln Place, on the surface, does not challenge the
rights of private property owners. We rely mostly upon existing law, and we
fight for more law, which prevents abuses of private property such as our
landlord engages in.
“Won’t Lincoln
Place deteriorate if you prevent the landlord from rehabilitating
it?”
The landlord does not
seek to rehabilitate. He seeks to alter the buildings so he can evict long-term
tenants and charge more to new tenants. Re-piping and electrical upgrades could
be done without evicting anyone, because natural attrition provides for
significant profit. However, the owner does not want significant profit. He
wants maximum profit, regardless of the social consequences.
“Isn’t it better
for people to own their housing than to be renters their whole
lives?”
Theoretically,
we would have a stronger society if every household had ownership and the
resulting sense of place. However, the history of our economy has had the
opposite effect. People have been driven off of family farms. This has put
ownership outside the capacity of millions of people, except for collective
ownership.
“Isn’t
collective ownership of property
messy?”
Yes, collective
ownership of property, collective work on a document, collective decision making
is time-consuming, contentious, and often frustrating. But so is democracy.
Collective ownership of property can work for some low-income people who do not
have the economic or personal resources to own individually.
“How could Lincoln Place
be owned collectively?”
Our
vision for the eventual ownership of Lincoln Place involves a non-profit
organization with an elected board consisting mostly of tenants, but including
housing professionals and other community members. The non-profit is charged
with keeping the property permanently affordable. The housing remains rental
housing. People pay monthly, contribute no financial equity, and take no equity
when they leave. This is because if some residents contribute equity, they
become more powerful than others of less means who have no equity to contribute.
With no equity contribution, everyone has an equal vote, and the property is
controlled democratically.
Participation on the board from
housing professionals and other community people provides an additional
safeguard against betrayal of the mission of the
organization.
With collective ownership
comes the opportunity to introduce environmental and social sustainability to
the property. We can plan for solar energy, water recycling, drought-tolerant
landscaping, more trees, community gardens, and social facilities. We can start
small cottage industries. When mortgages are paid off, we can self-subsidize our
seniors and others in need, taking some burden off of other taxpayers. The only
limit is our consciousness and our
imagination
“Sounds good. So why
don’t you guys own Lincoln Place
yet?”
We do not own Lincoln Place
because the owner does not want to sell.
“So looking deeper than face
value, does your vision challenge private
ownership?”
Eventually, but not yet.
Right now our vision challenges US. Collective ownership calls upon all our
reserves of cooperation and self-discipline. We have no illusion that we can
challenge the social or economic order of this country without a major increase
in the personal responsibility born by every member of the society. Each of us
can start where we live.
Sheila Bernard is President
of the Lincoln Place Tenants Association. Lincoln Place is the 795-unit complex
just east of Ralph’s and Ross at Lincoln and California.
Posted: Mon - July 1, 2002 at 05:59 PM