It seems like the general consensus is that land trusts are the best option for long term community building.
My question is how do we structure these documents? What specific questions need to be answered by those involved to create a sound and equitable perpetual trust that provides for its beneficiaries for a very long time?
If you could get some sort of land trusts attorney or someone with relevant legal expertise to write an article to help people get started on the process (which then needs to be checked over by a lawyer), I think that would be very actionable and helpful!
This is the exact topic of a white paper I am currently researching and writing as a fellow for the Center for Land Economics. I'll cover exactly how trust deeds should be structured (based on our most successful case studies), and how lease agreements should be structured. Also, how we can fund the creation of more land trusts...
Oooooo I’m excited to learn more! Thank you for all that you do.
I think I discovered integrationcenter.org from a comment on one of your posts a while back. Seems like a strong concept for financing community building operations. I am trying to put it into practice here in SE Louisiana.
Yeah the economic viability of building these regenerative style eco villages has been a difficulty to wrap my brain around and I think the integration center model provides a very grounded solution.
My friend is doing this with real estate, the land and the house, and using cryptocurrency. He's just about to launch. I like this idea. We still need to address the affordability of things. We will lose the battle to the concentration of wealth. Power always wins. This is a helpful technology tool though.
Why invest in something that is entirely non productive like a painting, or a rare stamp aside from a perception that you might be on a "sure thing" to rake in some filthy lucre? Please don't try to dress this up as if it is a marvellous thing.
But you find a lot to love in fractional ownership? You made a small investment in a Banksy, presumably hope to see a good return? And the smug cachet of being able to saying you "own a Banksy" of course. That's all a long way from common ownership isn't it?
One hundred people owning a Banksy is better than one person owning a Banksy. Two hundred owners of a business are better than a handful of venture capitalists and founders owning it. But collective stakeholder ownership is better. That's what my piece says.
100 people caring very much about Banksy, or at least a lot more than the average bear, is an improvement. It's great.
Many of us have friends who are artists, and sometimes we tell them, "Oh, that looks great." Compliments are nice, but nothing says, "I really like your work" like buying a piece of art, whether 100% or 1% of it. That's the true compliment: putting one's money where one's mouth is.
Not sure what you’re getting at with all this. I mean, if the idea here is to suggest that there’s nothing new under the sun, I happen to agree with you for the most part. It’s part of my criticism of DAOs, and in particular those that seek legal wrappers. But let me look past what I sense is the undercurrent of your questions in order to try and give a better answer.
So much of this depends on how it’s all set up. Are we talking about a collective of creators who crowdsource the creation of a work of art? It’s an interesting sidebar that the U.S. state of Colorado now has an entity type for artists: https://www.artistcorporations.com/compare
Also, let’s go back to Banksy. Is it owned by an entity that has 100 beneficiaries, claimants or owners, or does Banksy have 100 different beneficiaries, claimants or owners? I’m not trying to get into semantics or thread the needle too much here, and I do want to answer your questions. Are all beneficiaries, claimants and owners co-equal, or do some have bigger positions than others? I mean, sure, I’d imagine you’d be quick to point out how corporations often have different classes of stock with different rights, and you’d be correct.
I read the article and get that. It is, to my mind, how modern capitalism started... People clubbing together and investing (big and small) in a "venture" and then sharing the profits/dividends made on the basis of the proportion invested. (Things like the East India Company and dozens of others). Could you explain to me, in simple language, what is the difference between what you say you love and how capitalism has always worked. I
The difference is that, with modern American capitalism, the people investing in a venture are nonworking (nonproductive capital). They don't do anything to create the value of that venture except give it money. And yet they earn most of the rewards created by that venture.
Collective ownership of a venture means that the people who CREATE the value are also the beneficiaries of that value. So at an employee-owned company, it's the employees who built the company that benefit from its success (rather than just an investor in it). In a collectively owned city land trust, the residents who live and work in the town, are the beneficiaries when the town gets richer (rather than an outside property developer or private land owners).
It's that those who create the value (working capital) benefit from the value they created. Instead of just whoever has the money (nonworking capital).
Pooling resources is absolutely the answer and what the people in power fear most. Look at how they reacted to GameStop, the Canadian Truckers, or more recently to the idea of buying Spirit Airlines.
But our pooling of resources should start with a new platform - one specifically for pooling resources and solving problems in groups - without leaders who are easy to corrupt.
The idea would be not to buy land. Or paintings. But to collectively by systems - businesses, etc. Then push for the collective to shop there.
Yes! I've fantasised about crowdsourcing new companies and even countries, and then crowdfunding them. It'd be interesting to see what folks come up with. This doesn't mean that founders and builders, as well as intellects, can't help the crowd either. It doesn't have to be a synonym for a mobocracy.
It seems like the general consensus is that land trusts are the best option for long term community building.
My question is how do we structure these documents? What specific questions need to be answered by those involved to create a sound and equitable perpetual trust that provides for its beneficiaries for a very long time?
If you could get some sort of land trusts attorney or someone with relevant legal expertise to write an article to help people get started on the process (which then needs to be checked over by a lawyer), I think that would be very actionable and helpful!
This is the exact topic of a white paper I am currently researching and writing as a fellow for the Center for Land Economics. I'll cover exactly how trust deeds should be structured (based on our most successful case studies), and how lease agreements should be structured. Also, how we can fund the creation of more land trusts...
More to come in the fall!
Oooooo I’m excited to learn more! Thank you for all that you do.
I think I discovered integrationcenter.org from a comment on one of your posts a while back. Seems like a strong concept for financing community building operations. I am trying to put it into practice here in SE Louisiana.
Oh amazing, thanks for the rec! Looks like an interesting model...
Yeah the economic viability of building these regenerative style eco villages has been a difficulty to wrap my brain around and I think the integration center model provides a very grounded solution.
My friend is doing this with real estate, the land and the house, and using cryptocurrency. He's just about to launch. I like this idea. We still need to address the affordability of things. We will lose the battle to the concentration of wealth. Power always wins. This is a helpful technology tool though.
https://www.secondarydao.com/about
Hmmmm, isn't this the case I'm arguing against? We would all be investing in homes we don't live in, while the resident pays us rent?
Why invest in something that is entirely non productive like a painting, or a rare stamp aside from a perception that you might be on a "sure thing" to rake in some filthy lucre? Please don't try to dress this up as if it is a marvellous thing.
Hmmm, yeah I definitely didn't. I think collective ownership is the solution (as evidenced by the article!)
But you find a lot to love in fractional ownership? You made a small investment in a Banksy, presumably hope to see a good return? And the smug cachet of being able to saying you "own a Banksy" of course. That's all a long way from common ownership isn't it?
One hundred people owning a Banksy is better than one person owning a Banksy. Two hundred owners of a business are better than a handful of venture capitalists and founders owning it. But collective stakeholder ownership is better. That's what my piece says.
100 people caring very much about Banksy, or at least a lot more than the average bear, is an improvement. It's great.
Many of us have friends who are artists, and sometimes we tell them, "Oh, that looks great." Compliments are nice, but nothing says, "I really like your work" like buying a piece of art, whether 100% or 1% of it. That's the true compliment: putting one's money where one's mouth is.
So is fractional ownership a combination of an old school (capitalist) joint stock company and good old-fashioned (feudal) patronage?
Not sure what you’re getting at with all this. I mean, if the idea here is to suggest that there’s nothing new under the sun, I happen to agree with you for the most part. It’s part of my criticism of DAOs, and in particular those that seek legal wrappers. But let me look past what I sense is the undercurrent of your questions in order to try and give a better answer.
So much of this depends on how it’s all set up. Are we talking about a collective of creators who crowdsource the creation of a work of art? It’s an interesting sidebar that the U.S. state of Colorado now has an entity type for artists: https://www.artistcorporations.com/compare
Also, let’s go back to Banksy. Is it owned by an entity that has 100 beneficiaries, claimants or owners, or does Banksy have 100 different beneficiaries, claimants or owners? I’m not trying to get into semantics or thread the needle too much here, and I do want to answer your questions. Are all beneficiaries, claimants and owners co-equal, or do some have bigger positions than others? I mean, sure, I’d imagine you’d be quick to point out how corporations often have different classes of stock with different rights, and you’d be correct.
I read the article and get that. It is, to my mind, how modern capitalism started... People clubbing together and investing (big and small) in a "venture" and then sharing the profits/dividends made on the basis of the proportion invested. (Things like the East India Company and dozens of others). Could you explain to me, in simple language, what is the difference between what you say you love and how capitalism has always worked. I
The difference is that, with modern American capitalism, the people investing in a venture are nonworking (nonproductive capital). They don't do anything to create the value of that venture except give it money. And yet they earn most of the rewards created by that venture.
Collective ownership of a venture means that the people who CREATE the value are also the beneficiaries of that value. So at an employee-owned company, it's the employees who built the company that benefit from its success (rather than just an investor in it). In a collectively owned city land trust, the residents who live and work in the town, are the beneficiaries when the town gets richer (rather than an outside property developer or private land owners).
It's that those who create the value (working capital) benefit from the value they created. Instead of just whoever has the money (nonworking capital).
Did you read the whole article? Sounds like no
Excellent article.
Pooling resources is absolutely the answer and what the people in power fear most. Look at how they reacted to GameStop, the Canadian Truckers, or more recently to the idea of buying Spirit Airlines.
But our pooling of resources should start with a new platform - one specifically for pooling resources and solving problems in groups - without leaders who are easy to corrupt.
The idea would be not to buy land. Or paintings. But to collectively by systems - businesses, etc. Then push for the collective to shop there.
We talk about this extensively on the Swarm Academy podcast and on several of our articles for example this very fun one where we “interview a super intelligent alien” https://joshketry.substack.com/p/the-visitor?r=7oa9d&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I'm so here for collective ownership of businesses, land, etc!! I'll have more to say on that soon....
Yes! I've fantasised about crowdsourcing new companies and even countries, and then crowdfunding them. It'd be interesting to see what folks come up with. This doesn't mean that founders and builders, as well as intellects, can't help the crowd either. It doesn't have to be a synonym for a mobocracy.
Are you familiar with collective swarm intelligence for group decision making?