 |
| LINK [1] - [2] |
Foreword
In 21st C Tasmania, and indeed Australia wide, how our ‘homeplaces’ are being imagined and understood is being fundamentally challenged in so many ways. ’Home’ is not just a place, quite simply it is an idea and as it turns out, an irrevocable condition imbedded our ‘cultural consciousness’.
The planning imperatives that until recently informed local governance without all that much controversy given that in Australia ‘home ownership,’ and the ability to rent a ‘home’, was within the reach of almost everyone who aspired to ‘make’ a home somewhere. In second decade of the 21st C that is increasingly not the case evidenced by the increasing large cohorts of homeless people – people who not so very long ago could afford to own or rent a ‘home’.
While a home might well turn out to be the largest 'investment' we make or are likely to make, yet it is our 'right' to have a HOMEplace, a secure and safe place, that is of supreme importance. Also, what a HOMEplace might, or perhaps more importantly 'could' look like, to a diversity of people in CULTURALlandscapes that are changing apropos all manner of things is something that too little attention is being paid to in 21st C context.
Along with the need create more HOMEplaces there is a need to look beyond that 'row upon row upon row of little boxes' in order to create more 'homes' that are 'fit for purpose' – culturally and socially.
In floating the concept of 21st C not-for-profit;
housing cooperative that is a self-sustaining enterprise, its worthwhileness on one hand seems obvious. However, on the other hand the fact such a thing is not already in place that is also something worthy of consideration. Whatever, there is a job to be done, and that is create more 'homes' – and that more so than more houses.
Of particular interest is that in the Nordic countries there is a wide range of housing policies and the prominence of housing cooperatives, which assist both renters and those wanting to own a secure, high-quality home. With these ‘policies’ and the resulting ‘enterprises’ the processes via which they come to be can be problematic as might be those that sustain them. Nonetheless, clearly what is important is the socio-political imperatives that provide for them and that sustain them.
Interestingly, Sweden’s cooperative sector amounts to 22% of total housing stock. Norway’s represent 15% nationwide, and 40% in the capital, Oslo. In Denmark, more than 20% of the population lives in cooperative housing.
Also, the Finnish government has a “Housing First” principle, adopted in 2007, which says people have ‘a right to' decent housing and along with it, 'a right to' useful social services.
By comparison, cooperative housing in Australia comprises less than 1% of the Australian housing sector, with about 200 housing cooperatives mostly focused on providing affordable rental housing.
Establishing a body to manage funds contributed to a cooperative of the kind flagged here is non-trivial. Launceston like communities everywhere have organisations, some being charities, with the wherewithal and the administrative infrastructure, and arguably the expertise as well, to:
• Muster resources in ‘the community’;
• Undertake the publicity such as that which can be reliably found in communities worldwide; and
• Hold the credibility important to have in order to develop crowd funding initiatives.
There can be little doubt that within ‘the community’ many, if not most, of these organisations, operations charities, whatever, would see themselves as being up to the task of actually handling a housing cooperative if it was part of their raison d'etre.
Nonetheless, the question hanging, if such an initiative is seen as ‘worthy’, why up to now haven’t any of these ‘operations’ been ’up for it’. Why might that be the case? A sense of comfort with the status quo might well be a factor.
Whoever it is, or whatever body it might be that comes about, or is enlisted to, manage funds invested in a social community enterprise such as a ‘social housing cooperative’ would have administrative overheads that would need to be factored into such a cooperative cum enterprise’s strategic planning.
Given that the ‘profit motive’ couldn’t realistically be a driving force, this ‘recurrent administrative funding/support’ might well be provided to some extent by ‘government at all levels’ on the basis of delivery on competitive key performance indicators – social dividends in lieu of fiscal dividends especially.
With a ‘trustworthy administration’ projects such as the management of and refurbishing an existing building, erecting innovative crisis accommodation, designing housing that fits 21st C imperatives – socially, culturally and economically – mustering the necessary workforces and resources would, largely, be beyond the capacity of volunteers but as beneficiaries of the ‘enterprise’ there are roles for them. Arguably, it also is an endeavour that is well beyond the imaginative, or cooperative capacities of ‘governance’ – Federal State, Local – any closer than at ‘arm’s length’ and with them:
• Providing appropriate planning approvals;
• Dedicating access to land within planning schemes;
• Servicing the outcomes; and
• Marketing the opportunities to people seeking to establish a ‘home’ and potential HOMEplace investors cum contributors to 'a fund' to come together.
The 'coming together' here would/might be in endevours to fund a council to erect crisis housing on land provided by ‘governance’ – councils etc.
A fundamental problem – most likely the most important factor – in Australia is that the ‘housing market’ is too skewed towards treating housing as a ‘financial asset’ and that reveals itself in every layer of governance. Arguably that is a post WW2 20th C sensibility that is under all kinds of pressure in a v21st C context.
If the basic human need for, arguably the right to, affordable and appropriate housing along with a secure income were anywhere near being acknowledged as a ‘right’ this proposal would be most likely put forward within a more accommodating mindset or indeed such an enterprise would already exist and thus ‘surplus to requirement’.
ENTERPRISE IDENTITY
Until the appropriate 'community members' have come together in a 'Steering Committee' an 'entity name' is required in order to maintain a focus upon 'IT' in comparison to other 'entities' the group might want to compare or contrast its proposal with/to. To that end CO-OP7250 has been nominated.
PURPOSE
To enable people to make and find a HOMEplace in the world that is meant for them.
OBJECTIVES
1 ... Build a networked not-for-profit community enterprise that is a 21st C corporate entity – say a cooperative – that enables people find and make secure places that fit their needs short term, medium term and ultimately a sustainable and secure HOMEplace for the long term.
2 ... Build a network of members – individuals, groups, organisations and businesses – who can offer skills and services and likewise be the beneficiaries of the 'operation' via their memberships and affiliations – via social, cultural and/or fiscal 'dividends'.
3 ... Make 'places' one place at a time, places that fit the needs and aspirations of members and affiliates in ways appropriate to their circumstance – social, cultural, economic – in a mindset focused on secure sustainable PLACEmaking.
4 ... Draw upon the resources, skills and experience of people within the 'enterprise' and its networks to offer training and information for members to enable people to expand their knowledge and skills relative to PLACEmaking and building/creating HOMEplaces.
5 ... Build a fiscal resource that members can draw upon and contribute to towards enabling them to realise their aspirations in building HOMEplaces in the context of 21st C circumstances and providing income and ancillary dividend opportunities.
RATIONALES
1 ...Currently throughout Australia there are cohorts of people seeking to find a HOMEplaces and they are being increasingly displaced in the housing market. Also, the past mechanisms that enabled people in a wide variety of situations to own and/or lease an affordable HOMEplace is being denied them. Consequently, it is time to proactively initiate new opportunities given the dire social consequences of inaction.
2 ... When people and communities at a 'grass roots' context– individuals, groups, organisations and businesses – work collaboratively and cooperatively they can achieve outcomes unavailable to them by operating in aggressive competition. Always the beneficiaries of cooperative enterprises are those who collaborate to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.
3 ... By building upon, and investing in, successful outcomes one step at a time, small gains can compound in the longer term to deliver outcome appropriate to the aspirations of those invest something more than money in an endevour cum enterprise – one dedicated to creating HOMEplaces.
4 ... Within communities there are cohorts of people with the resources, skills and experience who are UNDERemployed and who are ready and willing to offer them in worthwhile enterprises in ways that fit their circumstances and aspirations. Engaging such people in PLACEmaking and the building HOMEplaces is ever likely to be a win-win scenario.
5 ... Current market conditions tends to disadvantage an increasingly larger cohort of people seeking to avail themselves of the fiscal resources that might enable them to build, or affordably live in, 'their' HOMEplace – possibly 'owned' in a diversity of ways. Access to the funding in a 21st C circumstance is increasingly becoming an imperative given that what is actually required is a HANDup not a HANDout and governments at all levels are demonstrating their deafness to the 'need'. Here we might well look at the Grameen Bank as a reference albeit in a different circumstance and somewhat different timeframe.
STRATEGIES
1 ... Initially establish a 'steering committee' under the auspices of an incorporated 'body' charged with facilitating the initiation of a 'purposeful corporate entity' – say CO-OP7250 – with a clearly articulated purpose supported by a foundation set of objectives – short term, medium term and long term.
2 ... Put in 'place' a suite of interfacing communication networks – SOCIALmedia, NEWSsite, WEBsites books, etc. – dedicated reaching and servicing a diverse audience at a 'grass roots' level. That is a standalone network that offers ‘rhizomatic linkages’ to information typically and ordinarily unavailable via 'the press'.
3 ... Initiate interrelated but standalone PLACEmaking projects that build upon the outcomes of each other and provide modelling for future projects of various scales, in variable contexts and various levels of complexity – grow via a diversity that is reflective of the CO-OP7250 constituency.
4 ... From within the 'entity/enterprise' establish project teams/units with the resources, skills and experience to undertake PLACEmaking projects that are initiated within the entity/enterprise, by groups, individuals and/or affiliated organisations – charities, service clubs, men's sheds, etc. The overarching imperative being the creation of HOMEplaces.
5 ... Establish a professionally managed TRUST FUND – say, the CO-OP7250 Trust – that brings together funding from multiple sources:
• ... Membership contributions;
• ... Social investors – governance et al;
• ... The outcomes of CROWDfunding initiatives;
• ... Bequests and donations from supporters;
• ... Project grants from the 'public purse';
• ... nterest/income earned on managed funds; and
• ... The sale of services when and where appropriate;
with the funds being ‘totally dedicated’ to enabling people to create HOMEplaces that fit ‘their needs’ in accord with their aspirations.
“The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.” – Bertrand Russell
LINK
ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-02/tasmania-rental-crisis-caravan-park-demand-increase/101118360
No comments:
Post a Comment