The Burlington Community Land Trust: A Socialist Approach to Affordable Housing?

STEVEN D. SOIFER“
University of Washington

INTRODUCTION

In March 1989, one of the more interesting chapters in contemporary urban politics came to a close when Bernard Sanders, the socialist mayor of Burlington, Vermont (population, 38,0(D), voluntarily left office. Sanders was one of a handful of socialist mayors to serve in the late 1970s and 1980s. The others, all from California, were Gus Newport in Berkeley, Ruth Goldwyn in Santa Monica, and Mike Rotkin and Bruce Van Allen in Santa Cruz.

Many novel programs were numbered during the terms of these socialist administrations. In Burlington, Sanders and his Progressive Coalition initiated several innovative measures during his eight years iii office. One of these initiatives, the Burlington Community Land 2Yust (8CLT), is a new approach to address the crisis in affordable housing in this country, a crisis created in the pan by the Reagan administration’s gulping of financial housing programs for poor and working people. Such programs have been slashed by 525 billion, more than 75%, since 1981 while there has been a near Unfold decrease, from 200,tXD to about 23,0fD, in the number of federally subsidized rental units (Reanur, 1989).

This article explores the nature and history of community land trusts (CLTS) in the United States and presents the BCLT as a case study of an operating land trust. Looking at its possibilities and limitations, we will see how effective the BCLT has been in addressing affordable housing

---

 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS |

crisis in one city. Because the BCLT was initiated by a socialist administration, whether or not such a reform can be considered socialistic also will be discussed.

COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS

According to the Institute for Community Economics, a nonprofit corporation that provides technical assistance to community economic development projects, a community land trust is a private, nonprofit corporation (usually tax-exempt) founded by community residents to remove land and housing from the speculative market and ensure the long-term affordability of the housing while securing the community’s control over the destiny of the land (A. Berdick, personal communication, February 27, 1989).

Community land trusts are usually operated by democratically elected boards, comprised equally of land trust participants, public interest representatives, and representatives of community organizations and financial institutions (Burlington Community Land Trust, 1988b). CLTs try to achieve certain social goals, which sets them apart from other kinds of land trusts (Geisler,1980). A CLT owns the land in trust for the community and offers long-term leases (generally 99 years) at reasonable rates to low and moderate-income individuals and families, and to limited equity cooperatives and nonprofit organizations (Institute for Community Economics, ICE, n.d; Baker, 1988). The house or building is owned by the individual, family, or organization. This legal separation of the home from the land allows people to obtain housing that they otherwise could not afford to buy (M. Severance, personal communication, May 15, 1986). Since land usually amounts to 20 or 25% of the cost of buying a new home, home ownership becomes more affordable under a land trust arrangement (B. Torpy, personal communication, April 11, 1986). While limiting individual equity, CLTs return to the whole community the value added to the land as a result of market speculation and development pressures (Davis, 1983).

The community land trust concept has a long history that can be traced to precapitalistic patterns of common land use in Europe. native Americans believed in the common use of the land, too. The community land trust model was also influenced by the ideas that populist economist Henry George presented in his book, progress and Poverty, published more than a century ago. George thought that the primary cause of poverty was the unequal distribution of land. Therefore, he argued, the government should take steps to see that land became part of the “common trust,” and that people had access to it on an equal basis (ICE, 1982}. He proposed an almost confiscatory single tax on the land’s value(Wiegand, 1988). The State, by taking away landowners’ rental income through this single tax, would in effect “become the universal landlord” (George, 1879/1975, pp. 406-407).

After the publication of George’s book, a number of single-tax enclaves were formed across the country in the late 1890s. During the Great Depression of the I930s, George’s ideas were modified by Ralph Borsodi (n.d.), who introduced the concept of trustee, as opposed to the notion of property. Humans, natural resources, and legal grants are examples of trustees. Borsodi was instrumental in helping set up several intentionally planned communities for the unemployed, a few of which still exist today.       

Page 2

---

| The Burlington Community Land Trust |

Another influence on the community land trust concept was land banking in which a public body purchases land, temporarily regulates how the land can be developed, and eventually leases or sells it to private or public entities. The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, and France have engaged in land banking. Interestingly, at one point in the United States’ history, this strategy was used to purchase land and plan development in a number of cities across the country, including Austin, Chicago, Detroit, Savannah, and Washington. Today, a few states, like Massachusetts and New York, still use public land banking as an aid in development, but it is vastly underutilized (ICE, 1982; Davis, Geisler, & Matthei, n.d.).                

More recent influences on the community land trust model have their roots in land reform movements around the world, such as the Bhoodan movement in India (where wealthy property owners would give away land to be redistributed to the poor), government land redistribution efforts in Mexico and Tanzania, and the Jewish National Fund of Israel (which owns much of Israel’s agricultural land, leasing it to communities like the kibbutzim) (ICE, 1982).

Davis (1984) argues that historically there are three traditions of land reform: (1) ownership redistribution, in which the stale confiscates or buys large private land holdings and redistributes them to poor individuals or gives them Io collectives; (2) land use restrictions, whereby the public places limits on the private control of property; and (3) equity reallocation which seeks to alter how “the value inherent in land and buildings is distributed “between the individual owner and the larger community” (Davis, 1984, pp. 209-210).

In the United States, says Davis, the second method has dominated land reform efforts. With the recent impact of land speculation on housing prices, however, experiments with the third technique of land reform are becoming more common. “Mixed-ownership models of equity reallocation” are not necessarily new (Davis, 1984, p. 215). Many public-private development projects exist, such as New York City’s Rockefeller Center, but when used for social purposes of equity reallocation through the provision of affordable housing, a mixed ownership model like the community land trust Is something novel (Abromowitz, 1989; Davis, 1984).

The community land trust model is clearly a form of mixed ownership. Based on the notion of social property, CLTs draw on two political traditions: the new republican mode, in which individual ownership of housing and land is encouraged, and the neo-Marxist mode, in which the interests of the commonwealth take precedence over individual ownership. Thus, CLTs give “people a personal stake in the ownership of housing and a common stake in the stewardship of the land” (Davis, 1983, p. 6).

The need for a new model was evident. As capitalist property relations and the ideology of private ownership became entrenched, land was treated as a commodity. When conceived of as capital, the land is less valued for its productive capacity than for its speculative market worth (Davis, et. al., n.d.). As land becomes a scarce resource, more and more people cannot afford to purchase it, and the American dream of home ownership slips away from low and moderate-income people.

The present community land trust model evolved during the 1960s. Ralph Borsodi and Robert Swann, cofounders of the International Independence Institute in 1967, the forerunner of the Institute for Community Economies, were the major forces behind it. Their idea was to create “democratically controlled institutions that would hold land for the common good of any community while

Page 3

---

| JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS |

making it available to individuals within the community through long-term leases” (ICE, 1982, p. vii).

The first community land trust was formed outside of Leesburg, Georgia, in 1968 (BCLT, 1988b). Slow to catch on, many CLTs were initiated during the last five years. Today, about 65 community land trusts with slightly less than a total of 1000 housing units have been formed in about 20 states, including California, Georgia•, Ohio, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont (A. Berdick, personal communication, February 27, 1989; Naureckas, 1988; BCLT, 1988b).

Many of the benefits of community land trusts are practical. Through the provision of affordable housing and needed services in low and moderate-income communities, CLTs add to the social wage (Davis, et al., n.d.). CLTs also keep public subsidies within the community because the original subsidy stays with the property, benefiting not only the first but all subsequent owners. As more and more real estate is taken off the speculative market, gentrification of low and moderate-income neighborhoods can be curbed too. Another positive effect is the stabilization of rents without the need to legislate rent control. Neighborhood planning without using restrictive zoning is accomplished through the ground lease contract between the CLT and the homeowner. CLTs also can return abandoned properties and dwellings to the tax rolls. Finally, money saved by CLT property owners is often recycled in the community, further revitalizing it (Community and Economic Development Office, n.d.).

If CLTs were combined with other elements of the new community economics movement such as worker cooperatives and alternative financial institutions, and if these activities were coordinated through community development corporations, then extensive neighborhood revitalization is possible (Changing Work, 1986). To date, however, this has occurred in only a few places.

The land trust model is receiving increased national attention from housing advocates and the news media. Since 1987, several states have appropriated money that can be used to fund CLTs. Connecticut has allocated $4 million for community land trusts and Vermont has set aside $25 million for affordable housing projects (including CLTs) and the preservation of agricultural land. Home mortgage loans are also being given to community land trust homeowners in a number of states and by the federal Farmers Home Administration (FHA) (Matthei, 1989).

Meanwhile, Congressman Joseph Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts, has introduced legislation, the Community Housing Partnership Act, that would give $500 million to nonprofit housing organizations such as community land trusts to provide affordable housing for low and moderate-income people (Bowsher, 1988; Naureckas, 1988). Given the CLTs’ emphasis on private property restrictions, ”it would be ironic if the socialization of property was legitimized [by Congress] because of the fiscal restraints imposed by the policies of a conservative president” (Naureckas, 1988, p. 2).

The birth of the community land trust movement can be attributed to the work of the Institute for Community Economics during the last two decades and to the success of the Burlington Community Land Trust. The BCLT has indirectly led to the creation of about 25 new community land trusts in New England in the past several years (Lechner, 1988), and many municipalities across the country are turning to it for information, guidance, and Inspiration (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986). 

Page 4

---

 | The Burlington Community Land Trust |

BURLINGTON COMMUNITY LAND TRUST: ORIGIN

In late 1983, over 50 people, including bankers, realtors, lawyers, city housing specialists, members of the religious community, and tenants packed a Burlington conference room for the first official meeting of the Burlington Community Land Trust. In an ~~ effort to provide more affordable housing for its low and moderate-income citizens, Burlington, with a $200,000 city appropriation, became the first municipality in the U.S. to fund a community land trust (BCLT, 1985; T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986).  

The saga of the BCLT began a year before with the creation of a new Burlington city office, the Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO}. In 1982, Sanders, after much political maneuvering, convinced the Board of Aldermen to create the CEDO, Since that time, the CEDO has engaged in many traditional community development – activities, such as obtaining Urban Development Action Grants (UDAGs), distributing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies to neighborhoods, and rehabilitating Burlington’s housing stock. The CEDO also carried out some very innovative projects, such as fostering worker-owned businesses, helping establish limited equity housing cooperatives, and initiating the Burlington Community Land Trust. This last project is perhaps the most radical CEDO initiative.

At the same time that the CEDO was created, Burlington progressives close to the Sanders administration were discussing the idea of a community land trust. Members of the Institute for Community Economics (ICE) staff traveled to Burlington to meet with representatives of the Sanders” administration in 1983. After much discussion on community economic development and housing issues for the city, including the community land trust idea, the 1983 community meeting was held (Berger, 1983).

Progressive Coalition members wanted to link the development of a community land trust to the provision of inexpensive housing, Initially, the hope was that the community land trust would be funded through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, a federal government program that gives money for community projects that aid low and moderate-income people (Berger, 1985; BCLT, 1985). In this spirit, progressives made a $400,000 request to the city’s CDBG committee for the funding of a community land trust in 1983. Tim McKenzie, who was then on Burlington’s Joint Community Development and Planning Commission looking at CDBG requests and who currently is director of the BCLT, explained:

The proposal went through a detailed review by several different groups, including the Neighborhood Planning Assemblies and various aldermanic committees (BCLT, 1985). Although the community land trust proposal had cleared these hurdles without major problems, it turned out there were simply too many good proposals that year to fund the community land trust out of the city’s CDBG pool. Progressives then sought Sanders” and the Board of Aldermen’s support to fund it from general city revenues, specifically a $1.9 million surpluses discovered by the city treasurer’s office shortly after Sanders was elected, This proved difficult because the Mayor was initially skeptical of the proposal.

Page 5

---

| JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS |

At first, Sanders did not appreciate the long-term implications of the community land trust. **Bernie wants something that’s going to help a lot of people — ~ and tomorrow” (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986).

The Sunday before the scheduled aldermanic vote on the city budget, McKenzie had a discussion with Peter Clavelle, director of the CEDO and since Marchi T989 Burlington’s mayor, about the community land trust and Sanders’ reluctance to support it. Both Clevelle and Jonathon Leopold, Jr., the city treasurer, spoke to the Mayor that afternoon and convinced Sanders to support the community land trust concept and fund it with $200,000 from the surplus money in the general fund. The Board of Aldermen agreed to go along with this proposal, but since some of the board members had reservations, the CEDO was initially put in charge of the project and the money (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986). Very quickly, however, the CEDO worked to set up the community land trust as a separate nonprofit corporation, which was accomplished in May 1984 (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1987).

BCLT: PHILOSOPHY, GOALS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The operating philosophy of the BCLT is that some amount of affordable housing should be available to the Burlington community in perpetuity. Housing should be viewed as a basic right, not a privilege. Therefore, land should be seen as a community resource
rather than a source of profit,

Land itself was not created of any human effort, there’s no equity anybody put into that land in the first place, so it’s fundamentally wrong to be taking all this equity out of the land, and doing it over and over and over again ( T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986).

The director of the BCLT explained its long-term significance in this way:

[The ultimate goal is to] remove a significant portion of the land in Burlington from the speculative market forever, so that the cost of the land and its increasing value will never ever be factored into the purchase of the shelter that’s built on the land, . . , [In this way], there will also be an adequate and affordable stock of housing for Burlington’s low and moderate-income people without further public subsidy (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986).

The BCLT purchased its first piece of real estate, a one-family home, in the summer of 1984, Kathy Nielson, a school librarian with two children, bought the land trust home for $42,500, though the market value of the home was $55,000, a 23% savings. In addition, she was able 10 secure a below-market rate mortgage from a local bank with the community land trust’s help (Powell, 1985; Wilhelm, 1987). If Nielson ever sells the house, the amount of profit she can make could not exceed 25% (it used to be 10%) of the increased value of the home. No profit is realized from the increased value of the land, Furthermore, the next purchaser of the home must be another low or moderate-income person or family, or the land trust itself (Powell, 1985; Lechner, 1988). While “*it’s substantially cheaper to own [a home) through the land trust . . . there are substantially less economic benefits should you ever decide

Page 6

---

 | The Burlington Community Land Trust |

to sell (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986).

The land trust has especially targeted a one-square block area in Burlington’s Old North End neighborhood because of that neighborhood’s low and moderate-income population and the problem of gentrification. Some housing units near the University of Vermont also have been purchased so that they may eventually be converted from student use to family occupancy (BCLT, 1988a).

As of July 1989, the Burlington Community Land Trust had a total of 85 units on 37 – land parcels, or a little over one-half of 1% of the city’s housing stock of 13,500 units, Fifty-nine of the living units are currently rentals in multifamily buildings, of which some are scheduled to become cooperatively owned by their tenants in the near future. Twenty-three single-family units are part of the BCLT’s housing inventory. There are also three nonprofit commercial spaces, including the BCLT’s own office space, a community health center in the Old North End, and a recently secured shelter serving homeless families (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986; P, Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989; C. Reid, personal communication, August 9, 1989).

There are many more low and moderate-income people interested in purchasing a house through the BCLT than there are available units. In 1988, the BCLT received 388 information requests, 72 for single-family homes, and 316 for co-op or rental units. Currently, there are 120 applications on file (C. Reid, personal communication, March 6, 1989). While Burlington’s median income is presently over $30,000, the average single-family home sells for $120,000. Over 40% of Burlington’s citizenry makes less than 80% of the median figure, making them ineligible to purchase a home (BCLT, 1989). This helps explain why so many residents are interested in the BCLT.

Strict eligibility guidelines determine whether someone will be allowed to purchase a home or rent an apartment through the community land trust. An applicant must be a BCLT member, The applicant’s income must be between 30 and 80% of Vermont’s median income to be eligible for co-op housing and between 65 and 85% of the state’s median income to be eligible for single-family housing. (Vermont’s current median income for a family of four is $24,500.) If applicants meet these guidelines, they are notified by letter when BCLT housing appropriate for their needs becomes available (C. Reid, personal communication, March 16, 1989),

After potential owners or renters have seen the available housing, the BCLT’s selection committee checks references. Interviews are scheduled for those who pass financial screening. At this point, there must be a good match between the applicant and the community land trust, The BCLT looks for people who support the land trust model, understand its philosophy, and believe in its principles. I there is more than one qualified applicant, then the BCLT looks at how long they have been BCLT members, the length of time they have been residents of Burlington, and whether they have definite plans to stay in Burlington (C. Reid, personal communication, March 16, 1989).

The BCLT faces a challenge in the near future as it begins to convert the multifamily units into limited equity cooperatives, Under this arrangement, BCLT renters will have the option to purchase equity shares in their building, as well as take on many management responsibilities. However, the amount of equity these new owners build-up will be limited. Under the limited equity arrangement, co-op owners will not have to worry about possible skyrocketing rents and possible evictions.

Page 7

---

| JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS |

If someone moves out, the co-op has the first option to buy the former member’s share, thus keeping the apartment affordable for future low and moderate-income owners (ICE, 1982).

By the summer of 1989, the BCLT’s goal was to turn six units into limited equity co-ops. By June 1990, another six to ten units should be available as co-ops, In order to realize this goal, the BCLT and the cities of Burlington and Winooski (a small city of 8,000 people next to Burlington) have hired a co-op organizer. Until at least 15 units are converted to limited equity co-ops, the BCLT will try to refrain from purchasing more multiunit dwellings, Otherwise, it will merely act as a landlord, albeit a more responsive and sympathetic one (P. Peterson, personal communication, February 22, 1989).

In the next year, the BCLT hopes to add over 100 new units to its property inventory, of which three-quarters will be new construction and most will be co-opable multifamily units. The organization has also set a goal of owning 500 units by the end of June 1993, or just under 4% of Burlington’s housing stock. Of these, 40-60% (200-300 units) are projected to be in multiunit cooperatives, 15-20% (75-100 units) would be single-family housing, and 10-35% (50-175 units) are targeted for multifamily rentals. Furthermore, 5% (25 units) would be occupied by nonprofit businesses and 5% (25 units) by daycare facilities. Daycare services have been identified as an important need for low and moderate-income people in Burlington (BCLT, 1988a, P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989), To achieve this five-year plan, the BCLT must raise at least $30 million (P. Peterson, personal communication, February 22, 1989),

By the end of 2004, the BCLT would like to own 25% of the residential property in Burlington. That goal would be achievable if the land trust could acquire about 200 residential units per year between 1987 and the year 2004, These figures, however, assume no growth in Burlington’s housing market, an unlikely prospect (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986). Moreover, in light of the BCLT’s 1988-1993 five-year plan, it appears unrealistic. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the BCLT’s commitment to becoming a major player in the city’s real estate market.

While the philosophy behind the BCLT is laudatory and its long-term goals are lofty, there have been some problems between the organization and its leaseholders, both homeowners and tenants. One example is the equity formula for BCLT homeowners. Originally, when BCLT homeowners decided to sell their homes, they were limited to a 10% profit. This was quickly changed to a 25% return. Now, there is a dispute between the BCLT and its homeowners concerning allowances for personal home improvements (P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989). For example, if a homeowner puts in a bathroom for $2500, and this improvement is worth $5000 when the house is sold, will the actual cost of the improvement or the market value of the improvement be used to determine the equity return to the homeowner (C. Reid, personal communication, August 9, 1989)? BCLT leaseholders and staff have worked out a compromise solution that has been tentatively approved by the Board and still needs to be approved at a membership meeting and at two more Board meetings (M. Hooten, personal communication, August 11, 1989).

Between the BCLT and its tenants, there are some tensions concerning what the latter expects of the former. Tenants want repairs made immediately, and they ask the BCLT to take care of problems such as noisy cats in trash cans, The BCLT will soon hire a part-time maintenance person to do repairs. Remedies for the cat problem remain elusive.

Page 8

---

 | The Burlington Community Land Trust |

An informal survey indicates that BCLT tenants think the organization is a better landlord than most others, primarily because it tends to be more people-oriented (C. Reid, personal communication, August 9, 1989). Overall, 17 tenants found the BCLT a much more responsive landlord while four did not (R. Reiber, personal communication, August 14, 1989).

In many ways, the BCLT presently finds itself in a fairly traditional landlord-tenant relationship with much of its clientele. Screening potential renters through income eligibility guidelines, credit checks, and personal references are common practice. Sending out eviction notices to tenants for failure to pay rent is not uncommon for the BCLT, occurring on an average of once or twice a month (C. Reid, personal communication, August 9, 1989). In several instances, the BCLT has had to evict tenants, For example, after purchasing one property, the organization evicted three tenants not only because they failed to pay their rent, but because they were also dealing drugs (P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989).

Another major problem has been the conversion of the BCLT’s multiunit dwellings into limited equity co-ops. Only recently has Vermont’s legislature passed a bill allowing for the legal recognition of housing co-ops. Bankers, lawyers, and prospective owners now have the necessary legal framework for the creation and recognition of housing co-ops. The BCLT has hired a co-op organizer, but this person will have to split his time between several cities and the BCLT.

Further exacerbating an already difficult situation, some of the BCLT multiunit build-ings simply are not co-opable, either because the existing tenants do not want to own their units (and to co-op the units would mean displacing the tenants) or the building is not in a good location. At least for now, these buildings will remain rentals. Some of these units, bought cheaply when the organization was young and inexperienced, have turned out to be lemons. While these purchases can be blamed on bad advice (P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989), retaining such properties may straddle the BCLT with a housing stock that will prove contradictory to the organization’s long-term goal of providing permanent affordable housing to low and moderate-income people. Furthermore, a recent informal BCLT survey showed that the majority of its tenants either did not want to own their housing units or did not understand the philosophy behind the community land trust and co-op housing (R. Reiber, personal communication, August 14, 1989). The BCLT’s professed goal of owner-occupied and controlled housing could be in jeopardy.

The BCLT”s long-term housing goals are presently unrealizable. At most, the organization will be able to control a few percent of Burlington’s housing market, Given this limitation, where and how should it concentrate its efforts? The BCLT’s plans for fiscal 1989-1990, which include building a number of co-opable multiunit dwellings, seem appropriate, However, a strong educational component for current BCLT tenants on housing options and land ownership issues must also occur. Recent workshops on co-op housing have been offered by local and national groups, and more are scheduled (R. Reiber, personal communication, August 14, 1989; BCLT, 1989).

BCLT: GOVERNANCE, STRUCTURE, AND FINANCES

There are three components to decision-making in the BCLT. Important decisions concerning overall organizational direction are made at annual meetings. At the 1988 meeting, for example, about 75 of

Page 9

---

| JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS |

the roughly 300 members decided that the for example, about 75 of the roughly 300 members decided that the BCLT should get involved in housing projects outside of Burlington’s city limits. The members also revised the dues structure, which had been set at $1 a year, adopting a sliding scale membership fee of from $1 to $50. This will allow some of the BCLT’s institutional members to give better support to the organization (P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989}.

The BCLT also has a 13-person Board of Trustees comprised of land trust leaseholders, city officials, and community/business leaders which is democratically elected by the membership. The current Board, for example, has several leaseholders, city, and state employees involved in housing and community development issues, several social service agency directors and employees, a banker, and a realtor (BCLT, 19883). The Board’s role is to set BCLT policy and to make recommendations to the staff through nine Board committees: Acquisitions, Executive, Finance, Fundraising, Leaseholder/Tenant, Legal, Quireach, Personnel, and Property Management/Selection (C, Reid, personal communication, August 9, 1989). The board is really the organization’s major decision-making group and is clearly not a rubberstamp board (P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989).

The organization’s day-to-day decisions are carried out by a professional staff consisting of the director, associate director, controller, two property managers, a housing rehabilitation specialist, and an administrative assistant. The staff meets weekly to address immediate issues facing the organization (P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989).

There have been virtually no conflicts between members and the Board or staff of the BCLT. However, there have been some conflicts among the staff itself and between the Board and the staff, mostly concerning whether or not to purchase certain properties. For example, several years ago the BCLT had to decide whether to participate with a local developer in a $1 million Housing and Urban Development (HUD) project. The BCLT would have acquired about a dozen single-family units in a 65-house development. The BCLT’s director wanted to go ahead with the project, but not everyone on the staff agreed. After much debate, the Board decided to vote against participation in the development project (P. Peterson, personal communication, August 3 and 4, 1989). Another conflict focused on whether or not to purchase additional multiunit buildings, thereby increasing the number of tenants under the BCLT’s jurisdiction. Some Board members believe the BCLT has placed too much emphasis on property acquisition and put too little effort into finding people who are “‘in tune with the land trust’s philosophy”’ to live in existing apartment units (R. Reiber, personal communication, August 14, 1989). This internal BCLT debate helps explain why there is an informal moratorium on the acquisition of additional multiunit dwellings.

The BCLT has used the original $200,000 grant from the city to leverage close to 20 times that amount to do its work. This has been accomplished with some CDBG grants, low or interest-free loans from church groups and socially responsible investors, and donations and support from a wide range of sources, including banks, businesses, churches, and realtors. The net result is that “‘as we acquire properties, the corporation [that is, the f BCLT] is acquiring assets, against which [we] can . . . borrow . . . to get more money” (T. McKenzie, personal communication, June 2, 1987).

Page 10

---

 | The Burlington Community Land Trust |

In May 1987, the BCLT received $150,000 from the city’s CDBG program to augment its property acquisitions. At that time, it received a $1 million credit line from the Burlington Employees Retirement System when the Board of Aldermen instructed that all city funds be divested from stocks in corporations doing business in South Africa and instead invested in the local community (T. McKenzie, personal communication, June 2, 1987). The BCLT thus became the first community land trust in the country to get a loan from a pension fund (BCLT, 1989). In November 1988, the Bank of Vermont gave the BCLT a $3 million credit line over three years (P. Peterson, personal communication, February 22, 1989). With over $3.66 million in assets and $2.8 million in liabilities at the end of June 1989 (M. Hooten, personal communication, August 7, 1989), the BCLT is beginning to leverage significant amounts of money.

Peterson (personal communication, February 22, 1989) jokingly spoke about the BCLT – becoming nothing more than “a nickel and dime real estate agency’ if it was not successful in leveraging a lot of money in order to make a significant impact on Burlington’s real estate market. In the process of accruing financial clout in the community, it appears that the BCLT has learned to operate in some ways like a big real estate agency, albeit a nonprofit one. This is probably unavoidable. As the organization becomes successful and credible, it must increasingly play by the rules of the capitalist game. While necessary for the BCLT’s growth (and perhaps survival), doing so brings contradictions between the organization’s philosophy (housing as a fundamental right for everyone) and its daily practices. Such consequences may reflect the reality of the situation, but they are no less ideologically painful.

BCLT OPPOSITION

The BCLT has had its share of controversy. Some realtors in Burlington are suspicious of the land trust, although almost all of the BCLT’s property transactions have gone through realtors, and some individual realtors have been supportive of the idea. “The general realty community is very apprehensive of the land trust [because] . . . it’s [in]. .their inherent best interest to see property [values} continue to rise’’ (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986),

One realtor in Burlington, Janet Dunn (1987), expressed her opposition to the land trust: If I believed that there should be no private ownership of land, I would be bragging to the world that in Burlington, VT., my wildest dreams had come true. I would proclaim that a vehicle designed to remove a substantial quantity of land from private ownership is operational in Burlington, called the Burlington Community Land Trust . . . . If you believe that one of the most precious rights we, as individuals, have in our country is the right to own land, a right protected by our Constitution, then you should take a long, hard look at this land trust.

Homeowners have also opposed the idea of a community land trust. Some property owners have claimed that the BCLT is ‘socialistic and, likely to undermine land values’ (Powell, 1985). A BCLT plan to trade land with developers also generated a strong neighborhood position, The BCLT was planning to

Page 11

---

| JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS |

develop and manage 40 homes on land donated by two developers in Burlington, The land trust worked out a complex deal between the CEDO and the two developers, who would build 200 high-priced condominiums on land (part of which was donated by the city) close to the lake. In exchange, the developers would build 40 affordable houses, known as the Howe Meadows Project, in the city’s New North End (‘‘Land Trust,’* 1984).

The plan met with strong resistance. New North End homeowners near the Howe Meadows site organized a group called Homeowners Against the Land Trust (HALT) in opposition to the project, fearing it would drive down their property values (‘ResidentsOppose,” 1984). About 12 HALT staged a protest before a meeting of the Board of Aldermen held to consider the proposed project (** Homeowners Protest,’ 1984). The BCLT decided on a compromise, agreeing to develop and manage only nine of the donated lots (*‘Land Trust,” 1984). It required a coalition of **Republicans and progressives working together to finally pass this compromise measure at 2 Board of Aldermen meeting (G. Thabault, personal communication, November 4, 1985).

Why this opposition to the BCLT? Some well-to-do property owners clearly feel threatened by the community land trust. McKenzie $ states that there is a small rightwing element in the Burlington community who

McKenzie (personal communication, February 10, 1986) admits that land trust is a very radical and socialist concept because “its primary goal is social benefit as opposed to individual gain.’ While it involves engaging in some ‘unholy alliances (that is, with the banks). ,. it’s [still] a definite challenge to the way we think about a very fundamental thing {that is, land], . . . [and] Jand reform is where most revolutions start.’’

Given McKenzie’s remarks, it is surprising that the community land trust has not drawn even more negative reactions. In fact, the BCLT enjoys almost unanimous support across the political spectrum (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986). There are several reasons for the relative lack of opposition compared to other administration initiatives.

First, Burlington has the distinction of being the first city in the country to fund a land trust out of its treasury, and because of the way it was initially financed, the opposition on the Board of Aldermen was unable to effectively block it because of the Mayor’s power over the budget. Second, the land trust is so small at this stage that it does not threaten real estate interests. Those one would expect to oppose the concept of land trust on ideological grounds have not been encroached on or been directly affected by it. Finally, many community lenders recognize the difficulty average Americans have in securing homes, and it is in the self-interest of groups like bankers, for example, to explore other financial arrangements for homebuyers since bankers profit, too.

As the BCLT grows, and if the community land trust movement gains momentum across the country, more vociferous opposition will likely surface, As Davis (1983) points out, property is a form of power. If CLTs can alter property relations so that low and moderate-income people are able to gain economic

Page 12

---

 | The Burlington Community Land Trust |

standing and political influence, then there will be conflicts between them and those whose class interests are threatened by these new property arrangements. William B. North, an executive vice president with the National Association of Realtors, recently confirmed this point when he commented that market forces are the only legitimate means for purchasing homes, that community land trusts play an unnatural role in neighborhood development and decay, and that they were not a good idea (Cook, 1987; Wiegand, 1988).

CONCLUSIONS

Of all the initiatives fostered by the CEDO, the BCLT has been one of the most successful. In September 1986, the BCLT was recognized by the United Nations and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as having made a unique contribution to helping solve the housing problems faced by poor people. As part of the 1987 International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, the BCLT was one of 17 out of 180 projects to receive a Special Merit Award (BCLT, 1988b).

Despite its impressive accomplishments, the BCLT, at best, must be recognized as a partial solution to the affordable housing crisis in Burlington. The most serious drawback of the BCLT, and perhaps the community land trust model in general, is that it only helps a few moderate-income people purchase homes they otherwise would be unable to afford because of tight housing market conditions. Eventually, the BCLT will encourage other moderate-income people to buy into limited equity co-ops. While this is important, the BCLT does little for low-income people, other than providing them with a somewhat more beneficent landlord. In the coming year, the BCLT and another group will build several single-family homes for low-income ($15,000–$18,000 a year) people (BCLT, 1989), but this is insufficient. The BCLT, in a sense, has become an alternative real estate agency for a select moderate-income clientele.

Because of the severe federal housing cutbacks instigated by the Reagan administration, millions of people across the country are homeless, and potentially millions more face the prospect of being evicted from subsidized housing units as developers prepare to sell federally subsidized housing complexes or convert them into market-rate condominiums,

Clearly, other steps are needed to deal with this nation’s crisis in affordable housing. There is no substitute for a strong governmental role in providing housing to people priced out of the market. In lieu of this, Burlington and other cities have devised creative, though limited solutions, like community land trusts, local housing trust funds, and anti-condominium conversion ordinances to provide new affordable housing units and to prevent the loss of existing federally subsidized housing.

It is not surprising that Burlington, with a socialist mayor, would have opted to actively support CLTs as one solution to its affordable housing crisis, As we have seen, community land trusts have radical implications concerning land ownership. Gorz (1967) postulated that two different categories of reform are available to progressives working through the state. One is the category of reformist reforms, that is, those types of reforms that do nothing to challenge the ruling class’s ideological hegemony (Gramsci’s notion of how certain ideas come to dominate a society) or to alter the logic of capitalist accumulation (Marx’s description of the inexorable process whereby capitalists acquire more and more wealth) (Stephens, 1986). The ongoing battle concerning the contraction or expansion of social welfare programs on the national level and fights over whether to provide more or less Community

Page 13

---

| JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS |

Development Block Grant program money to low and moderate-income neighborhoods on the local level are examples of reformist reforms.

Gorz’s second category is non-reformist reforms, that is, those reforms that question the dominant capitalist ideology and/or change the nature of capitalist relations. These reforms, such as socialized medicine in the form of a national health care system, gr on the local level the promotion of worker-owned and controlled businesses, are revolutionary in nature. There are several criteria for these reforms. They are (1) a power shift away from the ruling class and toward the disenfranchised in society which may involve challenging the logic of capitalist accumulation and bringing about the decentralization of decision-making powers; (2) the presentation of a new, democratic-socialist vision of society which challenges the prevailing ideological hegemony of the ruling class; and (3) the altering of people’s consciousness so that they begin to perceive that new social order is necessary to address the problems of capitalism (Gowan, Lakey, Moyer & Taylor, 1976).

Based on these criteria, the Burlington Community Land Trust, which is probably the most radical idea to come from the Sanders administration, is what I would call a limited or partial non-reformist reform. While clearly challenging the logic of capitalist accumulation by having the community, in the form of a community land trust, own land for the public good, the BCLT also seems to operate as a nonprofit real estate agency for select moderate-income people. While the necessity of privately owning a piece of land, which in our society is the sine qua non of owning your own home, is removed, thereby opening up the possibility of home ownership to a few moderate-income people, individual home ownership still remains the goal for most BCLT leaseholders, Moreover, the potential for the BCLT to provide limited equity co-ops to low and moderate-income people has yet to be realized.

In theory, the dominant ideological hegemony concerning the sanctity of private ownership of land in relation to one’s own home is also challenged by community land trusts, By challenging this notion, the land trust helps present a new, democratic-socialist model for society. The idea of affordable housing for everyone is presented as the norm, fundamentally questioning such accepted capitalist behaviors as real estate speculation. In practice, however, housing still remains unaffordable for many people, and low-income people are still priced out of the market. Even more discouraging, however, is that many BCLT tenants do not see the benefits of limited-equity co-ops.

Has public consciousness been changed by the BCLT? This is a difficult question to answer, Most BCLT members share the philosophy that housing should be viewed as a basic right rather than an economic privilege and that land should be considered a community resource (T. McKenzie, personal communication, February 10, 1986), Those who have bought a home through the BCLT are certainly grateful for the opportunity, and even those who rent from the organization seem mostly satisfied. It is not clear that leasehold-ers feel the need for a fundamental restructuring of the private ownership of land, and tenants seem ambivalent about the prospects of co-op ownership. However, as Davis (1983) points out, CLTs can engender a * ‘politics of territory based on domestic property” that is analogous to class-based politics in the workplace. If this does happen, then “*conscientization™ can occur whereby those who are part of the land trust community become radicalized in the process of dialoging about their situation with others (Freire, 1970). That day, however, is a long way off.

Page 14

---

 | The Burlington Community Land Trust |

The BCLT is an experiment, an innovative yet small step to deal with one city’s affordable housing crisis. It is certainly a model for other communities to emulate. Without massive state and federal housing programs, the affordable housing crisis will worsen in this country, and the poor and homeless will continue to face insurmountable problems in finding a decent place to live.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The author extends his thanks to Dick Weatherly and Virginia Seneschal for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

REFERENCE

Abromowitz, D. M. (1989). Nuts and bolts on land trusts. In Housing Matters (pp. 4-5). Boston: Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.

Berger, L. (1985, Winter), Burlington Community Land Trust. In Community Economics: Land and housing reprints, Summer 1983-Spring 1985 (pp. 12-14). Greenfield, MA: Institute for Community Economics,

Borsodi, R. (n.d.}. The possessional problem. Greenfield, MA: Institute for Community Economics.

Bowsher, P. (1988, Fall). Capital hilt housing proposals. Community Economics, 16,1.

Burlington Community Land Trust. (1985). First annual report, 1985-1986, Burlington, VT: Author.

Burlington Community Land Trust. (19883). Annual report: 1987-1988, Burlington, VT: Author.

Burlington Community Land Trust. (1988b), Community land trusts: A creative response to Vermont’s affordable housing crisis. Burlington, VT: Author.

Burlington Community Land Trust. (1989, Summer). Burlington Community Land Trust News, 3(1). Burlington, VT: Author.

Changing Work. (1986, Spring). Resources for a homegrown economy. Newton, MA: Institute for Corporate Studies.

Community and Economic Development Office. (n.d.), The Burlington community land trust as a private complement to public land and housing programs: A policy proposal. Burlington, VT: Author, (Available from Institute for Community Economics.)

Cook, F. (1987, September 13), Preserving urban housing for the poor. San Francisco Examiner.

Davis, J. E. (1983, Fall). CLTs and the politics of ownership. In Community Economics: Land and housing reprints, Summer 1983-Spring 1985 (pp. 5-7). Greenfield, MA: Institute for Community Economics.

Davis, J. E. (1984). Reallocating equity: A land trust model of land reform. In C, C. Geisler & F. J . Popper (Eds.), Land reform, American style (pp. 209-232). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

Davis, J, E., Geisler, C. C., & Matthei, C, (n.d.). Role of alternative land institutions in employment and local economic development. Greenfield, MA: Institute for Community Economics.

Dunn, J. (1987, May 28). The land scheme of Burlington is dangerous. Burlington Free Press, archives.

Freire, P. (1970), Pedagogy of the oppressed, New York: Continuum.

Geisler, C. C. (1980). In land we trust. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 15, 98-115.

George, H. (1975). Progress and poverty, New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. (Original work published 1879.)

Gotz, A. (E967). Strategy for labor. Boston: Beacon Press.

Gowan, 8, Lakey, G., Moyer, B., & Taylor, D. (1976). Moving toward a new society. Philadelphia: New Society, or ’

Homeowners protest (photograph). (1984, October 30). Burlington Free Press, archives.

Institute for Community Economics. (1982). The community land trust handbook. Emmaus, PA:Rodale Press, .

Institute for Community Economics, (n.d.). The community land trust: An innovative widget for non-profit affordable-housing development. Greenfield, MA: Author,

Land trust to cut back housing role. (1984, October 29), Burlington Free Press, archives.

Lechner, S. (1988, April 28-May 5). A profile of the Burlington Community Land Trust. Vermont; Vanguard Press, pp. i, 10,

Matthei, C. (1989, December/January). Ensuring long-term affordability. Shelterforce, 11, 15-16.

Naureckas, J. (1988, August 3-16), Land trust offers American land reform. In These Times, p. 2.

Powell, M. (1985, February 10). Mother’s dream of home ownership comes true with land trust funding. Burlington Free Press, archives.

Reamer, F. G. (1989). The affordable housing crisis and social work. Social Work, 34(1), 5-9.

Residents oppose the north-end project. (1984, October 23), Burlington Free Press, archives.

Stephens, J. (1986). The transition from capitalism to socialism. Urbana: “University of IllinoisPress,

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1987). Official U.S. special merit award projects: Monographs. Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wiegand, G. (1988, October 6). Putting their trust in the land, Philadelphia Inquirer, p. 1a. Wilhelm, D. (1987, September 6). Vermont programs seek to provide affordable housing, Boston Globe,