What does an ethical landlord look like? by fundofica

FICA What does an ethical landlord look like? 1

FICA What does an ethical landlord look like?

What does an ethical landlord look like?

Support Chicago Architecture Biennial (CAB) 2019 FICA Board of Directors 2018-2021: Marina Grinover, Gabriel Palladini, Gustavo Calazans, Emil Lewinger, Renato Cymbalista Editors Bianca Antunes e Renato Cymbalista Graphic Design Prata Design (Didiana Prata, Mikka Mori e Ilana Livovschi) Art Director and Layout Karoline Barros Copy Editor (Portuguese) Adriana Moreira Pedro Translators John Ellis-Guardiola, Helena Carone Wheatley, Mariana Nacif Mendes Copy Editors (English) John Ellis-Guardiola, Helena Carone Wheatley Infographic Designer Luís Felipe Abbud – NúMENA Annablume Editorial Board Eugênio Trivinho, Gabriele Cornelli, Gustavo Bernardo Krause, Iram Jácome Rodrigues, Pedro Paulo Funari, Pedro Roberto Jacobi Rewriting the Fiction of Property Karoline Barros, Renato Cymbalista (historical research), Paula Puiupo (illustrations) Carving Out a Model Renato Cymbalista, Bianca Antunes If They Could Talk Fernanda Almeida Private Property Is Not the Only Way Renato Cymbalista Rent in Public Policy Simone Gatti Meet the Ethical Landlords (interviews and texts) Ana Cândida Pena (WCRP), Anne Dietzsch (Edith Maryon), Carolina Guimarães (Light Be), Fernanda Moreira (Y-Foundation), Helena Carone Wheatley (Dolphin Living), Rodrigo Millan (Habitat for Humanity, Sostre Civic), Silvana Rosso (Terre de Liens), Simone Gatti (Cooper Square CLT), Thalita Aureliano (Iberville). All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted, distributed, publicly communicated or changed, unless the rights holders provide permission to do so in writing, or where allowed by law. If it were necessary to reprint any part of this work, please contact the publisher. © Pistache Editorial, © Fundo FICA, São Paulo, 2019 1st edition, 1st printing ISBN: 978-85-391-0970-8 FICA contato@fundofica.org www.fundofica.org facebook.com/fundofica instagram.com/fundofica twitter.com/fundo_fica Pistache Editorial www.pistacheeditorial.com.br Annablume Editora www.annablume.com.br

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opening the Doors to a Debate

Rewriting the Fiction of Property

Carâ&#x20AC;&#x160;ving Out a Model

If They Could Talk

Private Property Is Not the Only Way

Rent in Public Policy

Meet the Ethical Landlords

Edith Maryon Foundation

Y-Foundation

Habitat for Humanity Argentina

Iberville Offsite Affordable Homes

Women's Community Revitalization Project

Dolphin Living

Cooper Square Community Land Trust

Light Be

Sostre Civic

Terre de Liens

What Does an Ethical Landlord Look Like?

102

Where to Begin?

104

What is the Future of Land Ownership?

106

Opening the Doors to a Debate FICA—which also means “stay” in Portuguese—stands for Fundo Imobiliário Comunitário para Aluguel or Community Real Estate Fund for Rent. As a non-profit organization that started in Brazil in 2015, it acquires properties collectively, and uses them in a just way—mainly by renting them at non-speculative prices. In so doing it questions the idea of private property, abusive rents and discusses the notion of being an “ethical landlord.” These are the issues we bring to the fore in this publication. In Rent in Public Policy we tell the experiences of including rent in the public housing programs of Brazil and abroad, presenting problems, challenges and positive results. In Private Property is Not the Only Way, we show the alternatives put forth by civil

society including different ways of gaining access to property besides private ownership, with different means of gaining access to land and housing such as cooperatives, community land trusts, and property safeguards to offer them at non-speculative prices. These organizations, like FICA, are looking to build new ways of using property here and now—or perhaps return to the old, more communal, less commodified or financialized ones. In order to better understand the role of these institutions around the world, we delve into the daily lives of ten of them, and bring information about the work model that each one follows, who owns the property, the resident selection process and the possibilities of partnering with public management. These are all practical matters that should be considered at the start of a project, matters that still guide us today. Because there is no one-size-fitsall solution, it is always necessary to create, mix models, invent or reinterpret administrative and contractual solutions. This is what we discuss in our article about FICA’s story—we detail the issues at the start of the project, how we were (are) growing, what the family selection process was like for Apartment #1, and our plans for the future. We thus tell our story and construct the meaning of our existence and place it at the center of one of our society’s most unresolved issues: that of private property. We begin this book at precisely this point, looking at the ownership history of the land where FICA Apartment #1 is located, going back many centuries to retrace the property’s milestones, even before the Portuguese Crown determined that it owned that piece of land. This publication shows how FICA and other institutions seek to respond to old inequalities. We are making an idealistic but action-based wager deeply rooted in the possibilities that exist here and now.

The FICA Team

Rewriting the Fiction of Property

Private ownership of land is a whale of a tale, perhaps the best ever spun by humanity. Thousands of liters of ink have been drained on tons of paper over the centuries formulating the fiction about who owns which parts of the world. Billions of readers read these texts and believe that the heaps of signed and sealed sheets of paper hold the truth. If this fiction storyline can be written, it can also be rewritten. A better quality narrative or at least one that can serve more people. 11

10,000 BCE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1,000 CE We do not know exactly how this place was before humans arrived. The neighborhood was probably a mix of tropical rainforest and areas of less dense woods when the first humans arrived on these highlands 10,000 years ago. They were nomadic peoples, huntergatherers who started to settle here and intervene in the woods. Approximately 1,000 years ago, the Tupi arrived from the north. The Tupi mastered agriculture and had more permanent settlements and ended up expelling previous occupants. The Tupi loved to wage war amongst themselves, village against village. They did not fight for territory, but rather to avenge their ancestors. They also relished eating their enemies captured in battles. The villages of the Tupi remained in the same place for some years, but eventually would be occupied by spirits. They would then set the village ablaze and then build a new one. In the remnant ashes, seeds and manioc root would sprout. We do not know whether the Tupi built any villages around here, probably not, since they preferred slightly higher ground.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

1494 – 1560 In 1494, the king of Portugal, João II, declared possession over these lands. He never stepped foot here. In fact, beyond an idea, João II did not really know what there was here. The Tupi had no idea that their land now had an owner, they carried on waging their wars, planting their manioc. In 1495 the king died without any heirs, thus making the new owner of this land his cousin, Manuel I. Manuel thought that he needed to understand the properties his cousin had bequeathed to him, so in 1500 he sent several ships to these shores, but the explorers were unable to cross the tall mountains that separate this place from the coast. In 1506, Pope Julius II confirmed that the land belonged to the king of Portugal. The confirmation was very important, after all, the Pope was the owner of the entire world, he had a sort of power of attorney from Christ and God to do so. Manuel died in 1521 and these lands fell into the hands of his eldest son, João III. The king was a very busy person and did not have enough time to take care of all his properties—no king stepped on the American continent until the beginning of the nineteenth century, but that was only out of necessity to escape Napoleon. In order to take care of this territory without having to be here, João III granted large swaths of land to people he trusted, people from old and noble families. In 1534, he gave this land we are in to the Portuguese captain Martim Afonso de Souza, who had been his page. Martim Afonso de Souza arrived close to these parts in 1530 and received the land in retribution for his good service. After gaining the land, he never came back to the Americas. In 1554, the Portuguese managed to cross the steep mountains that separate us from the shore. Jesuit priests established a village close to 1.5 km (0.9 miles) from here and they began converting the Tupi who were in contact with them.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

1560 – 1800 If the king were to give you a piece of land and you did not make an effort to occupy it with towns or plantations and guarantee Portugal’s presence in the region, the king could take the land back from you. Since Martim Afonso de Souza was not very interested in this place, in 1560 the king of Portugal took it back and distributed it to other nobles: Antonio Rodrigues de Almeida and Maria Castanho, who lived close by. They also failed to occupy this region. In order to manage the land surrounding the recently founded town of São Paulo, were we are now, the Portuguese established a city council. Those who were interested in occupying a parcel of land would make their request to the council, which, if it approved the concession, would grant the authorization in a contract. By the eighteenth century the land we are on right now was still unoccupied, so the Jesuit priest Gabriel Malagrida asked the Council to reserve it for a convent of Ursuline sisters. The convent never materialized. In 1785, therefore, the Council granted Maria Thereza de Araujo Lara and her husband, camp master Agostinho Delgado Arouche, a high-ranking official in the Portuguese army. The land was inherited by the couple’s son, José Arouche de Toledo Rendon, a military man, politician and lawyer. He was an important man, director of the recently founded law school. Arouche sent his slaves to build a tea plantation here. Arouche’s slaves managed to grow 54,000 tea plants.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

1808 – 1850 The council granted land and could also take it away. In 1808, the Council ordered Arouche to build streets in the area to accommodate the growing city. The tea plantation gave way to streets and city blocks for the expanding urban area that was sprawling this way. By 1811, lots began to be distributed. The property system continued to be the same: those who wanted land requested it from the City Council, which would deliberate over whether to grant the land by factoring who was asking and for what purpose. In 1850, the distribution of the land parcels was complete, and this place had the features of an urban development. In the same year, a new law emerged. Whoever already had a record of landownership granted by the Council became the definitive landowner. Buildings could be freely bought or sold through private transactions without having to be authorized by the Council. The property was now registered in a place called the registry, which started to contain records of all the properties in the city. The registry was a kind of public office but it had an owner, the Clerk. Until 1969, this was a hereditary position: the books in the registry were handed down from father to son. Meanwhile, São João Street, which already existed in the lot closest to where the city was born, was extended in our direction, that is, to the northeast. We are in front of this street. This plot of land was dismembered into three deep and narrow lots with three different landlords, one for each lot.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

1870 – 1940 In the 1870s, São João Street became a point of arrival in the city. The first buildings appeared on the three lots that make up the plot of land where our apartment building stands: there were stores on the front end of the lots and one or two houses in the back. The first owners of these lots received them as a donation, but from that point forward the landlords were free to rent, sell, mortgage, speculate and do whatever they wanted to with their real estate. The lot to the left was belonged to the Viscondes do Livramento family for at least three generations. The second lot was inherited from the Tatto family to the Abreu family in 1927, was auctioned in 1935, acquired by Mr. Gutilha, who sold it to Mr. Livramento, the owner of the first lot, in 1940. The third lot belonged to the Silva Ferreira family for generations. While the three pieces of real estate underwent generational changes, divisions of assets and heirs, and possibly family disputes, São João Street was extended and became a major avenue to handle the greater flow of traffic and the electric streetcar that started to be installed.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

1947 While the three pieces of real estate underwent generational changes, divisions of assets and heirs, and possibly family disputes, São João Street was extended and became a major avenue to handle the greater flow of traffic and the electric streetcar that started to be installed. In 1947 the three lots were bought and consolidated by Companhia Esmeralda de Imóveis, a developer that planned and built a large building in the early 1950s on the property made up of the original three lots.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

1955 – 2017 In 1955, Edifício Século XX (The 20th Century Building) was inaugurated. It had 24 stories and 226 apartments, some small, others even tinier. Unit 301 on the third floor was purchased from Esmeralda developers by Carlos Dias Patrício, who sold it 20 years later to Maria Rondon, who sold it 10 years later to Pedro Borges Nascimento. In 2002, Anézia Borges Hermann bought Pedro’s apartment. Anézia passed away in 2007. This event triggered a fight over the ownership of the apartment. Two biological grandchildren who were adopted by another family appeared and demanded to keep the apartment. The case was quite complicated and made its way to the Federal Supreme Court. In the end, it was determined that the biological grandchildren did not have a right to claim apartment 301. During the fight in court, apartment 301 was unoccupied by humans for 10 years. It was only used by the several generations of pigeons that made their nests on the balcony. In 2017, once the legal battle was over, the apartment was inherited by Anézia’s son and put up for sale.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

2017 – 2019 This time, the ownership of unit 301—a tiny piece of that parcel that used to be occupied by nomads, the Tupi, and then taken over by the Portuguese Crown, later transferred once and again to others, a parcel that once was a farm, and at another point a set of small houses with stores, then divided and merged to build a larger building that would be subdivided even further, thus multiplying the number of owners—has changed and is now a community property. In 2017, FICA was taking its first steps. One of the project’s supporters decided to give it a kick-start and bought the apartment and transferred it to FICA as a gratuitous loan. Apartment #1 was born. From 2017 to 2019, the apartment was used as FICA’s headquarters and as a home for several actions: debates about public contracts, workshops for affordable housing projects, an exhibition for debating community property and social rent, video workshops and furniture creation. During this period it was also renovated to provide more light and better natural air circulation. This project was a collective action and received the help of many people with knowledge, materials and money. In July 2019, the first family, a mother, father and three children, moved into the apartment in its new incarnation. They pay rent that is half the market rate. They will probably stay here for a long time and will only move out if they find a better place to live. When they move out, the apartment will be rented again to someone in need.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

from now on Rent at unit 301 will never be abusive, regardless of what happens to this neighborhood. This property will never be put back on the market. In this little parcel of the world the rules will be different, forever. Just as it was possible to redefine the presentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and mainly the futureâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;of this itty-bitty place, we can rethink the present and future of many other properties. Rewrite their stories. Spin new tales, more democratic, fairer plots that include more people.

REWRITING THE FICTION OF PROPERTY

Carâ&#x20AC;&#x160;ving Out a Model The story of FICA in SĂŁo Paulo: from the desire to create affordable housing to the first tenant

FICA

In early 2015, a group of people came together in São Paulo to discuss issues surrounding non-speculative property: was it possible to create alternatives to the private speculative real estate market? Was it possible for civil society to hold property and make it available at affordable prices? This kind of social actor, that is sometimes called a “social owner”, was non-existent in Brazil. This issue arose within the Lanchonete.org Association, a São Paulo-based platform that discussed the implementation of cultural projects that would not promote gentrification. People close to this group began thinking about how to obtain non-speculative real estate—that was the beginning of what is now known as the FICA Fund.

Apartment #1 housed discussions—these images are part of the video that talks about mobility and housing in São Paulo, which was created from a workshop that also involved Escola da Cidade, in São Paulo, and Het Nieuwe Instituut, from Holland.

The group held meetings in which participants could contribute voluntarily to the start of a fund. These were cash donations, intended to kick-start something real. These first meetings were also essential for building a group of collaborators with various backgrounds: architects, sociologists, artists, economists, lawyers and historians. The group knew they wanted to buy property, to take on gentrification and to address real estate speculation, but they didn’t know exactly

how to go about it. Among the early supporters were two attorneys from a public law office who drafted a pro-bono proposal for creating an institution, taking the first steps towards formalizing FICA.

Getting started: creating an institution There were two alternatives within Brazil’s legal system: creating an association or a foundation. The foundation model is more appropriate for asset management, but it requires a complex and expensive administrative structure. The suggestion was to start as an association and later, if fitting, to become a foundation. The “Associação pela Propriedade Comunitária” (Communal Ownership Association) was designed to hold property for social purposes. It was designed to minimize administrative burden, while still respecting the new regulatory framework for nonprofits, established in Brazil that year. It has a basic board of five directors, among them a president, a vice president and a financial director. The directory board is legally responsible for the institution. The group is appointed by a general meeting of associates that assembles once a year. Everyone who contributes with resources can apply to become an associate. The board of directors is responsible for approving membership applications. Members are invited to working groups, meetings and assemblies. A general assembly is held every year, and every three years a new board of directors is elected among members. In September 2015, the bylaws were finalized. On October 5th, an official founding general assembly was held and the first board of directors was elected. The next steps took longer than expected: it took almost a year to register the association, to acquire a CNPJ (legal entity registration number for tax and contract purposes) and to open a bank account. At the same time, there were discussions about branding: the official name was quite technical. The name adopted publicly was suggested at a meeting with a journalist who proposed the acronym FICA for Community Real Estate for Rental. In Portuguese, the word ‘fica’ means ‘to stay’. In June 2016, the official operation authorization was approved. The bank account was opened in September. The next step was to create a website and a crowdfunding campaign (www.fundofica. org/recorrente). Everything was ready in early 2017. FICA was functional.

Starting fieldwork The initial work was done on a voluntary basis, so it was decided there would be no tight deadlines or immediate ambitious goals. The project was already underway, but it would take the necessary time to mature. The idea was to collect money and save it in a bank account. FICA expected to buy the first property in around five years, and that the project would expand over time. But the speed of the process came as a surprise: some significant donations were made—the most important one from a couple, who offered to buy a first property in order to kick-start the project. Then the flat would be lent to FICA for 8 years. At the end of this period, the donors are due to assess the possibility of a definitive donation if FICA grows and establishes itself. There is a high chance of the final donation taking place, since the project is evolving so rapidly. The first apartment was bought at market price in July 2017, for 162 thousand reais (about 44 thousand dollars). It is a 506-squarefoot kitchenette that had been vacant for ten years and was in poor condition. A group was formed among members to carry out a collective project to renovate the apartment. The existence of the first apartment gave the project an important visibility: potential supporters were able to visit it and realize that it was more than an abstract idea. With this, the number of supporters grew and is now at 80 regular supporters. Donations can be of any amount. More important than the amount itself is the consistency of the donations, since FICA is a long-term project. Donations by associates are done on a monthly basis.

Transparency is essential to FICA’s work; this includes sharing monthly bank statements and a newsletter that keeps members, supporters, and anyone interested updated on all ongoing projects. It is also through the newsletter that periodic communication with supporters occurs, calling them to participate in our actions.

The 11th São Paulo Architecture Biennial took place from October to December 2017, and FICA Apartment #1 was exhibited to show the project’s operation, giving it further visibility. In December 2017, the association was invited to an open debate on social rent, sharing the round table with a councilman, the then municipal housing secretary and an entrepreneur. FICA associates realized then that they were being taken seriously.

CAR VING OUT A MODEL

FICA

FLOOR PLAN BEFORE RENOVATION

FLOOR PLAN AFTER RENOVATION

Apartment #1 before and after being renovated. Vacant for 10 years, the apartment was restructured to allow better lighting and ventilation.

What is a fair rent? Now that FICA was in possession of its first apartment, discussions began on who should occupy it and in what terms. The first step was to establish the amount to be charged. A rent that was 20% or 30% below market value would be a reasonable calculation— but then market value would still be the original parameter, and members wanted to build the price on alternative references. Members started to search for what they called the “cost price” of the flat, one that would be fair for the tenant and viable for FICA. This amount was decided upon in a series of meetings and a general assembly, with the following components:

R$ 313,00 (USD 84.00)

Condominium fee—covers the costs of the building paid by all the tenants;

R$ 100,00 (USD 27.00)

“Wear and tear fee” for any breakages and repairs;

R$ 100,00 (USD 27.00)

To collaborate covering the association’s costs;

R$ 100,00 (USD 27.00)

Contribution to the fund allowing the purchase of new apartments;

R$ 20,00 (USD 5.00)

Insurance against external disasters.

R$ 633,00 (USD 170.00) Final rental cost.

The final rental cost was R$ 633 a month (USD 170). An apartment under normal market conditions in the same building is rented today for about R$ 1,200 a month (USD 325). Although half the market price, this amount disappointed some members of the group. Brazilian standards of social inequality demand radical solutions. Compared to the amount charged by the city’s few social rent projects, which are around R$ 300 (USD 81) or less, this was a high price. On the other hand, the calculated cost helped to clarify the target audience. The idea is not to replace the government, especially without public subsidies. It would be futile to choose residents in extremely precarious situations, who need structured public policies that FICA is not able to replicate. It then became clear that FICA was able to assist families who were working regularly, but whose income did not allow them to live somewhere that was centrally located and in good condition. A family with an income of two minimum wages would spend less than 30% of their income on housing expenses, an internationally accepted standard. It democratizes access to real estate, but we know it is not enough. One of FICA’s goals is to reduce this cost in the future. After defining the income range, other selection criteria were established. An associate professor coordinated a workshop in November 2017 using a method called “personification”. This is the progressive construction of a character, in groups, using questions about how this character interprets the world around them, his or her desires, fears and experiences. Fifteen people from FICA and collaborators attended the workshop. In an interesting convergence, the following criteria were established: families must be headed by The idea is not to replace the women; they must work in the central region; government. For Apartment #1, there must be a child living in the home; any FICA was able to assist a family family composition is accepted.

who were working regularly, but whose income did not allow them to live somewhere central and in good condition.

The biggest debate was about where the proposed resident should come from. For some it should be a person living in the city’s distant peripheries, in order to avoid long hours of commuting. For others it should be someone who was already living downtown, paying abusive rent or threatened by eviction, in order to avoid gentrification and preserving neighborhood ties. The solution to the criteria was debated at the assembly in December 2017: a resident who had already lived downtown and also in distant neighborhoods, who could therefore narrate the different experiences.

CAR VING OUT A MODEL

Apartment #1 Urbanized area (850 sq miles) São Paulo Municipality (587 sq miles) Source: IBGE 2015

You are here: Apartment #1 is in downtown São Paulo – this image shows how the urban area grows beyond the city boundaries and envelops cities in the metropolitan region.

MILES

The framework was complete. The next challenge was to go out and find the first tenant. In a megacity of nearly 20 million people, with hundreds of thousands in need of a well-located home, only one would be chosen.

In search of the first tenant Now that the criteria were defined, it was necessary to build a structured selection process. The first idea was to post a public call on social networks. The coordinator of a philanthropic fund who was introduced to the project warned, however, that an open call would result in a large number of applicants, with a huge overload for a small team like FICA’s. Since it only had one apartment, it would be frustrating for everyone except the selected person. Public reaction could affect the project’s image, if it were accused of benefiting a less vulnerable candidate—which would be the case because of the income requirements. The solution was to make an indirect selection, with short lists of candidates, through FICA’s networks and trusted organizations.

At the general assembly in October 2018, the format of the selection process was defined, consolidating the criteria and the organizations’ nomination process. The first list of organizations and the group of members who would coordinate the process were organized. In January 2019, the application form was put together, which required some data such as income and family composition, current address, and The rental agreement was drawn also personal information, such as: where the family usually goes in downtown and why they up according to Brazilian law. would like to live there. The expectation was to The main difference is that FICA receive three nominees per entity, forming a does not require a guarantor, list of 30 names.

one of the main barriers that

The first response was not so intense. Many of keeps low-income families from the organizations worked with poorer families, entering the formal housing or who were already in line to receive an apartment through housing social movements. market. Others ended up nominating only one family, either because they wanted to make a clear statement of who deserved housing in theirs perspective, or in order to avoid frustrating expectations. It was understood that FICA needed to improve relationships with organizations that can have access to families with the profile to which the association can attend. Eventually the experience was positive: in two rounds of calls 12 applications were received and 6 candidates were selected for the interview phase. The interviews were carried out with the support of a psychologist and a social worker. The profiles of the interviewees varied: married women with children, single women with children, a lesbian couple with daughters, a candidate with a steady job but coming out of homelessness. The conversations revolved around the candidates’ personal and professional lives, expectations, and why living in FICA apartment #1 would be important in their current life phase1. After the interviews, the working group ranked the candidates in order of priority, and the first on the list was called. The selected family corresponds to the profile established by FICA: the family has 3 children, has an income of little more than two minimum monthly wages, and they work downtown. One criterion was not met by any of those selected for the interview: that of having already lived on the outskirts of town. The chosen candidate arrived in São Paulo from the northeast of Brazil when she was still a child and since then had always lived downtown: it is where she went to school, met her husband, where their children were born and currently go to school.

CAR VING OUT A MODEL

1. Read the article If They Could Talk about the selection process for the first resident family of Apartment #1.

FICA

Measuring 506 sq. ft., the apartment has no partitions. In these photos, Apartment #1 after it was renovated and moments before the arrival of the first family.

In July 2019 the rental agreement was signed. The contract is quite conventional, guaranteeing the rights of the tenant and landlord, according to Brazilian law. The main difference is that FICA does not require a guarantor, one of the main barriers for low-income families entering the formal housing market. The family moved into the FICA apartment in July. The contract has a duration of 30 months but is renewable if both parties agree.

Next steps The pragmatic and incremental approach adopted by FICA has brought about a series of developments. The crowdfunding acquisition process is paying off, and by July 2019 FICA had 80 supporters and had saved 130 thousand reais (US$ 35 thousand), enough to begin searching for a second property. The group is now recognized for its expertise of alternative property models. Through partnerships, it has been seeking solutions to intervene in precarious tenement houses where the high values paid by

tenants feed the vicious cycle of precariousness and violation of rights. FICA is also starting to address the idea of utilizing the same property model applied to agricultural uses, thinking of instruments that allow the separation of the right to property and the right to use and how to enable and perpetuate the responsible uses of agricultural land. The challenge now is to scale up. But the model is ready and functional. Technically it can make partnerships with the government. Providing an alternative model to housing based upon private property is important to show the government that there are ways to use public resources that ensure better results over time. FICA, in its small scale, is a laboratory for examining the minutiae of social housing schemes. There are also a series of issues to be addressed: how do we operate within national regulatory frameworks? How much is a fair rent? How should we deal with default? How do we share the responsibility for housing maintenance? What should be the criteria for the selection of the next tenants? What are the responsibilities and potentialities of extra-governmental agents, and what are the limits to their activities?

There are more vacant homes than people in need of a home

6.3

million homes: Brazil’s housing deficit

7.9

million: the number of vacant homes in Brazil Source: Fundação João Pinheiro

These questions stimulate the debate around social rent, reframing and reformulating old challenges. It is always risky to write a history of the present and to problematize an experience taking place here and now. There are many issues that remain unresolved and many others that will arise as the project grows. There are no definitive answers to such a recent experiment, but we continue to share what we learn and our aspirations. We also do not believe that there is only one answer to the question: “What is an ethical landlord?” Here we present FICA’s suggestions, as we find partial and provisional answers. They are answers found through work FICA is a laboratory for that is intersected with a harsh urban reality, a huge demand for decent housing, institutional examining the minutiae of precariousness, no government support and social housing schemes. There no previous models to copy. are also a series of issues to be To our advantage, we have our utopias, immense professional and interdisciplinary expertise, and the conviction that in order to transform the world it is necessary to go beyond ideas.

CAR VING OUT A MODEL

addressed: how do we operate within national regulatory frameworks? How much is a fair rent? How should we deal with default? 39

If They Could Talk Interviewing potential tenents and giving voice to low income women who are made invisible in downtown São Paulo's urban crisis by Fernanda Almeida On May 30 and 31, 2019, six candidates were interviewed for Apartment #1. These interviews were preceded by an intense selection process that began in January 2019. The working group put together a questionnaire and defined the family profile for the residents of FICA’s first property1. Beyond just developing a set of questions and a report, the selection process provoked deeper reflections. The results can be synthesized in five points: they provided concrete cases that reaffirmed consolidated theoretical concepts and definitions; they demonstrated that families were making use of public space in the city center; they reported that the insecurity experienced by these residents has real and symbolic consequences; they indicated that the ways of life and sense of belonging downtown are diverse, rooted in day-to-day city life, and express political, cultural and aesthetic values; lastly, they highlight the need to ratify the right to the city as a universal human right2. In this article, I present the interview process and share an analysis that reaffirms what is common knowledge among specialists and researchers in the field: Certain segments of the population are excluded from downtown São Paulo due to the lack of investment in democratizing and diversifying the housing market. Gentrification and current housing policies aggravate social inequality and the urban crisis3. Consequently, low income families’ don’t have secure access to housing downtown.

Through the interviews, we confirmed that residents experience this in diverse ways. When we allowed the interviewees to speak freely about their need and desire to continue living in center city, what they had to say was poignant and consistent with the affirmations above. In their own way, the six women speak about violence while expressing their fears, needs, and desires.

The interviews The interviews were conducted individually in Apartment #1 itself4, which was at that time in the final stage of being renovated. Although there were still scraps of construction material, paint cans, rubble and dust, the setting proved to be right. By the balcony were four chairs and a small table with snacks, coffee and water. Despite the circumstances, we sought to create a comfortable environment. Words, gestures and feelings could be shared in a conversation that was closer to a welcoming than to an interview intended to collect information. In this way, even though the candidates knew the interview was classificatory in nature—therefore, a competitive moment— we sought to create an environment where they felt welcome and free to speak at ease. Considering the setting of the apartment as the object of the interviewees' desire (their potential future home), the space favored them to speak freely. The intensity of their accounts compelled our empathy and thus generated a

FICA

relationship of trust between the candidates and interviewers5. This enabled us to gather the necessary information to get to know them and to generate an emotional bond. Social interviews are common instruments used by social workers, psychologists, sociologists and others. Depending on the project, interviews have different ends and objectives. Their approaches reveal ethicalpolitical concepts both in the way they are conducted and in way the collected information is treated and analyzed after the fact. Thus, as a work technique, an interview should be planned and organized according to its purpose.

“The greatest change is having an address.” The chosen family used to live in a squat in downtown São Paulo and was threatened with eviction. In their first visit to the apartment after being selected, they said that having an address was what would change their daily lives the most. The family had sought a place to rent in São Paulo’s city center for months but was facing exorbitant prices and unrealistic demands from estate agents.

1. The article that precedes this text describes the process in detail. 2. HARVEY, David. Cidades Rebeldes: Do Direito à Cidade à Revolução Urbana. São Paulo: Martins Fontes – Selo Martins, 2014. 3. MARICATO, Ermínia. Para entender a crise urbana. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2015. 4. The final interview was regrettably conducted in an office at a different time, as a result of scheduling difficulties. 5. The interviews were conducted by two professionals: Fernanda Almeida, social worker, and Marcia Arantes, psychologist.

In a previous meeting with the FICA team, we determined that each interview should last 40 to 60 minutes. We agreed that we would not delve into issues with which we could not offer support because our contact with these women would be brief and limited. Since the impact of the social issues in question is usually powerful and emotional, we could not allow the interviews to become counseling or referral sessions themselves. (Although it was

FICA Fund

The interviews, always individual, were conducted in Apartment #1 itself. Although the renovation of the apartment was still in its final stages (there were still scraps of construction material, paint cans, rubble and dust), the choice of environment proved to be the right one—the apartment as the object of the interviewees’ interest (desire) favored them to speak freely and clearly state their dreams and concerns.

impossible not to provide information about places to seek medical and other social services, as occurred with several interviewees.) We also planned not to deal with closed-ended questions (the questionnaire already included a lengthy assessment of social needs) because the most important outcome was to capture the families’ sense of belonging in downtown São Paulo, to understand how they connect to and use the area. The interview process was thus an exercise in qualified listening to the needs of this population. Finally, it is worth noting that it was not difficult to rank the interviewees or decide on the successful candidate. This was due to the previously agreed-upon criteria, to the social

conditions and needs that the FICA team had defined regarding the profile of the first tenant. That being said, we realized that had there been more properties available, all six women would have been well suited to the project’s purpose.

Gentrification is a stigmatizing reality The concept of gentrification is a consensus among scholars on the subject. However, its concrete meaning, that is, how its characteristics are felt by low-income families, often has no place in technical reports, which often omit the symbolic aspects of day-to-day life in the city. In this respect, the interviewees' accounts are very valuable. A young mother said, “I need to get out of the squat because I don’t want to expose my children to the risk of eviction.” She explains, “I even have some money to pay rent, but the real estate regulations are horrible. They don’t accept children… I cannot hide my children, I have three children, I cannot hide two of them, they only accept one.” The daily state of insecurity in which this woman lives reveals a lot about the way urban violence creates stigmas and blames women for their double status as mothers and workers. She spoke the lines above with tears in her eyes and a one-year-old child on her lap. This is the tireless struggle of poor working women to raise their children safely and with dignity. Thus, it is clear that this process of “expelling” poor families from downtown has multiple purposes: from the objective marks on people's lives—no longer able to pay exorbitant rents and being forced to leave—to the symbolic violence (less frequently) of the social actors directly and indirectly involved in this process (landlords, real estate agents, intermediaries). The tenant's account seems to be established on the fringes of the law and dates back to

IF THEY COULD TALK

the historic place of the tenement's landlord in “O Cortiço”6, whose ownership determines not only a legal relationship, but also a moral power over the tenants. One of the interviewees reported that, during her search for a property to rent, a property owner had set a maximum number of visits each tenant could have per week. The real estate agents or “middlemen” reinforce the fact that the rules work in the interests of the landlords, and at the same time fail to ensure a safe environment for residents. Another interviewee spoke of her suffering, insecurity and fear in not knowing who her neighbors are. She described screaming and commotion in the corridors where she lives. Clearly, she appeared terrified by the idea that her pre-adolescent daughter could be the victim some sort of sexual violence. Just as challenging as rental rates are the conditions for accessing rental guarantees, such as a guarantor or proof of income. Consequently, even when they do find affordable rent prices, tenants must submit to arbitrary rules and substandard housing conditions.

Rent vs private property Through the interviewees' discussion it is evident that their feelings towards housing security do not necessarily mean access to private property. Above all there is the assurance of “not having your home invaded by the police in the middle of the night” (per one interviewee upon describing police operations downtown). The women interviewed, interestingly enough, spoke about rent as a means of access to housing. We highlight this peculiarity because in Brazilian society the culture places value on acquiring property—“the dream of homeownership.” All but one candidate 6. AZEVEDO, Aluísio. O Cortiço. São Paulo: Klick Editora, 1987.

demonstrated satisfaction with the status of tenant and having to pay rent, as long as the cost was “fair”. This perception should (and must) be treated as a paradigm shift in the access to and affordability of property in the city center, and thus create opportunities for democratization of access to goods and services. Just as the importance of property ownership expresses a socially constructed concept, the idea of rented property at fair and affordable prices as a means of access to housing, can, and should, be constructed.

Ways of life and belonging in downtown São Paulo The common denominator in most of the interviews was the life stories marked by violence and instability. One interviewee cried out of fear of being evicted; another spoke about her husband's murder just a block away from home as he was heading home from work; one described her life as a homeless person and the stigma from having been a substance user; another talked about the instability of informal work; one panicked at the urban violence inside low-income buildings; another described how worried she was about the mental health of her sister, who suffers from morbid obesity and is weakened by her lack of knowledge about the psychosocial care network that could improve her quality of life. At the same time, all the interviewees seem to be sure that they are much better off living in downtown São Paulo. Because of this, a typology of social fears is relativized by the idea that living in the city center provides easier access to the more affordable public goods in the city center than in the urban fringe, an observation that is no less true today. Additionally, the interviewees refer to a cartography of public spaces and uses of the city. They all mention the importance of the facilities at Sesc (Commercial Workers' Social Service)7; they cite access to public

schools and daycare; they remind us that the public healthcare network is more structured and accessible downtown; they explain how their children use the President João Goulart Elevated Highway—popularly known as “o Minhocão” (“the big worm”)—which opens for leisure at night and on weekends; they describe an itinerary featuring squares with playgrounds for their children. These women know that quality of life is not limited to the internal spaces of their homes (which are substandard); they know that they and their families can appropriate the city, and apparently they are not willing to give up that right. Adding to the subject of belonging to the city center, we point out that four of the six interviewees are migrants from northeastern Brazil. They tell us how, for different reasons, they came in search of better living conditions. One of them says that she arrived as a child and knows only downtown São Paulo. This young woman's family, friendships and work relationships are established in the city center. Another woman reports that she manages to earn multiple streams of income downtown and says she knows a little about everything, has worked in cleaning, in restaurants, and even takes on odd jobs like manicures and massages. She is proud of this and knows that her mobility downtown helps her find a way to survive. Work is their predominant reason they are (and wish to stay) downtown. One of the interviewees gave a moving statement about her work conditions. She proudly said she runs the kitchen of a self-service buffet restaurant on her own, and that during her 13 years working at the establishment, she has never taken a vacation. Degrading labor conditions are masked by the idea of "solidarity" between employer and employee and disguise exploitation. Since she is a widow, she relies on the "support from the boss" for childcare. Since she lives close to work, she can run the restaurant kitchen, producing

an average of 250 meals a day, pick up her daughter from school, and get back to work without "compromising her job". On weekends, even when she is tired, she says she takes her daughter to the Sesc centers at either 24 de Maio or Bom Retiro.

The right to the city is a human right The intersectionality of women, work and the right to the city8 seems to reinforce a sort of triangulation that points out the need to bolster and expand alternative housing projects like FICA that aim to improve access to housing in city centers. In this sense, the project raises questions about hegemony because it proposes another way of thinking about spaces and the public goods produced by society. In a climate of neoliberal economic and social policies, the impersonal and predatory logic of the housing market depersonalizes cities, makes cultures invisible, and extinguishes ways of life. In Brazil, the principle that women should be prioritized when it comes to owning subsidized property was not consolidated until the 1980s. Property ownership gives women security in the patriarchal culture that still dominates Brazilian society. The latest feminist movement highlights the plurality of women's demands and needs. The city, and consequently urban sociability as the locus of life and its reproduction, challenges women to ensure the rights that have yet to be consolidated: the right to housing, the right to equal opportunities, working conditions and income and the fight against domestic violence. At the same time, it demands a new political, social and symbolic agenda: rather than the “rights produced in the city”, women want to have the “right to the city”: women demand an active role in the symbolic construction of cities, as well as a shift in the city's values and aesthetics, whereby

IF THEY COULD TALK

their notoriously neglected ways of living and thinking are taken into consideration. When we explained the project’s objectives to the interviewees, they quickly understood and identified themselves with it. These women feel the fear of eviction every day. They notice the changes in the way the city is built and reproduce this feeling each in their own way, be it in the fear of being excluded by the red tape to access or in the sense of inadequate supply even though they know that there is an abundance of empty properties. These families represent a way of living in the city center that is different from the profile desired by the market—primarily focused on the middle-class “hipsters”—and which is not properly appreciated yet. By arguing that the right to the city is a human right, Harvey (2014) restores the idea of a collective, diverse, participatory way of life guided by the freedom to build and rebuild cities according to the wishes of their inhabitants and denounces the exclusion of the poorest segments of the population. In conclusion, we stress the need to build spaces that give voice to these women. Everything we denounce or demand within a concept of democratizing access to public goods and the right to the city is experienced by the interviewees in either the denial or affirmation of these rights. FICA's ethos aligns itself with the demands of such people, who need to be able to defend the idea of a model of affordable rent based on fair values and with conditions worthy of building lives and relationships. 7. Sesc (Commercial Workers’ Social Service), are centers of culture and leisure that offer free or low-priced activities and are spread all over Brazil. There are three in central São Paulo alone: 24 de Maio, Bom Retiro and Consolação. 8. In 2017, the Brazilian Institute of Urban Law (IBDU) launched two publications that discuss this issue. The editorial Direito à Cidade – Novos Olhares (A Right to the City - New Perspectives) is a set of 30 articles produced by women that discuss the relationship between right to the city and gender issues. In 2008, the collective production Ser, Fazer e Acontecer: Mulheres e o Direito à Cidade (To Be, To Make, To Happen: Women and the Right to the City), organized by Taciana Gouveia, presented the importance of the debate with articles with the same approach.

Private Property Is Not the Only Way Multiple alternatives for tackling unequal access to land and real estate The idea of private property is seductive. Buying a little piece of the world gives you security, allows you to build a legacy for future generations, and can serve as the collateral necessary for securing credit. When thinking about society as a whole, however, property can be quite problematic. It divides the world into the haves and the have-nots; it binds people to debt for decades, consumes much of their income and collective wealth, and increases the costs of public policies. Moreover, private property is not compatible with the idea of a right to the city for everybody. Those who care about building fair cities know this. Market forces, the laws of supply and demand put pressure on scarce commodities such as well-located urban real estate, and cause real estate prices to spike, evictions, and gentrification. Over the past few decades, access to good locations is becoming increasingly difficult, even for the middle class. Artists and students, as well as teachers, nurses and firefighters cannot find housing compatible with their income, thereby undermining the diversity and threatening the intricacies of cities. Tourism aggravates this situation with apps like Airbnb that take even more homes off the market. The good news is that private property is not the only optionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;no matter how many people want us to believe it. When it comes to private property our society has developed alternatives, some old, some new. These solutions allow us

to think that a different future is possible, and that we can take action now to help achieve it. Order matters. Here, we move along a scale starting with extremely statist solutions and ending with the solutions most avidly defended by civil society. There is no miracle solution, and each one comes with its challenges. But it also brings hope that we can use spaces responsibly in the short time that we are here, leaving more generous legacies for future generations.

The government as owner In 1789, the French Revolution declared that all land belonging to the Crown, religious orders and the aristocracy should be expropriated and considered public property. The state became a major real estate owner. As a representative of society, the National State had the right to expropriate and forcibly appropriate real estate to carry out projects of interest to society. It was common for real estate to fall into the hands of the State because of the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s debts, for example. In socialist countries, there have been massive processes of nationalizing land during specific historical periods. The result of such processes is that the State is a major, and often the largest, owner of real estate in the country. Part of the real estate is kept off the market in the form of government buildings, museums, and parks. However, the State can be (or become) the owner of many other properties to be used for housing,

commerce, and services. When the State receives a property as a result of debt or lack of heirs, for example, it often sells or auctions off this property, which is then put back on the market, and the new owner is usually one willing to pay the highest price for the property, that is, the most competitive economic agent. This does not seem like a good strategy to us. The State cannot be a player in real estate speculation, and the properties that become part of the State’s wealth would be better used if the priority were social welfare rather than appreciating the land’s economic value. Left to the rules of the market, real estate rarely benefits those who need it most: the most vulnerable groups and projects that are guided by principles rather than economic interests. The government can—and should—have a strategy for the real estate that it owns or eventually might own. Even when the government cannot afford real estate developments, there are alternatives to simply selling the property, such as leases and concessions, which can be long-term, like 99 years. The State could establish agreements and arrangements with entities from civil society for non-profit property management, such as public services. So, always be wary of radically privatizing and salesoriented strategies: there are always alternatives.

of landlords own

45% of real estate in São Paulo City

Source: O Estado de S. Paulo Newspaper

The cooperative property Cooperatives are groups of people organized around defined proposals who believe in the power of collaborative effort. A cooperative is a formal entity and can register properties under its name. Two principles guide the organization of cooperatives. The first is that by joining forces it is possible to gain bargaining power and occupy spaces that isolated people or groups would not have the ability or size to do. The second is that cooperative arrangements can be alternatives to market dynamics, guiding decisions based on principles rather than purely economic interests. Cooperativism as we know it dates back to the nineteenth century, with the creation of communities focused on their own development, such as the utopian community of New Lanark, in Scotland. Then, more integrated solutions began to appear, such as cooperative shopping stores, or â&#x20AC;&#x153;societies within societyâ&#x20AC;?. Land and housing cooperatives designed to increase access to housing started appearing in various places in the early twentieth century. In these cooperatives, the resident does not own the property, but rather an ideal fraction of the cooperative that corresponds to his or her home. The cooperative is the landlord, therefore, and the residents are indirectly their own landlords. In some countries, a significant portion of real estate is owned by cooperatives. cooperatives

Land and housing started appearing in the early twentieth century. The resident does not own the property, but rather an ideal fraction of the cooperative that corresponds to his or her home. The cooperative is the landlord, therefore, and the residents are indirectly their own landlord.

This situation, where the resident is and isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the owner, poses a set of challenges. Perhaps the biggest challenge being: who keeps the income resulting from appreciating property values? There are different models for solving this issue, and each cooperative chooses its own. Some cooperatives have shares that can be traded at market value, and the coop member gets all the real estate profit. Limitedequities are cooperatives that limit the profit that can be obtained from the sale of shares.

Community Land Trusts Ever since the late-nineteenth century in the Anglo-Saxon world there have been experiments with land registration in the name of communities based on the theory of Henry George and the

3.1

million families in Brazil spend over 30% of their wages on rent Source: Fundação João Pinheiro

practice of idealists such as Ebenezer Howard, Ralph Borsodi and Arthur E. Morgan. Several communities have been formed by separating land ownership from ownership of that which is built on it, whereby the latter can be registered in the name of individuals. The names of these experiments are well-known— Letchworth, Welwyn, Celo, Norris, Bryn Gweled—and some of them operate as communities to this day. Starting in the late 1960s, the idea brought about a new solution, with the creation of Community Land Trusts, nonprofit organizations that own property, continuously manage them, and where the residents of the property, neighbors, and representatives from public interest groups participate in decision-making. The dilemmas facing Community Land Trusts are similar to those of cooperatives: how to deal with appreciating land and real estate values? Here too, solutions range from market-like practices—the property owner can sell it at market value— to more collectivist solutions, where the Community Land Trust keeps the value.

Traditional and original properties In the last decades of the twentieth century, awareness has grown regarding the fact that the occupation of colonized countries is based on the violent expropriation of native peoples’ lands. In the case of Brazil, the first step took place in 1494, when the Kingdom of Portugal declared itself the owner of the land where millions of people had lived for centuries, in an agreement with Spain that had to be sanctioned by the Pope, the owner of land in the name of God. After that, the expropriation deepened by expelling native peoples to the fringes of the occupied areas in a still ongoing process. Following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, discussions about the property rights of indigenous peoples intensified. In Brazil, the most important milestone was that of the 1988 Constitution, in which indigenous peoples were recognized as “nations within the nation,” with the right to claim land demarcation based on traditional belonging. The State recognizes as indigenous lands as those occupied by native peoples for their productive activities, as well as for their cultures and customs, making space for the demarcation of large natural areas as indigenous land. The property is collective and guaranteed by the State and indigenous peoples cannot sell the land.

PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT THE ONLY WAY

Many other countries with indigenous peoples have been restoring these lands in recent decades through similar processes as a reparation for the violent occupation by colonizers.

Common property Some assets cannot be privatized, like the air we breathe, oceans, beaches. These goods are seen as common goods, which belong to everyone. They are not necessarily governmental goods, and many societies have developed legal provisions that guarantee the collective ownership of this type of asset. In the twenty-first century, with activist groups’ growing suspicion regarding the State, the idea of Commons has been recovered and applied to some urban spaces, engaged based on the idea that “some safeguard the rights of all.” There are many cases of groups and collectives that deploy private property, public spaces and facilities for the common good. Recently, some of these places have acquired the status of legal entities. In New Zealand, in 2017, the Maori people managed after decades of struggle to have the Whanganui River recognized as person with all of its corresponding legal rights. The case served as an example for the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India to also be recognized as living beings and granted such rights. In 2019, Lake Eire received legal rights in the state of Ohio. This means citizens can sue polluters in the name of the lake.

FICA’s choice: the social landlord FICA adopts a model that has been used in different ways by institutions in various countries1: the idea of a social owner. This is a social actor that is specifically created to acquire land and permanently remove it from the market. In this way FICA acts as a landlord who has tenants but is guided by asking what it means to be an ethical landlord. As a principle, FICA is transparent when it comes to the justification of the rent it charges, and constantly looks for ways to reduce rent and being responsible about keeping its properties in good condition. The rent collected is also used to help expand this model and reach more people.

1. See examples in the section Meet The Ethical Landlords.

By radically separating property ownership from its use and presenting itself as an ethical landlord, FICAâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;just like other projects with the same functionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;protects itself from problems that may arise when land appraisals occur since it has no plans to sell the property or gain from capital remuneration. On the contrary, with the increase in land value, these protected properties end up ensuring the diversity of residents in the neighborhood and prevents them from being driven out. This idea is more easily accepted when it is compared to natural landscapes and protecting biodiversity, with organizations that buy and protect large tracts of land, such as the Rainforest Trust. When it comes to urban land and protecting people, the idea is less widespread, nevertheless it is of a social still possible.

FICA adopts the model owner, created to acquire land and permanently remove it from the market. In this way FICA acts as a landlord who has tenants but is guided by asking what it means to be an ethical landlord.

In the case of Brazil, where there are no organizations working to protect the diversity of neighborhoods, FICA is creating a new social agent of its own and is not waiting for it to be instituted or fostered by the government or by public policies. At a time like the one we are experiencing in Brazil, not waiting for the government to act seems to be somewhat sensible. Still, FICA is a steady and reliable interlocutor should public sector bodies want to create policies based on social property in the future. FICA deploys contemporary tools such as crowdfunding to mobilize resources and buy real estate in downtown neighborhoods, thereby showing that building new housing is not the only way forward.

There is no perfect alternative to private property, and all property arrangements are subject to abuse and deviations from their original objectives. The most democratic use of property depends on principles, control and permanent monitoring. But one thing is certain: we will not go far in exercising our rights if we remain bound to the notion that the traditional private property model is our choice.

PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT THE ONLY WAY

Rent in Public Policâ&#x20AC;&#x160;y Public housing programs that use rent to create affordable housing for low-income populations by Simone Gatti The post-industrial and post-war eras of the first half of the twentieth century saw a massive displacement of populations from the countryside to cities. These structural and economic crises endured by western society required the intervention of public authorities in creating social housing projects. More recently, post-globalization, new forms of housing surfaced, centered around temporary, sporadic leases or conceived for work and tourism. As a result, new actors appeared on the real estate market. Models for shared housing, such as Airbnb, promote low prices for tourists and creative models on the one hand, but have harmful consequences for local rent markets on the other. There are also housing investment funds that command real estate inventory and strengthen the role of housing as a market commodity. The vestiges from the rapid growth of cities and more recent social and economic changes require the presence of the state in supplying accessible housing for low-income populations who are marginal to the formal market1. Here we will point out the main actions that can be taken: public housing projects; subsidized rent (voucher programs); and control and regulation of the private rental market.

1. The article If They Could Talk, in this edition, gives a sketch of the informal real estate marketâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demands on low-income families.

The State as landlord: public housing projects Public housing in Europe was traditionally accessible, rented, publicly owned or owned by heavily regulated non-profit entities, the result of public-sector-run processes unchecked by market mechanisms. These were the features that marked the construction of most of the public housing projects in European countries like France, the United Kingdom, Austria and the Netherlands. Despite the privatization of public housing projects that kicked off with the decline of the social welfare state in the 1980s and bolstered by the economic crises at the beginning of the twenty-first century, many countries defend public housing as an important part of housing policy. Some cities have taken steps against privatizing policies that aggravate the housing crisis, cause a surge in the homeless population and force low-income people to move to places increasingly farther away from the city center. As a way to curb the processes of gentrification and urban segregation, Barcelona, Berlin and New York City have developed solid public housing policies and created checks on real estate speculation. Even experiments with small-scale public housing buildings play an important role in disrupting paradigms established in places governed by private property policies, as is the experience of the Social Rent Program in SĂŁo Paulo.

The United States has followed the privatization and financialization processes identified in Brazil and the rest of the world. Although rent subsidies are a part of housing policy and the majority of the poor in the United States live in rented homes, rent is neglected by public policies in favor of private property.

New York City is an exception because it is improving buildings designed for public housing managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which started building its stock in 1934. NYCHA privatized some complexes in the 1960s, but under pressure from academics and African American and Puerto Rican activists, it was forced to expand its number of beneficiaries. The active tenantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; associations are important figures today for

La Guardia Houses, public housing complex managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). It includes 13 buildings, 1,093 apartments, and houses approximately 2,596 people, the majority of whom are African American and Latino.

Simone Gatti

How have these cities maintained their public housing stocks? What makes them special? What are the challenges when the state is the landlord? In order to answer these questions, we will draw a parallel between the consolidated experience in New York City and the program in SĂŁo Paulo.

maintaining public housing despite declining investments for building new units. According to data collected by historian Nicholas Bloom, NYCHA manages about 2,600 buildings spread among 345 housing complexes around New York City, with over 400,000 inhabitants in 180,000 apartments. The average cost of rent is USD 434 a month (compared to the average USD 2,000 per month for an apartment in Bushwick, a lowincome neighborhood in Brooklyn). Among the tenants, 46% are African American and 44% are Latino. Only 4% of residents there are white. The families have an average yearly income of USD 23,000 (the poverty threshold for a couple with two children). A team of over 11,000 employees actively works to keep the inventory public, and about 22% of them live in the projects. The team is in charge of selecting the tenants, collecting rent and taking care of cleaning and maintenance at the housing complexes. But perhaps the main secret to NYCHA’s success in holding on to its units in the midst of the wave of privatization was to

Simone Gatti

Chelsea & Elliot Houses, public housing buildings managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) in Chelsea, Manhattan, with 1,034 apartments. The photo shows the contrast between the public buildings and the new skyscrapers of High Line, one of the most expensive areas in the city.

eliminate tenant candidates who would be unable to pay rent—in favor of people with jobs and to the detriment of the poorest families. In Bloom’s point of view, selective public housing is better than demolished public housing. New York City’s system has its limitations. Subletting raises rents from USD 400 to 4,000 in neighborhoods like Chelsea in Manhattan, although it takes place on a small scale given the rigorous inspections in place to curb such activity. Furthermore, there is great dissatisfaction among the current residents who complain about the lack of maintenance, the lack of heat on extremely cold days, the long emergency response times and delays for work orders to be filled in the buildings, occurrences that have become frequent in the last several years as a result of restricted government funding. Public housing was implemented in São Paulo, Brazil, starting in 2002 with Programa Locação Social (Public Rent Program). This was a sign of progress in city housing policy because it introduced public renting initiatives within the hegemonic context of São Paulo’s private production. Nevertheless, it is a meager attempt, especially compared to New York City’s policy. So far, the program has six

Simone Gatti

Common area at Vila dos Idosos, a public housing building of the City of São Paulo’s Social Rent Program in downtown São Paulo, based on plans by architect Hector Vigliecca. The development was launched in 2007 with 145 units designated for senior citizens.

Olga Quiroga, coordinator of Grupo de Articulação para Moradia dos Idosos da Capital (GARMIC, Coordinating Group for Housing for the Elderly in the City of São Paulo) and one of the people in charge of the public coordination that made the creation of the Vila dos Idosos possible. In the photo, Dona Olga with one of the residents at Vila dos Idosos in 2015.

developments amounting to 903 housing units. In 2019, a new building was inaugurated with 34 apartments designated for homeless people.

such partners are the very social actors in charge of managing the public housing stock in collaboration with public authorities.

It is a small-scale program, but it has already made significant changes in the lives of its beneficiaries, who pay 10% of their income to live in well-located buildings with protection from unexpected evictions or abusive increases in rent.

Defaults on rent and condo fees in the case of incomeless families present another challenge. Illegal transfers of the housing unit to other residents who buy the space on an informal market are also common. Unlike New York City, where these problems are scant, in São Paulo, they affect almost half of the available units. The São Paulo program took the same steps as NYCHA in selecting tenants as a way to curb defaults. In the two latest buildings inaugurated, the residents have a stable minimum income or receive pension or social security benefits, even those who are homeless.

However, there are still many challenges ahead. One of the main obstacles is managing the buildings, currently the sole responsibility of the city government. Unlike NYCHA’s buildings, which have a structured entity for managing the units, in São Paulo there are too few employees to handle this task and few possibilities for expanding the existing structure. The absence of housing cooperatives to act as partners for managing developments in Brazil makes it impossible to grow the public housing program. In many European countries

RENT IN PUBLIC POLIC Y

Despite the challenges, rent is the most effective way of dealing with the housing needs of those who do not manage to cover the financing costs of a mortgage. Both in New York City and in São Paulo, rent-based public housing

enables the democratization of valuable spaces in the city and provides more access to urban services in areas with greater job opportunities and infrastructure. Another advantage to having a rent-based public housing stock is that it enhances families’ residential mobility. Renting provides flexibility when it comes to settling down, a necessity be it for informal workers in temporary work and provisional residence, or for youth in search of employment in an unstable market. There is also the benefit of interfering in the popular rental market, thereby reducing the abuse of slumlords and private landlords. All these possibilities obviously depend on formulating a thorough plan structured on a sweeping housing policy with shared management processes and public oversight.

Palacete dos Artistas, a development of the City of São Paulo’s Social Rent Program opened in 2014 in downtown São Paulo. It is designed to serve elderly people with an artistic career and participated in the sector’s entities. The building was the headquarters of the former Hotel Cineasta and was retrofitted to house 50 artists over the age of 60 earning a family income between 1 and 3 minimum-wage salaries (USD 260.00 - USD 780.00).

Subsidizing rent: the voucher system Public policies that took off in the 1980s culminated not only in the privatization of rentbased public housing but also in strengthening other modes of housing services to meet the needs of those excluded from the market. Some countries and cities started to offer direct aid for paying rent, the so-called housing benefits or voucher programs, where families receive cash supplement for paying rent. This model had already been implemented in post-war Europe for families who could not keep up with skyrocketing rents, but it was generally meant for the vulnerable of society like the elderly and the disabled. The voucher system was first implemented in 1948 in France, 1955 in Germany and 1967 in Denmark (Howenstine, 1986), in many different models. The analysis of recent practices for providing rent subsidies shows us that the voucher system could serve as a supplemental policy in the housing supply, but in order for it to be successful, it is important that government play a role in allocating the funds. In other words, that there be oversight for ensuring that the money is being used for renting a suitable home that meets the minimum sanitation standards and that the price charged be compatible with market rate. The ideal situation would be to have a registry of private properties that are open to receiving vouchers as part of a tenant’s rent payment and that city government inspect these properties to verify that the home is in good condition.

Simone Gatti

In the United States, the Housing Choice Vouchers Program (known as “Section 8”), created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1978, is the main Federal Government program for providing housing to those who live below the poverty line. There are over 2.2 million low-income families throughout the USA and in New

York City, more than 290,000 receive this subsidy. The program also offers assistance to the elderly and the disabled who have no fixed income, or to people who have been evicted. The vouchers are administered by city public housing agencies that certify the tenants and the homes for participation in the program. Eligibility for this program is based on gross annual income and family size. The family chooses where to live from the list of homes registered as being open to vouchers and pays 30% of the amount of its monthly income to the landlord. If the rent is higher than that, the city housing office pays the landlord the difference. In any case, the rent is usually about 20% cheaper than market rates. On the downside, the landlord takes a loss in value, but on the upside, he or she gains the guarantee of a rent subsidy from the government. The worsening housing crisis and the spread of gentrification are nevertheless corroding the stability of the voucher system in major US cities. Subsidized housing is disappearing from high-value neighborhoods while the beneficiaries of the Housing Choice Voucher Program end up concentrating in poor neighborhoods far from city centers. Furthermore, older properties are being sold to give way to new expensive buildings and many rental properties refuse to accept vouchers if they are located in areas with high-value real estate. There is an understanding of the importance of this program, especially in terms of serving the emergency of families with high levels of vulnerability—but it is important that this system is not used as a substitute for public housing. In Brazil, the voucher system, created as an emergency policy, is used in an even more problematic way. In São Paulo, money is given to the tenant rather than the landlord, and public authorities do not know anything about

RENT IN PUBLIC POLIC Y

the housing unit to be rented. This leads to families moving back into substandard homes like tenements and favelas (slums) or occupying private properties that are empty. There are currently about 27,000 rent aid recipients in São Paulo who have no guarantees about the quality of the homes of the families served. The program is no longer an emergency policy, but rather the standard housing service for the victims of the evictions that take place daily in the city. Tackling a problem of this scale is a major challenge, but the way forward would be the transfer of this aid to a rent-based public housing program similar to the model used in New York City, where the aid recipient is the landlord who is renting the property to the tenant, placing greater control on where and how these families are being helped.

Capping rent: protection and control One of the major difficulties of facing housing needs in a country like Brazil is the fact that housing built with public subsidies are freely placed on the private market. Subsidized units are sold or leased without any price control, which means that families with higher incomes end up acquiring these homes, blunting any efforts to curb the very low-income housing deficit for which they were built. Laws that regulate the marketing of subsidized public housing, when its sale is permitted, are fundamental for reallocating the public funds to those who really need them. These homes need to be protected and used exclusively by families with the same characteristics as those of the original recipients, through price controls on leases and sales. Spain’s “Vivienda de Protección Oficial” (VPO), or Officially Protected Housing, is a unique type of protection that can be implemented for a set

amount of time or permanently. Construction is directly encouraged by public authorities and can be made feasible through sponsorship from private institutions. These units meet the physical requirements in terms of the floor plan, quality and inhabitability and are subject to a specific legal regimen for a set period of time, fundamentally regarding the conveyance of use and ownership at a capped price determined by law and is, except in special circumstances, lower than the market value. Public spending on producing public housing must be considered as collective wealth and publicly controlled so that its recipients are always low-income individuals and families in vulnerable situations. Affordable housing must be considered a public, not speculative, service and never be seen as a commodity, making it possible to maintain a stock of affordable housing for purchase or rent. Another measure for expanding the affordable housing stock is the private rent control system, implemented in many cities as a response to the post-war real estate crises. One of the most robust systems to this day is that of the State of New York, which remained strong even after other states in the nation deregulated. Implemented by the state’s Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) in 1974, the Rent Stabilization Code applies to buildings with six or more apartments built prior to 1974. This affects 966,000 housing units in the State of New York—45% of the rental market. It is the housing policy with a direct impact on the greatest number of properties in New York City. Stabilized rents are readjusted yearly by the Rent Guidelines Board. The adjustments contemplate economic and housing indicators and the efforts of landlords and tenants in defending their rights. These efforts produced results in the wake of the intense #UniversalRentControl campaign that aimed to close loopholes that weaken tenants’ rights and that culminated in the signing of the renewed

and revised state statute, The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The rent regulation offers tenants: Protections against sudden rent hikes, one of the main reasons for evictions, since half of the low-income tenants in New York City spend over half of their income on rent; Lease security, since now tenants have the right to renew their lease agreement; Maintenance Standards for basic services provided by the landlord; Limits on security deposits and other fees for low-income tenants to enter the rental market.

. . . .

Rent stabilization has impacts throughout the city. When mediating income levels, rent stabilization increases the effectiveness of the voucher programs—in New York City, 61% of the vouchers are used by regulated landlords, representing 90,000 homes, according to the Community Service Society (Miranova, 2019). Although rent regulation does not manage to deal with all the factors that generate housing scarcity such as low incomes, it helps tenants stay in their homes, especially in the parts of the city where non-regulated rents rise rapidly.

. All these public policies regarding rent, be it public or private, lower market prices and reduce real estate speculation. With a diversity of affordable housing options, one program can enhance the effectiveness of the other. If a certain property is already subject to price regulations, there is no reason for the landlord to refuse to accept the voucher given that there can be no speculation on that property, unlike the case of unregulated property. The more affordable housing supply there is, the more opportunities for non-profit and community organizations to compete, since it reduces the housing stock available for market overvaluation. According to this logic, there

Simone Gatti

is also a greater chance for implementing models like Community Land Trusts, which can act within already-regulated markets together with other types of rent subsidies like voucher programs. We can draw a comparison between housing policies and mobility policies, based on research studies that monitored traffic and real estate market prices: the more space cities make for cars, the more cars there will be on the roads. So, the more affordable housing cities have, the lower the number of homes on the market for speculation. And, in this context, public policies like the ones presented here are fundamental for order in this competition.

Eastwood Building, a private housing complex in New York City. The 1,003-unit complex was built in 1973 by the Mitchell-Lama program for middle-class families. Today most of the apartments are rented to low-income elderly people through the Housing Project Voucher Program. The residents’ retirement wage ranges from USD 720 to USD 900 and 30% of this amount goes towards paying rent. The rest of the rent is financed by the federal program and paid directly to landlords. The majority of the residents are immigrants from Cuba, Puerto Rico and China. References BLOOM, N. D. Affordable Housing in New York: The People, Places, and Policies That Transformed a City. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2016. BLOOM, N. D. Learning from New York: America’s Alternative High-Rise Public Housing Model. In: Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 78. n. 4. Chicago, 2012. GATTI, Simone. Entre a Permanência e o Deslocamento. Tese de Doutorado. São Paulo: FAU-USP, 2015. HOWENSTINE, Jay. Housing Vouchers: A Comparative International Analysis. New Jersey: Paperback, 1986. MEDA, Boch; BELLART, Carme Trilla. El Parque Público y Protegido de Viviendas en España: un análisis desde el contexto europeo. Madrid: Fundación Alternativas, 2018. MIRANOVA, Oksana. Rent Regulation in New York City: How it works, what went wrong, and how to fix it. New York: Community Service Society, 2019. RETSINAS, Nicolas P; BELSKY, Eric. Revisiting Rental Housing: Policies, Programs and Priorities. Washington DC: Joint Center for Housing Studies, Brookings Institution Press, 2008.

RENT IN PUBLIC POLIC Y

Meet the Ethical Landlords There is no single alternative model for property and landlordtenant relationships. Formats vary and respond to differences in the cultures, history, and purpose of social entities and leaders according to the institutional frameworks of each country and region, in their public policies, and tax structures. Priority may differ for each project: ensuring affordable rent, empowering vulnerable groups to structure their lives, preventing gentrification, perpetuating sustainable uses, strengthening community ties. Thus, there is no single answer to what an ethical landlord is. In the next pages, we will show some experiments with scales that range from a few units to huge assets. Government support

coincides with scale: larger experiments take place where the State recognizes these actors and jointly creates public policies and provides subsidies. Where there are no structured policies, the experiments are more isolated and heroic. No matter the case, certain ideas are always present: the desire for social reform and reducing inequalities; the certainty that market forces are unable to deliver a socially-just and environmentallybalanced territory; the search for structural ways of separating land ownership from the right of use; the prospect that this is long-term work. In every case, the approach is one that plants seeds of hope today for a less unequal tomorrow. Experiments in affordable rent are disproportionately found in wealthy nations, where the government and NGOs cooperate more and where the nonprofit sector is incorporated into public policies; where there are more subsidies and public funding provided as grants for nonprofit projects; and where there is a stronger tradition of institutionalized philanthropy. This is especially challenging for an institution in the Global South. These experiments also have their limitations. The landlord-tenant or occupant relationship sets a differential between individuals, and it is challenging to build the boundaries between rights and responsibilities, between healthy and protected relationships, between just and excessive rent. How to deal with default? How to deal with the ghost of eviction due delinquency? How to create medium- and long-term projects that are financially sustainable? How to scale up? How to be seen as a reliable spokesperson for the public authority? How to guarantee independence and uphold values in government relations? How to get the support from those who own property to make donations and legacies? Is ensuring affordable housing for 15 years enough? Are crosssubsidies an effective strategy? One of the biggest challenges is project development over time. It is important that our institutions and spaces perpetuate themselves as places of hope, examples of partial suspensionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; albeit on a micro scaleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;of market logic, the origins or beacons of other worlds in the here and now. The challenge is to scale up without losing radicality, always pushing the boundaries of what is possible and expanding them a little further every day.

Edith Maryon Foundation Switzerland

The Edith Maryon Foundation was established by three young Swiss friends at the beginning of the 1990s, following Rudolph Steiner’s “three folding theory” for a social order that does not privilege just one aspect, or one group of society. It is named after the English sculptor who was one of Steiner’s close friends at the inception of the Anthroposophy movement. She moved to Switzerland at the beginning of the twentieth century and designed three affordable housing projects in the city of Dornach.

Courtesy of Edith Maryon Foundation

The properties of Edith Maryon and its subsidiaries are distributed in five European countries: Switzerland (78), Germany (42), Austria (1), Hungary (1), and France (1).

Having started with a fund of 12,000 Swiss francs (approximately USD 12,000), it now holds more than one hundred properties in different European countries. Its main goal is to acquire real estate property and put it to social and communal uses. The foundation acquires properties from donations, bequests or direct purchase. It hijacks the speculative cycle of the real estate market, juxtaposing the idea of social and cultural values to the reductive idea of monetary value.

The property acquisition model relies on partners who share the organization’s main values and are willing to share the costs through a sales price reduction, a partial purchase price transfer, a donation, an interest-free loan or an endowment. As property owner, the foundation can then partner with individuals and organizations by offering them know-how and structure to implement their independent socially oriented projects. The partnerships are open-ended and, once the land is secured for social use, partner organizations are free to structure and run their own initiatives. Although the majority of the projects are still linked to the founding principle of providing social housing, the foundation also sponsors projects for community living, life-work initiatives, and culture, health, recreation, education, farming and agricultural uses. Overall, it strives to make real estate property and land available for the benefit of many people and not just the few, as it brings together people who want to change the way we live, work and relate to one another. Edith Maryon is organized as an umbrella organization with five subsidiaries in Switzerland and Germany and an overall of twenty employees, who are responsible for acquiring land, structuring financial and cultural projects, and property maintenance. The

• Founded: 1990 • Switzerland, Germany, Austria, France and Hungary • Owns 120 properties • 600 families (housing programs) and 100 organizations (other programs) • Social housing, agriculture and farming, education, culture, health, leisure

Having started with a fund of approximately USD 12,000, it now holds more than one hundred properties in different European countries.

Leo Arnold

Façade of the Bärenfelserstrasse 34 project, in Basel, Switzerland.

EDITH MARYON FOUNDATION

foundation always owns the land. In some cases, rents are set close to market rates, providing income that can be used to sponsor other initiatives within the foundation. In the case of default, tenants are evicted by the normal process of law. The foundation also has a “solidarity fund” that helps tenants pay security deposits demanded at the start of rental agreements. In this case, the tenant pays the foundation 15% of the security deposit value, and the foundation acts as guarantor for the lease. Since 2006, the foundation has also received funds to promote the arts and has funded projects in the visual and performing arts, as well as art related to architecture, music therapy, pedagogy, agriculture and medicine. It has a partnership with Greenpeace Switzerland and can transfer the net value of acquired or donated property to this other institutions, if donors and/or partners are inclined to do so.

Bärenfelserstrasse 34, Basel, Switzerland This is a good example of social housing. It was originally designed as a commercial building but transformed into a housing project in the 1970s, with one-bedroom apartments.

Image from: https://www.baerenfelserstrasse.ch/bilder.html

Barenfenserstrasse has various buildings with different community uses. Pictured is a community breakfast at Bärenfelserstrasse 34 in 2013.

The project was bland, vacancy rates were high and the owner was not able to keep up with losses. In 1984 a new owner, with social commitment and a different view for the community, transformed the place. One of the apartments was made into a common space, rents were frozen and the external management company was fired, and the tenants took over management for themselves. Turnover rates fell and the changes were soon noticeable in the building’s appearance: plants began to be grown on the façades, common areas and gardens appeared and apartments were merged to accommodate larger families. In 2015, the property was transferred to the Edith Maryon Foundation, to guarantee its social purpose in the long term. As other community-oriented projects were attracted to the area, Bärenfelserstrasse became a lively street. The annual residential street festival is one of the trademarks of this success.

Façade of The Artist House Die Wache – “Die Wache” means “guard” in German. The building was a nineteenth century police station.

Die Wache, Berlin, Germany

EDITH MARYON FOUNDATION

Courtesy of Edith Maryon Foundation

The Artist House Die Wache was a purchase by the Edith Maryon Foundation from a state-owned real estate fund, securing longterm cultural use. Originally a police administration building, it was transformed into a cultural hub in 2015 and is now occupied by recording studios for contemporary music and jazz, as well as by filmmakers, graphic artists and writers. The occupier “3 Raum Productions” is an independent company managed by artists that rents spaces in the building to other artists. It quickly became an important place for creative exchange and networking in the heart of the Prenzlauerberg neighborhood in Berlin. It has twelve rehearsal rooms, three recording studios, eight offices, a music hall and 800 m2 of rental space.

Y-Foundation (Y-Säätiö) Finland

In 1985, Finland’s population reached 4.9 million—20,000 were homeless. That was when the deputy city manager of Helsinki, Heikki S. von Hertzen, and renowned activist medical doctor, Ilkka Taipale, joined forces to plan a program that would support this segment of society: that was the beginning of Y-Foundation. Along with other associations (a total of 11 founders), the five largest cities in the country played a part in its conception and to this day cooperate intensively with the Foundation. The founders are still on the Foundation’s board of directors, but they don’t finance the operations.

Courtesy of Y-Foundation

Built in 2014, the Väinölä residence has 31 387-sq.ft. studios and two 538-sq.ft. two-bedroom apartments. The average age of residents there is 50.

Y-Foundation started out by acquiring existing apartments from the private market offering them at affordable rent. The Finnish Slot Machine Association (RAY) made donations to Y-Foundation that covered between 50% and 70% of the apartment’s price—the remainder was covered either with loans from banks or with the Foundation’s own funds. Currently, the investment grants come

from RAY’s successor, STEA (Funding Center for Social Welfare and Health Organisations), which is a department in the Ministry of Health and Social Services—thus the minister is in charge of approving the grants. In 1987, the Finnish government announced the goal of eliminating the housing deficit in five years, which would be accomplished by providing homes for 4,000 people on a yearly basis. At first, municipalities were solely responsible for carrying out the program, but later on Y-Foundation was tasked with helping the mission by working with 200 units per year. By the end of 1991, the foundation had acquired 1,470 apartments. The funding scheme is still very similar to what it was then, and Y-Foundation manages to buy around 60 to 80 apartments per year—making them today the fourth largest landlord in Finland. Today the operation, which

• Founded: 1985 • Outreach: 53 municipalities • Over 17,000 affordable housing units • Housing, social support, assistance and counseling

Y-Foundation manages to buy around 60 to 80 apartments per year— making them today the fourth largest landlord in Finland.

Courtesy of Y-Foundation

The façade of the Väinölä residence. When moving into Väinölä, each resident signs a support contract. In it, the resident agrees to strive towards a substancefree lifestyle should they have had drug or alcohol problems, and to build a life plan together with the Y-Foundation staff.

Y-FOUNDATION

was primarily based on buying units from the existing housing stock, has expanded to building homes, too.

From 1936 until 2008, the Alppikatu shelter was a temporary shelter with space for about 250 men per night. After the Housing First policy established in 2007, all the work done for homeless people was based on the principle that offering housing ought to be the first line of support. Alppikatu was one of the old shelters that became a housing complex and is currently home to 88 residents.

Courtesy of Y-Foundation

The Y-Foundation rents out only some of the apartments directly to tenants. Municipalities and real estate companies usually sublet Y-Foundationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s apartments to low-income residents who contact social services. Tenants are chosen based on their needs, family income and other factors that depend on each cityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;where cities are responsible for selecting tenants and for providing local support. Social workers are in charge of determining whose needs get priority in terms of the apartments and the city pays the full rent. People with a homeless background are given priority, followed by those who have lost their credit rating, or those unable to enter the housing market.

M2-Kodit program In the 2000s, the Foundation expanded its activities considerably by using the affordable housing financing system provided by ARA, the Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland, which is a state-owned Housing Fund. This subsidy is specifically focused on the construction of new or the renovation of existing buildings for affordable housing. ARA grants subsidies that range from 10% to 50% of the authorized investment amount for housing targeted to special groups like the long-term homeless population, but it also approves state guarantees for bank loans and loans from other financial institutions for building affordable housing for lowincome people. In 2016, Y-Foundation established a model called M2-Kodit, which is focused on regular affordable housingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the tenants are not mainly vulnerable or homeless people, but rather residents in need of affordable rent. The foundation has almost 10,400 apartments in 30 cities or municipalities under this model. Tenant selection is performed by Y-Foundation staff, and must be approved by a city official and can also be inspected by ARA. In this case, rents are calculated to match the financial capabilities of the tenants, and profit is not allowed: only the amount of the real costs of the housing is collected in the leases. The rental prices are 50% to 70% lower than the market rents. Two-month arrears can result in lease termination. In case of default, the foundation offers its own housing advisors to assist people in making payment plans. It is interesting to note that the Y in Y-Foundation originally comes from the word yksin, which in Finnish means alone. The name was given because 95% of the homeless population live on their own. Nowadays, the Y shifted its meaning and stands for yhdessĂ¤, or together, referring to the extensive collaborative work being done so that everyone has access to a home.

YEAR

SUPPORTED

INDEPENDENT RENTAL

HOSTELS AND

HOUSING

APARTMENTS

SHELTERS

1985

127

2121

2008

552

2033

558

2016

1309

2433

52 Source: KAAKINEN, J., Housing First in Finland and Y-Foundation. Presentation at TAI 2017 Conference, Cardiff, 26 April 2017.

Y-FOUNDATION

Habitat for Humanity Argentina

The NGO Habitat for Humanity Argentina (HFHA) developed the pilot project Estela de Esperanzas (Trail of Hope), established with the aim of offering just alternatives for families living in tenements, hotels and other speculative rent situations in Buenos Aires. Part of HFHAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x153;Urban Strategies for Informal Tenants and Empty Urban Spacesâ&#x20AC;? program, Estela de Esperanzas seeks to show that there are alternative approaches for offering suitable housing solutions outside the paradigm of home ownership. The project tested hypotheses that were being studied by the institution such as socially guaranteed rent (alquileres tutelados in Spanish) and recycling urban homes (reciclando hogares in Spanish), which sought to renovate existing homes in areas with high population density and offer housing with affordable rent.

The building at 674 Hernandarias in La Boca, Buenos Aires is the first model for a building managed by a social rent initiative in the city coordinated by Habitat for Humanity Argentina. The original tenement was demolished to build the current building.

Courtesy of Habitat for Humanity

In 2009, HFHA set out to purchase a tenement in the neighborhood of La Boca, Buenos Aires. After evaluating more than 70 properties in the area, HFHA purchased the building located at 674 Hernandarias

for its price (USD 70,000) and location. The tenement, which was on the verge of collapsing, had been up for sale for seven years and had no potential buyers. Even though it was not a protected landmark based on its construction date, the architectural design proposed by HFHA had to be evaluated by the city’s Historic Heritage Commission. In fact, with the slowness of fundraising, the builder’s non-performance and the lack of experience of the HFHA team itself, they did not break any ground until 2012. The building plan was the result of an open public contest levied by the managing body. The chosen proposal, designed by Itze and Strugo architects, was developed in partnership with HFHA and future tenants.

• Start of project: 2009 • La Boca, Buenos Aires, Argentina • 13 families served (up to 2019) • 9 apartments (366-721 sq. ft.) • Housing

The building is 5,360 sq. ft. large and is made up of nine apartments, a store on the ground floor, a space for holding cultural activities, a yard and patio. Work on the building was expected to take 10 months, but problems with the construction permit and inflation

13 families have participated in the project so far. Except for one family, none had any problems in planning their budget and meeting the terms of their lease agreements.

Courtesy of Habitat for Humanity

Rebuilt house ready for receiving new tenants. Today, the building is home to families who lived in hostels and tenements. Since they did not meet the requirements of the formal housing market, they paid the equivalent rate of formal rent but for substandard and unsanitary informal housing.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

of the construction budget pushed back the date for handing over the keys to 2014. The project cost USD 808,877, 65% of which was financed by the network of Habitat International and the other 35% by private contributions from small local donors (in cash and in kind). Of this cost, USD 620,000 were related to the construction of the new building. As the construction work progressed, HFHA set requirements for candidate families. They needed to be living in tenements, hotels, or other renting situations and to be financially stable enough to afford a “just” monthly rent. The organization also recommended that the families be residents of the neighborhood of La Boca and have children. Fifty one families were first selected from a total of 150 candidates. These families joined the project and participated in activities that sought to build awareness of issues facing tenants in the neighborhood, publicize the principles of just rent and train people to access better renting conditions. The building’s name, Estela de Esperanzas, was thought up in these meetings. The first eight families to live in the building were selected in the second phase. They were chosen based on whether they could afford the rent and the condo fee, their participation in the group work meetings and the results of their interviews with the Board of Social Workers, which is made up of HFHA members and outside guests that support the selection process. This full analysis of the socioeconomic situation is carried out by a multidisciplinary team that aims to choose the families that are most ready for taking on the commitment of formal rent. HFHA planned two-year lease agreements renewable only once, allowing families to stay in the project for up to four years. Before entering the building, the families must to pay a onemonth deposit alongside the first month’s rent. The cost of rent is calculated as follows: it should be between 4% and 6% of the unit’s total yearly value, which, in turn, is defined according to the values that real estate agencies charge for similar units. Even though HFHA’s principle is just rent, the organization charges the families market prices. However, this price is not speculative: the difference is deposited into an account that will become a savings vehicle available to the families when they leave the apartments. In addition to the financial benefits, this strategy grants the families a “guarantee” of prestige for having paid market prices while they were in the building, a credit history that will be useful then when they set out to rent a new home. In the proposed financial model HFHA receives just over USD 24,000 from renting the apartments, enough to cover the project’s expenses.

Since the keys to the building were handed over in 2014, 13 families have participated in the project. Except for one family, none had any problems in planning their budget and meeting the terms of their lease agreements. HFHA set up monthly follow-ups with each family, which has mostly acted as a way to help organize the families’ economic situation. Likewise, HFHA holds quarterly meetings with all the building’s residents in order to collectively discuss and define issues related to the building’s domestic operations.

Irma was one of the first neighbors to move into the building after a long history of living in temporary homes in pensions in the neighborhood of La Boca.

Courtesy of Habitat for Humanity/ Xinhua-Martin Zabala

Through this pilot project, HFHA has sought to deepen the public debate about just rent in Buenos Aires and wider Argentina. The project has acted as an example of the agenda that the institution has developed over the past ten years and helps to interconnect an NGO with public sector agencies (like the city of Buenos Aires’ Housing Institute and the National Housing Office), academics, real estate investors and representatives of civil society.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

Iberville Offsite Affordable Homes United States of America

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, thousands of homes were damaged and, therefore, abandoned by homeowners in New Orleans â&#x20AC;&#x201C; many of them historic homes in central neighborhoods. It is estimated that seven years after the hurricane that left 85% of the city flooded, there was still a stock of 40,000 destroyed and abandoned homes. At the same time, thousands of people were homeless: in 2007, a survey by Unity, an NGO that works to provide shelter, found that the homeless population in the city was estimated at 11,619.

Courtesy of Redmellon

The 46 houses are located in the neighborhoods of TremĂŠ and the Seventh Ward, famous for being one of the cradles of New Orleans jazz.

In seeking alternatives to meet the high demand for public housing, Redmellon, a real estate development company focused on creating and managing affordable housing in gentrifying neighborhoods, created the Iberville Offsite Affordable Homes project. The goal was to restore 46 historic homes in central New Orleans, ranging from early nineteenth-century creole buildings to early twentieth-century bungalow-style homes. Most of the

houses in the city are one story high made of termite-resistant cypress wood. The architectural plans respected the historical characteristics of the houses while introducing designs for accessibility and sustainability by installing ramps, solar panels and energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, among others— architectural design by Kronberg Wall Architects. The project prevented homes from being demolished and, more importantly, created housing for low-income families displaced by Katrina. Completed in 2014, the Iberville Offsite Affordable Homes was a public-private partnership, developed together with the City of New Orleans (with political support and a 15-year commitment for subsidized rent), Enterprise Community Partners (nonprofit organization that channels tax credits to benefit small organizations), The New Orleans Women Shelter and the Housing Authority of New Orleans (development partners). The New Orleans Redevelopment Authority made it possible for Redmellon to buy lower priced homes, with the understanding that properties would be made available to low-income families. In order to carry

• Project completed: 2014 • New Orleans, United States • 46 families served • Housing, historical preservation

To ensure that homes remain accessible to the low-income population in the long term, legal agreements stipulate that the stipend program last 15 years and that residences be registered as public housing for lowincome residents for a period of 35 years.

Courtesy of Redmellon

The restored homes date back to the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Renovating them and ensuring affordable rent also means physically and socially restoring neighborhoods, keeping low- and middle-income families there and enabling a new generation to grow alongside the cultural, culinary and musical traditions that created New Orleans’s identity.

IBERVILLE OFFSITE AFFORDABLE HOMES

out the project, different social financing programs were used including the Choice Neighborhoods Redevelopment Plan, a federal program run by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, which supports local strategies in critical housing and housing districts that consider the transformation of the surrounding area. Today the houses are rented and managed by a team at Redmellon. Residents are selected by the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) as part of their welfare stipend program – since residents have a limited income, the stipends help them pay their rent. HANO manages applications and refers potential tenants to Redmellon. Priority is given to people displaced by Hurricane Katrina, followed by those on the city’s low-income housing waiting list, and then to the project’s own waiting list. The stipend is based on household income, so the rent each resident pays is different and ranges from USD 0 to USD 360 a month. Market rates similar homes in both neighborhoods range between USD 750 a month for a studio and USD 1,300 for a three-bedroom home. To ensure that homes remain accessible to the low-income population in the long term, legal agreements stipulate that the stipend program last 15 years and that residences be registered as public housing for low-income residents for a period of 35 years. Thus, even if the houses are sold to other homeowners, they are guaranteed to remain affordable. Project operations are funded by rental income—from both the stipends that are deposited directly by the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), representing 89% of revenue, and the amounts paid by tenants. Tenants are mostly single women with children, aged 19 to 49. In early 2017, there were also many single male tenants. Once selected, tenants go through a one-on-one meeting to identify specific needs and are referred to services offered by institutions such as the New Orleans Women’s Shelter, Volunteers of America, Total Community Action, and other organizations that provide assistance. Redmellon stores used furniture to offer to new residents who have none. Each new tenant also receives a package with a guide that explains how to maintain the home and use equipment such as the programmable thermostat and energysaving appliances. There is also contact information to report maintenance issues and a publication called “Your Home, Your Life, Your Story,” a short history of the neighborhood and house you are in, with information about who built it and who originally lived there. According to Redmellon, the turnover is very low. Evictions happen

if there are no payments, but in most cases the threat of eviction itself is an incentive for rent to be paid on time. Units are inspected every three months to ensure that work codes, safety and liability requirements are being met, and to identify any maintenance and management issues that need attention. UNIT

NO.

TENANT RENT*

SUBSIDY*

TYPE

TOTAL

MARKET

RENT*

Studio

0 - 91

486 - 577

577

750

1 BR.

0 - 222

486 - 690

690

900

2 BR.

0 - 360

471 - 850

850

1100

3 BR.

0 - 225

847 - 1072

1072

1300

Courtesy of Redmellon

* In USD

Iberville Offsite Affordable Homes stemmed from the need to preserve abandoned derelict historic homes that multiplied throughout New Orleans, especially after Hurricane Katrina. Restoring these homes helped to create diverse neighborhoods and to provide low-income families with housing in key areas of the city.

IBERVILLE OFFSITE AFFORDABLE HOMES

Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Revitalization Project United States of America

At a time when the US is struggling to tackle a nationwide housing crisis, a set of nearly 300 housing units are serving an affordable housing system in some of the poorest neighborhoods of Philadelphia. Active since 1986, the Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Revitalization Project (WCRP) is the only community organization led by women in the city, and has become a model for popular participation and engagement on behalf of local development. The story began over 30 years ago, when women residents of North Philadelphia began organizing regular meetings to debate local issues and possible solutions. With the city undergoing rapid change, the women were concerned about the impact gentrification and rising house prices had on their families.

Courtesy of Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Revitalization Project

WCRP women take part in a march in Philadelphia.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which provides tax incentives for financial institutions to support local communities, especially those in low income brackets, brought about a federal

instrument for encouraging improvements to the neighborhood and in the lives of women and their families. Under the leadership of these heads of household, the community approached First Fidelity Bank, where it obtained its first loan for USD 50 million. The WCRP dedicated the following year to consulting the community to understand its prospects and housing needs. It then set out to renovate eight abandoned properties as an initial project. These were spaces granted to the association by the local city, which owned the properties at the time. The loan was invested in an equity fund; the earned interest was then invested in the collectively predetermined renovation of the properties.

Courtesy of Women’s Community Revitalization Project

Over the past three decades, the WCRP has organized itself as a community association that in addition to being an affordable housing project offers services that aim to strengthen the community and its families. It has provided such services to more than 600 families and today has 282 housing units in Kensington, Port Richmond and Fairhill, all in North Philadelphia. Currently, the organization is building 67 new affordable housing properties, a 20% of which are accessible for people with disabilities.

• Founded: 1986 • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA • 282 housing units • Housing and community development

In addition to being an affordable housing project, WCRP offers services that aim to strengthen the community and its families.

One of the 12 buildings of WCRP’s Iris Brown Townhouses development.

WOMEN’S COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROJECT

In order to apply to rent a property in the project, candidates must register with the association, which sets rental rates depending on residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs, profiles and expectations.

A new resident enters her new home for the first time.

Courtesy of Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Revitalization Project

In 2006, the entity led a coalition of community movements that culminated in the creation of a housing cooperative. This provided the legal standing that enabled the group to establish of a community fund, as well as access to unoccupied land and buildings in the city. With a high level of community participation, including inquiries into public opinion and over 300 interviews with neighborhood women, the association is now one of 250 Community Land Trusts in the USA.

These trusts are mechanisms that ensure community access and continuous control of its land. Although the fund is operated by the WCRP, it is autonomous and coordinated by the local community through an advisory board. WCRP builds or renovates and manages housing developments, thus working further on the development of tools that guarantee that the families living there create a real community. The housing concept and project relies on the active participation of residents and neighbors, a collective process for guaranteeing that the housing units meet the true needs of the women and families who will live in them. All of the properties include both a washing and drying machine, and the kitchen windows face an open-air patio, a simple design that facilitates mothers’ work in keeping an eye on their children while taking care of other household chores. This attention to the design of the homes is an exercise in listening that focuses on the group’s sense of belonging to the community and the important role of women, which is a parallel and complementary line of activity for the project. There is also a strengthening of ties to local government, both in terms of monitoring policies and holding them accountable in the name of families in vulnerable situations. The organization also leads actions for engaging locals, guiding public policy and campaigns in the defense of resident rights. A team is responsible for following up with the families served by the housing program and referring them to public services, vocational training and conflict resolution support programs. The intention is to monitor the families’ adaptation process and encourage their continual personal development, thereby acting as a training and support network. Today, WCPR has over 50 volunteers and many ways of supporting its projects. In addition to building affordable housing, WCRP’s investments are also used for transforming their facilities into spaces that can be used by other community organizations, such as daycare centers, community health clinics and civic meeting spaces. Abandoned lots in the city have been revitalized with the support of local leadership and have been made into green spaces for collective use to improve quality of life. Over the past 30 years, the WCRP has served hundreds of lowincome families by investing over USD 100 million in housing projects at the heart of poor neighborhoods in Philadelphia. Among the project’s successes are the creation of the Philadelphia Housing Trust Fund (2005), which broadens the availability of public funding for affordable housing, and the Philadelphia Land Bank (2013).

WOMEN’S COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROJECT

Dolphin Living United Kingdom

Courtesy of Dolphin Living

One Church Square is a development of 39 apartments in Pimlico, Westminster—31 with intermediate rent and 8 private properties. To be eligible for a flat, the candidate must live or work within the borough of Westminster, a region that concentrates historic landmarks, such as Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace and Hyde Park.

Dolphin Living is a London-based non-profit organization that aims to provide affordable, high-quality housing in desirable locations for “workers who make London work,” in the words of Olivia Harris, Dolphin Living’s CEO. It focuses on the needs of those who do not qualify for social housing yet cannot access market housing—a growing demographic as rent prices soar, far outpacing growth in wages. Dolphin Living works to tackle this issue through two key strategies: intermediate rent, including Personalized Rent, and the Home Ownership Accelerator Scheme. The organization also rents homes at market value through external vehicles such as Zoopla and RightMove. This enables the institution to maximize the number of rental homes available at below-market rental rates and ensure they are affordable. Though a practical strategy, this is a “compromise” in that it retains an element of market speculation, says Olivia Harris.

The non-profit began in 2006 when Dolphin Square Trust and Westminster City Council sold their leasehold interest in Dolphin Square, an apartment complex with 1,250 flats in Pimlico, an area of Westminster. The proceeds from the sale were used to fund the Dolphin Square Charitable Foundation, a charity for affordable housing. An initial gift aid payment of £80 million by the Trust grew to a total endowment to £124 million through further donations. Since then, the Foundation has acquired or developed 630 homes and another 200 are under construction. The charity’s governing council is made up of representatives from the Trust, Westminster City Council, private sector landlords, employers in Westminster and registered social landlords. In order to expand its portfolio, in 2015 the Dolphin Square Charitable Foundation created Dolphin Living Ltd, a non-profit Housing Association. Despite the expansion, it is a close-knit operation: a team of 14 full-time staff runs an outsourcing model that hires external management agencies to handle rent collection and property management.

Intermediate rent Over five hundred of Dolphin Living’s 630 homes are available for intermediate rent. These are unfurnished flats starting at £170 per week—a discount of on average 47% of local market levels. In order to apply, tenants’ household income must not exceed £90,000. Tenants cannot own any property, either. Eligibility criteria varies depending on location, with homes currently available in nine London boroughs: Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham, Maida Vale, Hoxton, Lambeth, Southwark, Camden, Ealing and Forest Hill. After an application for an intermediate rental home is successfully completed, the organization conducts a brief reference check and then invites usually two prospective tenants to view the home. Once a tenant is selected, the organization conducts a full reference and credit check, and a move-in date is agreed upon. Tenants who participate in this scheme are not charged fees nor separate service charges, have an assured tenancy for three years, and are guaranteed repairs.

• Founded: 2015 • London, UK • 630 rental homes, 200 under construction • Housing

Since 2006, house prices in London have doubled and market rent has gone up by 40%, while median earnings have increased by just over 20%.

Social rent Dolphin Living also offers social rent homes. Unlike the intermediate rent scheme, homes are rented through the local council, which assesses and accepts candidates based on its

DOLPHIN LIVING

own criteria and lists the homes on its own websites. Rents for these homes start at £150 per week, and are available only in Westminster and Lambeth.

Home Ownership Accelerator Scheme In Westminster, Dolphin Living offers a Home Ownership Accelerator Scheme. This is a long-term strategy to assist prospective homeowners in saving to buy property, with fifty properties currently available. Tenants must have a household income of less that £90,000 per year and have saved £22,500 toward a deposit. They receive a 3-year intermediate rent tenancy starting at £200 per week, so that they can save for buying a flat when the contract is up. Meanwhile, Dolphin Living promises an annual return of between 3% and 7.5% of the deposit, depending on growth in London house prices during the term of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, or sooner if the tenants are ready, they are supported to use their enhanced deposit to buy a market property and move into their own home. This way the intermediate rental home can be vacated and the process can start all over again with another tenant.

Westbourne Park is a development of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments for rent in Westminster. It has 33 high-quality affordable homes—22 are part of the Westminster Homeownership Accelerator Scheme and 11 are for intermediate rent.

Courtesy of Dolphin Living

This is what makes it a life-changing scheme: whereas in traditional council housing tenants tend not to move on because they lack the resources, the Accelerator Scheme enables tenants to save so they can move on to ownership. In the first two years of the scheme,

about a third of tenants moved on to ownership. The scheme is expected to run for 15 years, enabling more than 250 households to access home ownership through their enhanced deposits. It is not easy to tackle a housing crisis that only seems to grow. Since the Dolphin Square Charitable Foundation was set up in 2006, housing prices in London have doubled and market rental rates have gone up by 40%, while median earnings have increased by just over 20%. Given the restrictions regarding loans and deposits in the mortgage market, the affordability London’s crisis is only worsening.

One Church Square’s building is planned around a central glasscovered courtyard and includes a landscaped roof garden accessible to all residents. The scheme offers studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments.

Courtesy of Dolphin Living

Yet, there seems to be a lack of organizations that specifically aim to provide housing for median wage earners, part of the population that significantly contributes to London as a capital city. Dolphin Living is one of the only organizations swimming against the stream. They also face logistical challenges: “We sit in a no-man’s-land between social housing and market housing, particularly with regard to planning applications. We do not fit in a box, and, therefore, find it difficult to follow the rules”, says Olivia Harris. Government funding levels remain historically low. She says, “if some of the local authorities and government took up the battle we are fighting to provide housing to those who are struggling to make ends meet, those commuting long distances or living in overcrowded homes or dealing with poverty caused by high rents, we as a small organization wouldn’t be the only ones standing up for it.”

DOLPHIN LIVING

Cooper Square Community Land Trust United States of America

Simone Gatti

Cooper Square Community Land Trust buildings built to house 25% low-income and 75% market rate homes, located between Stanton St. and Chrystie St., next to the Public Hotel on the Lower East Side in Manhattan, New York.

Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are a successful experiment for access to housing as they enable community control over land use decisions and provide a broad view of the sharing economy, and can prevent real estate speculation and slow down the processes of gentrification. CLTs come in different forms of ownership, such as collective or cooperative ownership. The main difference has to do with how they are managed, formed and how the community is organized, with two dominant concepts: the separation between ownership of the land and of the building, and the guarantee of affordable housing in the long term. The land is always owned by the CLT and the building is generally managed by an association like Mutual Housing Associations (MHA), which may be the landlords or have a long-term concession. Currently, the public management departments in cities such as New York have incorporated the CLT model into housing policies and have allocated funds for its implementation.

The creation of the Cooper Square CLT The Cooper Square Community Land Trust (CSCLT) started in 1959 as a reaction by the poor Lower East Side community in Manhattan to the attempts at urban transformation driven by Robert Moses, which aimed to displace hundreds of residents to construct new residential buildings. The community started fighting against Moses’ plan by organizing the Cooper Square Committee and, in 1961, introduced an alternative plan to build new housing for the low-income population and for preserving existing housing. The Committee also proposed solutions to meet the needs of the elderly, artists and homeless people in the neighborhood. The plan was developed in a community procedure and took years of negotiations, spanning three municipal administrations (Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani) before the city committed implementing it. In order to restore the 20 old buildings and support the resident population, the Cooper Square Committee proposed that the city develop two vacant lots with buildings where 75% of the units would be put on the market and the other 25% available for lowincome families, and at the same time finance the renovation of existing buildings at no cost to residents. The city agreed to the proposal, which was largely funded by US federal bonds and the remainder covered by municipal funds. Two decades and a review later the plan was fully implemented.

Ownership and management Legal arrangements were made with City Hall to transfer ownership of the buildings to the Cooper Square Community Land Trust, which also owns the land and leases the buildings to the Cooper Square Mutual Housing Association (MHA). The association is responsible for maintaining the housing units and the ground-floor commercial spaces at affordable prices for a period of 99 renewable years. In 2013, the MHA was recognized by the State of New York as a housing cooperative linked to Cooper Square CLT. Residents bought shares of the cooperative at low prices and, when they move, they will be able to redeem their investments without market appreciation, just with an adjustment for inflation. The membership fee at the time was set at USD 250. Cooper Square CLT currently charges new residents USD 1,800.

• Founded: 1994 • New York, United States • 21 buildings with 328 housing units and 24 commercial spaces on the ground floor • Housing, commerce

Cooper Square CLT owns the title to the land where the housing managed by MHA stands, and monitors the non-profit ownership

COOPER SQUARE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST

structure, the long-term affordability and the resale restrictions through the Land Lease Agreement and a Regulatory Agreement. Whenever there are differences between these two entities, most stringent requirements will continue to prevail.

The tenants

Tenants are predominantly low-income and ethnically mixed, with a large Latino population and a lesser representation of whites, African Americans and Asians. The residents in the refurbished complexes are the original residents or descendants thereof, and those living in the new units were selected by the Cooper Square Committee based on the neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing needs.

Simone Gatti

The 4th Street Photo Gallery, a commercial gallery on the ground floor of one of the renovated Cooper Square Community Land Trust buildings on the Lower East Side, New York. The rent collected from the 24 businesses on the buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ground floors, rented at below-market prices, provides about 27% of Cooper Square Cooperativeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total income.

About 20 years after renovating 21 buildings, the housing units remain affordable for the most vulnerable families, whose household income is 30-40% lower than the average income in their neighborhood. For a person living alone in a studio, for example, the annual income averages USD 17,920 a year; for a family of four living in a 3-bedroom apartment, the household income is USD 36,880.

Rent and maintenance rates were based on the actual cost of maintaining the homes. For the main area of an apartment (bathroom and kitchen, defined as the first 350 sq. ft.), the charge is set at USD 0.95 per square foot, and for the remaining area (living room and bedroom), USD 0.35 per square foot. Rent for the new units in buildings with a mix of subsidized and market units is made possible by the federal rental assistance solution, Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8). The project is surrounded by higher-income neighborhoods and has resisted the pressures of gentrification. Grouping the 21 buildings into a cooperative structure created an economy of scale, and enabled Cooper Square MHA to share revenue and expenses, acquire goods and services at a discount, share the income collected in rent from the ground-floor commercial spaces among all the buildings and create a Reserve Fund. The rental income from the 24 stores provides about 27% of Cooper Square MHA’s total revenue, even though their rents are below-market rates.

SIZE

Studio

LOCATION

23 East 3rd St.

This table shows the size of the units and their rents when the units were made available by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development in 1996/97 (1) and the rentals in June 2019 (2).

SQUARE FOOTAGE

INITIAL

CURRENT RENT

INCOME LEVEL

(SQUARE METERS)

RENT (1)

PRICES (2)

(% OF AMI** 2018)

300 square feet

USD 285

USD 448

USD 17,920

(27.87m²) 1 bedroom

13 Stanton St.

484 square feet

(24.5% of AMI) USD 379

USD 606*

(45m²) 2 bedrooms

71 East 4th St.

631 square feet

(31.0% of AMI) USD 431

USD 690*

(58m²) 3 bedrooms

83 2nd Ave.

1,104 square feet

USD 24,240

USD 27,600 (29.4% of AMI)

USD 578

USD 922*

(102m²)

USD 36,880 (35.4% of AMI)

* Unlimited Natural Gas Fee included (between USD 10 - USD 12). ** AMI = Average Medium Income. References

In the opinion of Valerio Orselli, MHA’s CEO, even with CLT’s economy of scale and administrative role, costs have continued to grow, and in order to tackle this challenge, it is necessary to expand. “We are looking for opportunities to expand, and are focusing on rescuing cooperatives and securing municipal and religious property for social housing.”

COOPER SQUARE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST

ANGOTTI, Tom. Community Land Trusts and Low-Income Multifamily Rental Housing: The Case of Cooper Square, New York City. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2007. COOPER Square Committee. Cooper Square: Here to stay. Explanatory leaflet by Cooper Square Community Land Trust. New York City, 2016. ENGELSMAN, U., ROWE, M., SOUTHERN, A. Community Land Trusts, affordable housing and community organising in low-income neighbourhoods. In: International Journal of Housing Policy, 18(1), 103-123, 2018.

Light Be Hong Kong

Light Be was founded in 2010 by Ricky Yu in Hong Kong, after years working in the corporate sector. Hong Kong has one of the most expensive real estate in the world, and it is not uncommon to see low-income families living in slums or tenements, which usually have a floor area of approximately 100 square feet and cost around USD 640 a month in rent.

Courtesy of Light Be

With 5 floors and 45 units, the building that houses the Light Housing project was an abandoned dormitory of a factory that closed in the 1990s and that the Hong Kong government took over. After creating a renovation plan, which relied on donations and volunteer work, Light Be was granted the building for six years for its social housing project.

Light Be is based on Rickyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s belief that government is not omnipotent, and that civil society must supplement long-term urban solutions. In addition to providing housing, the organization has developed a management model geared toward promoting the personal development of each tenant. Consequently, Light Be does not claim its solution to be an end in itself, and during the lease it seeks to support tenants, for example, in finding stable jobs to ensure a secure income that will enable them to rent houses at market rates at the end of their lease agreements, whose terms are three years.

Today, Light Be divides its activities between managing affordable housing (40%), tenant personal development (40%), and pioneering innovations focused on social projects (20%). As a non-government-subsidized social enterprise, it finances its operating costs with income from subleasing apartments and covers its capital costs through donations from the commercial sector. Light Be has a team of five people in full-time executive positions and seven full-time and part-time support staff.

• Founded: 2010 • Hong Kong • 250 served so far • 120 units with subsidized rent • Housing, personal development

Light Home In the Light Home program, the organization acts as a tenant between landlords who want to help society through their property, and subtenant families in vulnerable situations. These homes are rented for below the real estate market rate for a maximum of three years. The organization owns no apartments— they are all owned by the landlords. There are currently over 120 apartments in 15 districts of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and New Territories. The greatest challenge from the very beginning was finding homeowners who believed in the model and were willing to cut their rental gains—landlords make approximately 20-50% of the market value for their property. It took two years, since the founding of the company, before the first landlord offered an apartment for rent by Light Be. Finding landlords became less of a challenge as more subscribed to the program, and participants were pleased with the returns to society: 80% of the landlords renewed their 3-year leases. The risk arrears is much lower than a conventional lease or public housing project. The Light Be late payment fee is less than 1% and landlords are free from the hassle of managing their property on a day to day basis.

Light Be acts as a tenant between landlords who want to help society through their property and subtenant vulnerable families. Owners receive 20% to 50% of the market value, and are satisfied with the social return: 80% renew the 3-year leases.

Meanwhile, tenants are identified through referrals from social workers. Then, there is an interview where the candidate demonstrates responsibility and commits to personal development. The rent is based on a comprehensive annual review of each tenant’s income, expenses and financial outlook. The rental management system is designed to be highly personalized and localized: rent depends on the renter and property. Selected tenants have low incomes but are classified as “high potential,” to whom a short-term alternative is offered. Tenants are assigned a coordinator with whom they meet at least once

LIGHT BE

a month to monitor the progress of their personal development. Progress varies from person to person. Although the rental agreement is for three years, some tenants leave early after finding a steady job or a better place to live. In cases where there is no progress, tenants are referred back to the conventional welfare system for long-term intervention.

Light Housing

The organization owns no apartmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;currently over 120 units are owned by subscribed landlords.

Courtesy of Light Be

In 2014, Ricky Yu presented a plan to the Hong Kong Department of Lands: He wanted to get a lease on a 1960s building that used to be a dormitory for a fabric factory that had been abandoned since the 1990s, when the factory closed. From that moment on, the building belonged to the government, who made no use of it. In addition to requesting the use of the building, Ricky Yu had to ask for government support to change the building classification to social housing, as this was an unprecedented format in Hong Kong.

With five floors and 45 units, the building was renovated to house new tenants through Light Be. The renovation was completed in 2016—the financing of the renovation work was done by the Chow Tai Fook Charity Foundation, which donated USD 2.8 million, while construction companies and architecture firms provided services at cost price or through volunteer work. There was no government funding, but because it is a public building, there was a 6-year lease agreement to Light Be, which receives all of the rent.

The presence of children is essential in Light Be’s projects—depending on the project, applicants must be single women with children or families with children.

Courtesy of Light Be

The rules of the selection process, the term and rental amount are the same as in the Light Home program. The only difference is that Light Home is designed for single women with children and Light Housing is focused on working families with children. Each apartment measures 323 sq. ft. and is designed for at least three people.

LIGHT BE

Sostre Civic Spain

Oriol Clavera

Princesa 49 is located in El Born, a district under the immense pressure of gentrification in Barcelona, mainly due to tourism. The cooperative project is part of a municipal program that entails surrendering buildings or public land to cooperatives for 75 years, to create affordable housing.

Real estate speculation that turns apartments and buildings into accommodations for the tourist industry has been one of the main forces shaping Barcelona’s current housing crisis. Rising rent prices and the displacement of residents from downtown neighborhoods constitute a socio-political problem that drives the creation of public-private alternatives to guarantee the right to housing in the city. Sostre Civic—Catalan for “civic roof”—is a cooperative with more than 750 members, which promotes a model of cooperative housing based on assignment of use, with technical consulting, financial management and project management. The cooperative is connected to an association of the same name that publicizes, grows and advocates the model. Its members pay annual dues of 120 euros (or a reduced rate for members with proved low-income), which help to support the cooperative—the member ranking number is one of the factors to consider when selecting housing projects. Unlike cooperatives that have only one project, Sostre Civic seeks to replicate the

model by building and managing different projects. The assignment of use system—also known as the Andel Model—has two characteristics that set it apart from other types of cooperative housing: collective ownership and the right of use, thus creating a non-speculative market offering stability to residents and providing collective management. The cooperative may purchase land or an existing building, which is owned by the cooperative and is, therefore, communal. Residents then buy the right of use and pay a monthly fee that is higher if there is a loan involved in the construction or rehabilitation of the property, and lower when there are no loans or when these costs have already been covered—in this case, the monthly cost is intended for actions to replicate the model and to fund the cooperative’s other projects. The initial amount paid for the right of use is returned to the resident if and when the contract is terminated. Another way of gaining access to land or a building is through its right of use, either through a public or private entity, for a specified period of time (usually 75 years in Catalonia, Spain). By not requiring land ownership, the cost of access to housing drops dramatically. The contracts do not limit the time of use by residents, who may live in the unit indefinitely (or until the rights to land use end). The contracts signed with the residents, in either case, are similar to a rental agreement, where the property and the grantor of the unit is the cooperative, and the assignee is the user. The clauses

• Project started: 2014 • El Born, Barcelona, Spain • 5 families served • 5 apartments with affordable rent (484 to 700 sq. ft.) • Housing

Cooperatives may purchase land or existing buildings. Real estate thus becomes communal. Another way of accessing real estate is through acquiring the rights of use of public buildings, usually for 75 years in Catalonia, Spain.

Oriol Clavera

Future residents of Princesa 49 participated in the decisions for the building and unit renovation plan alongside the architects. In the image, residents and architects visit the site.

SOSTRE CIVIC

of the contract provide for the payment of monthly dues, resident rights and duties, and the possibility of transferring the right of use the unit to a cooperative member or family member, provided certain rules are followed—such as living in the unit for a given period of time. Contact with public authorities is a key aspect in the model’s development. Sostre Civic is a non-profit private entity, and agreements with public authorities make it possible for the entity to be responsible for the management and use of public land to turn it into affordable housing—a partnership that benefits both sides by creating solutions for affordable housing in cities.

Project Princesa 49 Princesa 49 is a pioneering project for both Sostre Civic and Barcelona: it is the city’s first assignment-of-use cooperative in partnership with the municipality. The city government has granted the right to use one of its vacant buildings for 75 years in exchange for the complete renovation of the property and the establishment of a model of public housing managed by civil society.

The Idealista website, specialized in renting and selling real estate in Barcelona, shows a 517-sq. ft. apartment (point A) two blocks from the Princesa 49 building (point B) with a rent of €1,650 a month— whereas project residents pay €500 a month, in addition to the entry fee.

Screenshot of Idealista’s website

The building on Princesa Street in the El Born neighborhood has five apartments—ranging in size from 484 to 700 sq. ft.—and three common areas. Each tenant (or member user, as they are called by the cooperative) made an initial contribution of 9,000 euros, which is refundable upon moving out of the apartment, and pays between €450 and €500 a month in rent, a non-speculative amount compared to the rates for similar apartments in the neighborhood, which range between €900 and €1,700. Part of the

monthly fee covers the loan taken out for the building’s renovation, which cost €280,000. The loan was taken out with Coop 57, a cooperative created under the principles of a solidarity economy. The residents selected for this project are from different generations and are members of Sostre Civic. As a project linked to the City of Barcelona, residents have to meet the socio-economic requirements for beneficiaries of public housing policies such as: have no property in their name, no surface or usufruct rights, live in the city and fall within a certain annual income limit. Once selected, the five families (a total of 8 people) participated in defining the renovation plan for each of their apartments together with the team of architects. The consulting company Matriu led the participatory discussion for defining common areas in meetings that established the rules for the use of the backyard, terrace, laundry and lounge, as well as mechanisms for dealing with community conflicts. This work helped to enable future tenants to have a say in defining the spaces they would live in, learn about technical issues regarding the renovation, the cooperative’s financial model and the project’s management. In April 2018, the five families received their apartments.

The building in central Barcelona is owned by the city, which granted its use to the Sostre Civic cooperative for 75 years in exchange for renovating the building and offering affordable housing.

SOSTRE CIVIC

Sostre Civic publication

The City of Barcelona also signed real estate assignment of use agreements with four other housing cooperatives (La Xarxaire, Llar Jove, Associació Parkformes, Associació Cohabitatge Cooperatiu) following models similar to those developed by Sostre Civic in the El Born neighborhood, and transformed this model into yet another option for affordable housing in Barcelona.

Terre de Liens France

“Every six years in France, the equivalent of one district of agricultural land disappears due to factors such as artificialization, where land is turned into housing, shopping malls, parking lots, etc.; and abandonment, land that turns into forest,” warns Gabriela Calmon, communications coordinator for Terre de Liens. The Terre de Liens movement was created in 2003 with the mission of protecting and freeing farmland from real estate speculation, promoting access to new farmers and supporting green farming.

Aurelien Lévèque

Terre de Liens farms adopt an organic farming system and all income reaped from each farm’s yield belongs to the farmer.

It all began between 1999 and 2001, when Dutchman Sjoerd Wartena arrived from Amsterdam to Vachères-en-Quint, Drôme, France, and came across a nearly dead village that still preserved the local farming culture. He wanted to invest in land and preserve these traditions, but the burden of land acquisition was too great, and the agricultural world was very hard to penetrate.

In seeking alternatives for his project, Sjoerd discovered Relier, a popular education association, and together they held a series of solution-finding workshops to facilitate access to land for those interested in working with sustainable rural agriculture. These workshops brought together farmers linked to collective ownership structures, organic farming and biodynamic movements, rural development experts and ethical bank La Nef, and gave rise to Terre de Liens. The work to build the structure was performed at Relier and subsidized by La Nef Bank, the government of France and other foundations and collectives. After conducting research on social and solidarity finance, the association understood that it should develop financial tools to raise capital, creating two companies: La Foncière, a solidarity investment company, and La Fondation. Conceived in 2003, the Associative Network is the basis of Terre de Liens, and its main objective is to treat land as a common and inalienable good. Over the years, Terre de Liens has developed its presence throughout France to strengthen ties with local partners. Today, the organization is made up of 20 regional associations and 7,000 members. The association’s branches bring new farmers into La Foncière and La Fondation and implement the Terre de Liens project through partnerships, thus raising awareness among the general public and institutions, and support crop establishment projects. The branches do field work to develop new ways of managing the land. Each branch joins the national association and is given a seat on the board.

Solidarity Investment Company

• Founded: 2003 • 21 regions of France • 304 people served (262 rural contractors who rent land for work + 52 dependents who live on the farms) • 190 farms • 145 agricultural buildings • 69 housing units • Agriculture and agricultural processing

The association understood that it should develop financial tools to raise capital, creating two companies: La Foncière, a solidarity investment company, and La Fondation, which serves people who want to transfer or donate their farms.

Founded in 2006, La Foncière is one of the financial tools the movement created. It is a solidarity investment company open to the public that enables collective ownership. The capital accumulated by La Foncière is used to purchase agricultural land and buildings for agro-rural activities. Anyone of any nationality can buy La Foncière’s shares. Each share costs €103.50 plus an administrative fee. According to its 2018 report, the company had 13,500 solidarity stakeholders and the accumulated capital totaled over 65 million euros, 75% of which allocated for purchasing farms, and a 25% reserve is maintained to pay outgoing shareholders.

TERRE DE LIENS

This investment does not produce dividends, but it is transparent and ensures financial stability for stakeholders by updating the investment according to legal rates. Additionally, investors receive a tax incentive that reduces their taxes 18% each time they invest. Since stakeholders have voting rights, one of the rules is to limit the acquisition of shares to 167 per person to maintain a steady balance of power and to ensure a democratic process in Terre de Liens. La Foncière facilitates new farmers’ access to agricultural properties by means of leases. In addition to managing leases, the institution maintains buildings and monitors the progress of the projects of those who settle on the properties. Leases are available at market prices. “As a social and solidarity movement, the price is always calculated so that it is part of the project’s business plan. What sets us apart is our willingness enable people to pay rent,” says Gabriela. If the farmer cannot pay the lease, Terre de Liens usually bears the costs to avoid evicting the family. If there is a housing structure, the rent considers the investment used for renovating it and is charged separately. The houses are ecologically restructured and can be completely insulated and redesigned in terms of their functionality. The money raised through rent is mainly used in the operation of La Foncière, covering salaries and investments that maintain the working capital. The company does not influence the farming project. However, in order to ensure the long-term preservation and health of the land, Terre de Liens applies a contract that imposes organic farming and sets preservation criteria according to each farm’s profile. The money raised by the farmers with their crop is theirs.

Long-term preservation of agricultural land Another factor that interferes with the continuity of agricultural land, and makes it difficult for new farmers to enter is that when many of the owners reach retirement age they have no one whom to bequeath the farm. Thus, the second tool, La Fondation, recognized as a public interest company, was created in 2014 to serve people who want to transfer or donate their farms. La Fondation also buys land that is at risk of losing its agricultural use or land of farmers who are in financial trouble and cannot maintain it but want to stay in business. In all cases, La Fondation ensures environmentally sound long-term farming practices: when a farmer leaves the business, La Fondation finds and sets up a successor.

100

The plots, entrusted or purchased by La Fondation, are rented to farmers in the same way as La Foncière. La Fondation is also active in collecting donations and legacies from individuals and businesses, essential contributions that enable it to acquire new farms and help to cover implementation costs. According to the 2018 report, it received nearly 1.5 million euros in land and capital from 10,878 donors. Land acquisition is generally based on projects submitted by applicants who cannot find or are unable to purchase a property. The selection process is carried out at the associations and then a committee of experts decides on the purchase. Depending on the case, La Fondation or La Foncière makes the purchase, thus making them the owners of the farms. “There are several criteria for the decision. It depends on the strength of the agricultural project, the political context of the region, the capacity of the land, whether the land is organic, whether it is very polluted, whether it can ever be clean,” explains Gabriela. Once selected, the farmer is free of the cost of the main tool (the land) and can invest in the business plan.

Freddy Le Saux

In addition to the farmers, associates, shareholders and donors, Terre de Liens works thanks to a staff of approximately 70 salaried employees and another 1,000 volunteers. Preserving 4,635 hectares of land that adopt organic farming systems, maintaining local biodiversity, as well as 262 working farmers who hire another 439 people, are the project’s main achievements. Guaranteeing the continued use of the land is another gain: farms purchased are never resold.

New farmers receive training to gain more confidence about organic farming techniques.

TERRE DE LIENS

101

What does an ethical landlord look like?

102

It should be someone who does not intend to take advantage of their position as owner and abuse that privilege. Mónica Gallegos Quesquén, Head of Public Policy, Habitat for Humanity Argentina

Ethical landlords are as interested in the well-being of their tenants as they are in their own property. Being an ethical landlord is not just about walls. It is not only a matter of good-quality, affordable housing; it is also about a good, meaningful lives, which means that a landlord can even seek to provide employment opportunities for tenants. The state of climate change also requires that landlords make sustainable investments. Juha Kaakinen, CEO, Y-Foundation, Finland

One who does not keep the ground rent, but rather gives it back to the community.

A landlord who is driven by social impact, by the desire to provide for the local community and future generations, in addition to the financial returns that property ownership and development may bring. Olivia Harris, Chief Executive, Dolphin Living, United Kingdom

Someone who considers human diversity, different points of view, histories, expectations and needs, to then decide on the forms of housing occupation. Mónica Gallegos Quesquén, Head of Public Policy, Habitat for Humanity Argentina

Ethics appears when we take many angles into consideration, including people’s stories and needs. Nora Lichtash, Executive Director and part of the founding group of the Women’s Community Revitalization Project, Philadelphia, United States of America

Ulrich Kriese, communications department, Edith Maryon Foundation, Switzerland

103

Where to begin?

104

Bringing together a community planning process and a lot of organization. No property model is perfect and must be adjusted to local conditions. Each community must have its own model. Valério Orselli, CEO of Cooper Square MHA, United States of America

It’s a real world. We won’t be able to convince or engage everyone. Spend time on risk management and on problem prevention. Ricky Yu, Founder of Light Be, Hong Kong

Connecting agents and organizations. We are not a partisan political body, our mission is to sit with different people and representatives of institutions—whether public, private or third sector—to facilitate joint work and incorporate social rent within public policy. Mónica Gallegos Quesquén, Head of Public Policy, Habitat for Humanity Argentina

Reproduce Terre de Liens. We have specialists who do this, they explain the structure and how to replicate the project, which is a mix of many ingredients.

Perhaps the most important thing to do at first is to be aware of and help to end prejudice against informal tenants. They are thought of as bad payers that offer no guarantees to landlords. However, the reality shows us that they are excellent in meeting their rent payments. Mónica Gallegos Quesquén, Head of Public Policy, Habitat for Humanity Argentina

You must understand finance, taxes and accountability. Do not leave matters that are critical to the success of your project in the hands of others. Nora Lichtash, Executive Director and part of the founding group of the Women’s Community Revitalization Project, Philadelphia, United States of America

It is important to have concrete goals, clear, quantitative targets, and an understanding of long-term commitment. And, most importantly: that you can’t do it alone, you need to have partners who have the same ambition. Juha Kaakinen, CEO, Y-Foundation, Finland

Gabriela Calmon, Communications, Terre de Liens, France

105

What is the future of land ownership?

106

Property is now out of reach for so many. That said, we should also be looking at renting as an alternative, particularly in highvalue locations such as London. Olivia Harris, Chief Executive, Dolphin Living, United Kingdom

As long as housing is regarded simply as a financial investment it will be impossible to provide enough affordable housing and end homelessness. Affordable housing should be seen as a basic human right, as a necessary social infrastructure. Juha Kaakinen, CEO, Y-Foundation, Finland

At Terre de Liens, we believe that agricultural land must be considered a common good just like water and air, as established by the UN. Since it is intrinsically necessary for human life to be able to produce food, land should not be under market pressure. Gabriela Calmon, Communications, Terre de Liens, France

We have a new form of poverty, a new group of highly educated owners, and a new set of beliefs about what a better society is. Our existing concepts about property need to evolve accordingly. Ricky Yu, Founder of Light Be, Hong Kong

Property is a central issue in overcoming inequality in the world. Bringing new models means bringing solutions with hope. Considering the power of capitalism in our country, I do not believe land will be in the hands of communities unless we strengthen the hands of local leaders. We will have to fight for it.

The future of property needs to be permanent accessibility. This can only happen with a paradigm shift by replacing finance capital with social capital. ValĂŠrio Orselli, CEO of Cooper Square MHA, United States of America

Nora Lichtash, Executive Director and part of the founding group of the Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Revitalization Project, Philadelphia, United States of America

107

Acknowledgments Chicago Architecture Biennial (CAB), 5o Cartório de Registro de Imóveis de SP, Benjamin Seroussi, Eliana Finkelstein, Kaitlyn Dietz, Katharina von Ruckteschell-Katte, Oriol Clavera, Sergio Jacomino e Ulrich Katte. Mariana, Eudes, Enzo, Maria Eduarda e Maysa.

FICA Supporters: Associate Supporters Adriana Vojvodic, Alex Magalhães, André Czitrom, Ana Cândida Pena, Anna Dietzsch, Beatriz Fontenele, Beatriz Fleury, Benjamin Serroussi, Bianca Antunes, Carlos Nader, Carolina Guimarães, Carolina La Terza, Célia Cymbalista, Daniel Barros, Danilo Toth, Denis Mauá, Duda Alcântara, Emil Lewinger, Felipe Niski Zveibil, Fernanda Amadeu, Fernanda de Abreu Moreira, Fernanda Brenner, Gabriel Palladini, Giuliano João Paulo da Silva, Gustavo Calazans, Gustavo Marques, Hannah Archushin Machado, Joana Elito, Karina Uzzo, Kazuo Nakano, Karoline Barros, Katharina von Ruckteschell, Lorette Coen, Luís Felipe Abbud, Marcelo Weingarten, Marco Braga, Maria Augusta Bueno, Marina Grinover, Maurizio Pioletti, Murilo Morelli, Paula Janovitch, Pedro Beresin, Priscila Bellotti, Rafael Bortoletto, Renata Schmulevitch, Renato Cymbalista, Roberto Sanovicz, Rodrigo Millan, Roberto Fontes, Sandra Llovet, Sara Belém, Sergio Kipnis, Sergio Luis Funari, Silvana Rosso, Simone Gatti, Suzana Pasternak, Tânia Christopoulos, Tara Hill, Tatiana Cymbalista, Todd Lester, Tuca Munhoz, Ulrich Katte, Valentina Martelli, Vivian Barbour. Supporters Alexandre Czitrom, Ana Carolina Alfinito, Ana Carolina Trugillo, Athos Comolatti, Beatriz Fleury e Silva, Bruno Borges, Cristiane Teixeira Rodrigues, Daniel Oelsner, Eliana Finkelstein, Elisberto dos Santos Neves Silva, Fernanda Costa, Guilherme Rafael Dalmedico, Iara Garcia, Inês Mindlin Lafer, James Maher, João Maluf, Lara Marice, Leonardo Loyolla Coelho, Luanda Villas Boas Vannuchi, Marcel Oliveira, Mariana Borges, Mariana Petroucic Nunes, Marilena Pini, Marina Sanders, Mikka Mori, Nao Yuasa, Rachel Kogan Janovitch, Sandra Jeha, Sandra Llovet, Sergio Sandler, Socorro Leite, Tania Knapp, Tanya Volpe Spindel, Thomas Beltrame, Thor Saad Ribeiro, Vanessa Coan, Wesley Medeiros.

CATALOGING IN PUBLICATION (CIP)

What does an ethical landlord look like? / Editors: Bianca Antunes, Renato Cymbalista. – São Paulo: Annablume; Pistache, 2019. 110 p. : il. ; 16 x 22 cm. ISBN 978-85-391-0970-8

1. Housing. 2. Urbanism. II. Cymbalista, Renato. III. Title.

Antunes,

Bianca.

CDU 711.4 Librarian: Bruna Heller (CRB-10/2348) Index for Systematic Catalog 1. Urban Planning 711.4

Type used: Oxygen Paper: Markatto Concetto Naturale (cover) Chambril Avena 80g (body) Printed in Brazil

Land and property are scarce resources concentrated in the hands of few, a fact that limits social and responsible use when driven by the market and private interests. Nonetheless, there are alternatives to the speculative market for land and real estate. This publication builds a debate about social and ethical ownership, and presents experiments led by agents from civil society in different countries. Institutions that protect real estate from the market and speculationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;mainly related to housing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and guarantee that its use is affordable, just and sustainable. Here is a collection of a few such experiments, particularly that of FICA in Brazil, a unique organization founded to safeguard properties and use them for social purposes. This book provides an insight on the processes, challenges, and possible partnerships with public authorities or private landlords. The debate and approach herein is necessary for sharing solutions and multiplying projects in search of better and more just land use.

FICA