The Community Land Trust conference in London today was really enjoyable. I saw some excellent examples of CLTs, and a not so excellent example of a scheme run by an award winning housing body – sparking some interesting conversation around the powers shifting. Well, looks like the time has come…
The germans seem to have the spatial planning sussed. The district Vauban in Freiburg is one of many developments created in a co-operative, participatory way and encompasses the 3 sustainable tenets of economic, social and environmental. No fences or walls, just managing co-existence together.
There was also the project that was a tower block of flats in England – the council said they were going to take away the 24 hour concierge so the residents (all elderly) decided to take it into their own hands, set up a co-operative and employed their own concierge. Incidentally, the block is so well insulated now that the residents actually make a profit on their winter fuel allowance which they club together and use to splash out on a day trip to the seaside. Can anybody help me out with the name of this one? I was so taken with the presentation that I forgot to write it down.
Anyway, I digress. Onto the Birmingham Jewellery Quarter, which was the part of the day that fired me into blog action. There’s a real sense of independence with interdependence here.
Four well established community organisations spanning heritage, residents, manufacturing and retail are looking for a structure that will allow them to drive forward their ambition: taking control of their future in the quarter. Bring the assets under the control of the organisations through a co-operative and drive forward through inward investment, new and increased income streams, new assets, new services resulting in long term value.
The question that animated the audience and took us well over our allocated time was of governance. This seems to be a real hot topic, I’m having conversations about governance more and more recently. What structure would be best suited for a diversity of groups with different interests, but a common goal?
OK – here’s my take:
1. what is the common goal, can it be worked backwards?
2. why does structure matter? Is it not the mission and aims and reinvestment plans of profits that matter, regardless of structure?
This was met with the response that a social enterprise status would need to be reached in order to tap into funding. Ok, what funding? Government? Sorry, I said, what funding? Where? Lottery, heritage, etc etc. Alright already, I’m back with the class. Hm.
Ok, I get the part about being legally obliged to reinvest, but where’s the carrot for the equity investor? Are we now about to enter the realm of empowerment without the empowerment to structure ourselves attractively?
Related posts:
Having been involved in working with local community partnerships made up of community organisations, statutory bodies and local residents, often the simplest is best and ensure form follows function.
It is easy to get hung up about structures and procedures and lose sight of the actual purpose. This said, issues of governance are also critical, and participatory approaches are essential.
The big problem is often keeping everyone focussed on group, rather than individual goals!
Gerry,
Agreed. And I would add that my experience has been that defining the group is often more difficult for community orgs as small, but loud factions often disrupt a simple approach.