Community Land Trusts: Bringing the Context Back in

Why Should We Care About Community Land Trusts? The tremendous increase in housing prices in major large metropolises, such as Los Angeles, London and Paris, illustrates structural market changes. In these cities— where housing became a way to secure investments— we observe the dissociation between market values and the social use of homes. This process leads to increased income and geographical inequalities, particularly impacting lower income households (Aalbers, 2016, pp. 1–14). This financialization of housing markets was made possible through the acceptance, primarily in western countries, of ownership as an inalienable right and individual property titles as a means to deliver the highest and best level of efficiency (Needham, 2006). In this context, Community Land Trusts (CLTs) represent a will to shift this paradigm through the capture and equitable repartition of land wealth. Considered anti-speculative tools, they aim to shift the essence of established property right systems towards collective ownership of land (Attard, 2013, p. 144). CLTs can be defined as non-profit, democratic and locally-based organizations. They develop and manage genuinely affordable homes and urban facilities perpetually. Their mission is to withdraw, and permanently retain, lands from a speculative market, thus controlling real estate prices and preserving affordability over time for the benefit of local residents (Davis, 2010). The initial CLT model was conceived in the US in the ’60s, throughout the Civil Rights Movements. Down the road, the definition of resilient guiding principles broadened the model and made it more inclusive so as to allow it to be transferred to and adapted in different urban situations. It flourished in Europe, notably in British, Belgian and French cities. 2. Chief Aim of This Dissertation When transferred to different contexts, however, the initial CLT model’s substance and unity seems to be challenged. From this observation emerged the need to analyze CLTs in their diversity— with regard to international and national dynamics— and within the local contexts in which they operate. We believe this work will bring a clearer understanding of distinct models, and of their genesis and outcomes. Collecting and gathering knowledge is thought to be crucial for the development of common grounds, and ultimately, the development of sustainable transnational and international movements. 9 Building on the author’s experience participating in an academic exchange at the University of California, Los Angeles (Fall Semester 2017), and her involvement in the SHICC European territorial cooperation program (Interreg, 2017–2020), this work explores the essence of different CLT models and questions how they have been shaped by given territories. It supports the thesis that, as the CLTs circulate worldwide, they need to be rethought in their variety. It argues that context affects the CLT model through a triple constraint system; expressed at the national, metropolitan and individual scale. This dissertation, thus, tries to disentangle how these constraint systems influenced the definition and implementation of CLTs in dense urban contexts. Through a comparative study, this dissertation focuses on three case studies (Downtown Los Angeles, Lewisham Borough in London and the City of Montreuil in the Parisian area), and on six CLTs or OFSs (Organismes de Foncier Solidaire) – for the French version - evolving in these areas. For each case, it tests the impact of a triple constraint system (national, metropolitan, individual) on CLTs’ missions (what, what for, for whom) and structuring (governance, scope, operation).