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