• Home
  • About
  • Consulting
  • Papers and Articles

LegalTowns

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« New Study Finds Fault With New Jersey Land Use
Sourcing Note »

Limited Equity: An Idea That Still Matters

July 12, 2011 by Honey Berk

Amalgamated Co-op, Bronx, NY.

If the single-family house has become a dog of an investment, what should communities do?  I’d say this trend makes the case for developing a new generation of limited-equity (LE) neighborhoods, where the commitment benefits of ownership are separated from the mad lottery of house prices.  Neighborhoods need stakeholders, not just tenants.  (Hold your fire: I still rent.)  Healthy communities require a critical mass of residents who have made temporal, legal, and financial commitments to remain.  They require the political landscape that comes with the presence of enough people for whom it would be more trouble to move than it would be to notice and address local problems.

LE offers this: Cooperators buy shares in a stock company, and the company holds title to the real estate.  Typically, starting prices for units are scaled to the pro rata costs of sinking the initial investment: basically, land and construction loans.  When a cooperator moves out, he sells his unit to a new cooperator for roughly the same amount that he initially paid.  And so, you have a cycle where cooperators who move out will recover their limited equity, and new residents will purchase housing at an affordable price.  At the same time, ongoing maintenance costs are used to cover, well, maintenance costs.  And taxes.  Construction on cheap farmland or (clean) former industrial sites can significantly reduce property costs, making an LE venture an affordable possibility for cooperators with modest incomes.  And so, you have a community of stakeholders that overlaps with a community of affordable housing.

The essence of the LE model can be traced back to the Principles of the Rochdale Weavers.  In 1898, Ebenezer Howard proposed an LE model for his Garden Cities as a viable solution to the crowding and poverty that characterized the East End industrial slums of Victorian London.  In 1902, Theodor Herzl advocated a similar financial model to pay for the founding of Israel.  In the United States, labor-sponsored co-ops in New York City became the most ambitious examples of the limited-equity arrangement.  But over the last generation, LE has faded out.  In the only American locality where the ownership structure had ever gained a foothold, the build-out of affordable land in New York City, combined with the infamous dysfunction of Co-op City, effectively killed the prospect of further LE developments by the mid-1970s.  (The 1971 death of Abraham Kazan simultaneously cost the concept its greatest advocate.)  Presumably, most of the rest of the US was either too conservative, or too affordable during the post-war period, for such an idea to catch fire without a good sales pitch.

But limited equity housing remains a decent and practical idea, and the present flight of capital from urban land could open a new window for its economic viability.  Politically, although LE is unquestionably a creature of the labor-left, it inherently dovetails with a number of fundamental conservative priorities, making it potentially palatable in non-left political landscapes.  For example:

1. LE facilitates a broader base of private property ownership.

2. LE does not require any direct involvement by the State.

3. The LE entity is typically entirely local; by-laws can reflect local customs.

This is because LE was envisioned to work within the conservative, common-law legal system of the British Empire in the latter half of the 19th century.  Rather than being a plank of a political program, it was and is a simple legal strategy.  And because of its origin as a private law device, the LE model remains perfectly compatible with even the most conservative visions of the role of the State, as  relates to property and economics.  At the same time, the LE model can effectively advance the interests of those who require a degree of shelter from the vagaries of capital, by allowing individuals to enjoy a stable ownership stake in their homes and neighborhoods while maintaining a perpetual stock of affordable units in a fixed location.  That is to say, in addition to its direct benefits as a business model, LE offers an approach that can avoid some of the triggers of political hostility while delivering a reliably equitable, even progressive social result.  This quality would make LE a promising strategy for these uncertain political and economic times.

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Housing / Limited Equity, The Bronx |

  • Archives

    • September 2017 (5)
    • August 2017 (4)
    • July 2017 (1)
    • June 2017 (2)
    • March 2017 (1)
    • February 2017 (1)
    • January 2017 (2)
    • December 2016 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (2)
    • August 2016 (4)
    • July 2016 (5)
    • June 2016 (3)
    • April 2016 (5)
    • January 2016 (2)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • November 2015 (3)
    • October 2015 (3)
    • September 2015 (2)
    • June 2015 (3)
    • May 2015 (2)
    • March 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (3)
    • January 2015 (1)
    • September 2014 (1)
    • August 2014 (2)
    • July 2014 (1)
    • June 2014 (1)
    • May 2014 (8)
    • April 2014 (7)
    • March 2014 (3)
    • December 2013 (1)
    • November 2013 (4)
    • October 2013 (9)
    • September 2013 (1)
    • August 2013 (6)
    • July 2013 (5)
    • June 2013 (4)
    • May 2013 (5)
    • April 2013 (3)
    • March 2013 (6)
    • February 2013 (14)
    • January 2013 (19)
    • December 2012 (7)
    • November 2012 (3)
    • October 2012 (4)
    • September 2012 (2)
    • August 2012 (8)
    • July 2012 (5)
    • June 2012 (4)
    • May 2012 (11)
    • April 2012 (4)
    • March 2012 (3)
    • February 2012 (9)
    • January 2012 (6)
    • December 2011 (6)
    • November 2011 (5)
    • October 2011 (8)
    • September 2011 (3)
    • August 2011 (5)
    • July 2011 (5)
    • June 2011 (4)
    • May 2011 (8)
    • April 2011 (6)
    • March 2011 (2)
    • February 2011 (4)
    • January 2011 (4)
    • November 2010 (4)
    • October 2010 (1)
    • September 2010 (2)
    • August 2010 (3)
  • Categories

    • Art (53)
    • Books & Articles (24)
    • Building Codes (25)
    • Classic Cases (3)
    • Classical World (11)
    • Common Law Urbanism (49)
    • Courtyards and Alleys (6)
    • Dystopia (10)
    • Eminent Domain (7)
    • Euclidean Zoning (40)
    • Federalism (7)
    • Housing / Limited Equity (28)
    • Individual Rights (25)
    • Israel (4)
    • Land Surveying (7)
    • Late Victorian (35)
    • Law (26)
    • Leases (2)
    • Lower Manhattan (19)
    • Maps (10)
    • Mood Zoning (1)
    • Mortgages & Notes (7)
    • New Jersey Law (22)
    • Planning Theory (38)
    • Procedure (1)
    • Rail & T.O.D. (17)
    • Spotlights (44)
    • The Bronx (14)
    • Town Greens (15)
    • Trusts & Estates (9)
    • Uncategorized (36)
  • Pages

    • About
    • Consulting
    • Papers and Articles

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: