Introduction
For the past 150 years socialists and the left in Britain have attempted to put into place housing which is democratically controlled, not subject to the whims of landlords and of a high standard. Real socialism requires that people control their communities and workplaces directly democratically, and that private property is removed from existence. It will therefore be a major step forward towards this aim for working people then to achieve control over our housing.
The first attempts (in London in the 1870s and 1880s) to achieve social housing led to calls to establish community land trusts. Land Trusts are a legal framework which have existed in law since the beginings of the enclosures, and although there are a number of permutations, the theory went that such organisations can start to take a foothold in the housing market and eventually begin to replace private landlords.
Tom Wetzel of the WSA, who proposes land trusts as a model for achieving social housing in the USA writes of CLTs:-
The residents own the buildings but the CLT retains ownership of the land. This is how decommodification of housing is enforced. The dwellings on the CLT land cannot be sold at whatever price the market will bear. Instead, there is a clause in the ground lease that enables the CLT to buy back the dwelling at a restricted price if the resident wants to sell it. The CLT thus enforces the community's interest in preserving the affordable housing.
Wetzel draws a distinction though between CLTs and other US forms of social housing. He differentiates from housing supplied by Community Development Corporations (which bear some resemblance to the Housing Associations of today in the UK) to that of CLTs by saying:-
[M]ost non-profit housing development in the USA has been done by community development corporations (CDCs) that build rental housing. These vary considerably among themselves but many are lacking in democratic accountability to the tenants or the communities where they operate. Often their boards of directors are self-perpetuating, presiding over the staff with a corporate-style hierarchy. Generally the tenants in their buildings have the same sort of relationship to the CDC landlord as tenants in private, for-profit rental buildings. Sometimes even the commitment to permanent affordability is lacking. [...] The community land trust model works within the legal framework of home ownership, while modifying it, as a way to implement resident self-management of buildings, and community self-management of real estate development, within the context of the existing capitalist society. The model of "fee simple" ownership for land and housing has been historically favored in law and policy in the USA. Land and housing are commodities, bought and sold for the highest price that a willing buyer will pay to a willing seller. The capitalist investment cycle in the built environment is founded on this commodity status of land and buildings.
The fee simple model of home ownership is really a bundle of rights, which give a variety of advantages to owning a dwelling. You can control the space where you live, you can customize or remodel the interior to suit yourself. You're freed of the whims or intrusions of a landlord. A fixed-rate mortgage frees you from periodic rent increases. If you own a detached house, you can build an addition or remodel the exterior, and yard space is available for play, for gardening. On the other hand, the status of a house as a commodity means that the house can be used as an investment, a way to profit from appreciation in market value. In the CLT model these components of home ownership are separated. First, residents don't own the land under their buildings. The land is permanently taken off the market. Second, the right to profit through speculative investment is removed by placing a permanent restriction on resale price on the dwelling. Some of the components of ownership are retained - security of tenure and right of control over your own space.
There are however other forms in which social housing can take. More familiar to most on the left in the UK is the phenomenon of Council Housing. It's not unique to the UK. In Vienna workers movements forced the building of mass public housing. In the UK public housing was built not in one period, but in several, and what council houses remain from the periods of house building reflect the different priorities and social policies of the authorities at the time of construction. As such council housing can vary dramatically in quality, distribution, size and type.
During the 70s the development of tenant management co-operatives emerged in Glasgow to challenge the bureaucratic systems of council landlords, who would not spend money on investment in peoples homes. They were soon a widespread phenomenon, although initially radical (in Easterhouse rent was paid not to the council but to the TMC, who carried out much needed investment) they became increasingly bureaucratic, and recuperated as an organ of asset management for the landlord. Many advocate a return to council housing with TMCs as a solution to areas which have seen stock transfer (where council housing is transfered to an Arms Length Management Organisation or a Housing Association). Stock transfer of council housing is UK government policy, and is widely seen as being informed by neo-liberal ideology(1), which sees "services" such as housing as being incompatible with the role to be attributed to the neo-liberal state.
Overview
- Stock Transfer in Glasgow has not been a positive development, either in the quality of social housing, the availability and affordability of social housing, or the amount of control tenants have over their housing.
- Glasgow has the most social housing of anywhere in Europe. What happens to social housing therefore affects a very large proportion of working people.
- The GHA aims to demolish 30,000 out of its 80,000 stock of homes. Although many parties are involved in the what happens to housing in Glasgow, there is little ideological dissent amongst the authorities and landlords that social housing must make way for private housing. Differences that emerge are more usually about the mechanisms for this change, how much housing is to be demolished, and what the timescale is likely to be, coupled with scraps over who develops brownfield sites following demolition.
- In a number local authorities across Scotland there has been stock transfer. In four local authorities stock transfer has been rejected. In all of these areas, notwithstanding the quirks of local conditions, the overarching policies of the government are leading to the same developments. The UK government has published a briefing portfolio on social housing for all UK local authorities which commits all councils to a percentage reduction in social housing per annum. House building represents one of the UK's most lucrative and productive domestic industries. Mass demolitions constitute a subsidy for the building industry.
- There is a massive shortage of affordable housing for rent. This has been aggravated by the government's 'right-to-buy' policy which allows sitting tenants to purchase their home, with several important qualifications.
General Section
- Any serious strategy for housing must develop from an appraisal of individual conditions where our members find themselves. In Inverness so many homes have been bought under right-to-buy, the RTB policy has been rescinded. In Glasgow the vagaries of the structures of management - which have grown bloated - of the existing social housing following stock transfer have created confusion among tenants that does not exist elsewhere. There are many such examples of particular differences in conditions.
- Any position needs to allow for tactical flexibility. [NB this should be the subject of a discussion paper in its own right.] The overarching aim of the organisation should be to turn housing over to democratic control by the people who live in it; it should be to fight for funding, for real investment, with the priorities decided by the people that live in a neighbourhood. This means that while we are pushing for the government to implement community land trusts as part of a process of second stage transfer (as opposed to transfer to housing associations) we are simultaneously fighting for the government to empower local residents groups or community councils to take more of an administrative role in managing housing, should they choose to, and that any calls we might make for council housing etc. are inseparable for calls for more local autonomy and control over housing. Any victories we achieve while pressing in two different directions can synergistically allow space for the future growth of a popular movement to control housing.
- We must, in our actions, in these struggles, aim to develop the power, autonomy and self-confidence of the working class. We must generally endeavour to ensure that victories which lead to more popular control over housing are generally seen to be victories not for progressive ministerial policies of the present government, but the result of popular pressure. The left does not make enough of popular victories. Popular victories should reinforce our capacity to win future popular victories by building hte power of the mass or ordinary people to act.
- We must draw on evidence for any positions we take. Evidence shows that municipal housing in the UK was a demand for many decades. The government however only really began to take action in Glasgow with the growth of a citywide steering committee which devoted a great deal of time and energy to building committees - early residents associations - on the ground locally during a mass campaign against rent increases. The struggles of that period and the organisation which was built forged the creation of the Scottish Tenants Organisation. Local co-ordination lead to real local power and real local power led to citywide co-ordination which led to national co-ordination. That's a small hint at a case study, but the current STO and anti-stock transfer activists, as well as much of the left appear to have no real understanding of what the modalities of victory are. We must lead the way in our positions and in our propaganda, through utilising historical example and case studies and educating our peers in community activism about ideas which will lead to victory.
- We need to understand when formulating any positions what the real situation is on the ground. What is planned by the government? What is planned by the SFHA? What changes will take place in the next five years? Only when we have some idea of the answers to these questions can we begin to formulate organised intervention and have a hope of victory.
Specific Section (Proposed Action on the GHA)
[TBC later tonight]