Who's it for? (or, who's missing out)

Who is an ethical, alternative, co-operative property system for?

Obviously it’s for all of us.

But the real question is, who is it most for. Who does the design bias towards. Who’s interests take priority, because there are always going to be competing interests, even (or perhaps especially) in an equitable system.

Here’s my proposal: It is biased towards the people not at the table.

Focus on the people furthest from the centre. Those most often left most disadvantaged. Create something that is generous towards these people, and it will work for all of us.

Some folks figured this out when designing homes for elderly, and people with disabilities. It turn’s out, these homes work really well for everyone.*

This is hard to do. It’s challenging to respond to people’s situations that aren’t mainstream. It’s especially difficult when they aren’t there to speak for themselves. And we make it harder still if we don’t know how to listen and learn.

But we want something truly equitable, something truly ethical, and entirely co-operative. To get there, we need to start at the margins.

*If you’re interested in the concept of designing in a way that is generous towards people at the fringes, you might like to look at Universal Design.

Change doesn't happen at a distance

It should come as no surprise to anyone that doing ethical property development requires a transfer of wealth.

The status quo inherently disadvantages those who have less. So the ability to do make an impact is limited by the amount of value that is available. If a bunch of us get together with sticks, we're not going to build a brick house. Someone with a large brick house is going to have to tear down their second (or third, or fourth) home to give us some bricks.

When there's a fixed amount of something, those with lots have to give up at least a little in order to achieve genuine equity.

It turns out, do do things differently requires all of us. Change doesn't happen at a distance.