A second matter is that they look more to a Founders' group - or a Sustaining Members class - in ultimate control of any such potential LLC or LLP.

Actually I don't: not sure about Steve.

I'm probably in disagreement with both points, as I am inclined to: 1) vest property rights in the owner/members, keeping some agreed portion of the total parcel for common purposes and ownership;

There are two elements to property value.

Firstly: the value of the location.

At least part of this - if not most - derives from the infrastructure provided by the community collectively. As things stand private owners of land typically enjoy a virtually  "free ride" from public expenditure (eg new roads, a local station, utlities) or a collective decision (eg zoning; planning permission) which increases the value of their land without any effort or contribution on their part.

Secondly: the value of the Capital (ie "Money's Worth") invested in the land eg materials, goods, services and labour.

The "Community Land Partnership" I advocate - using a consensual partnership-based agreement like that of a US LLC or UK LLP - puts the absolute ownership of the land into the hands of the Community collectively through the use of a "Community Corporate" entity, of whatever form.

This entity will own the land in perpetuity. Exactly this approach is taken:

(a) in the US with a "Community Land Trust";

(b) in Scotland with community "right to buy" in rural areas.

In both cases, the land owning "Custodian" will typically grant a lease (which must have a fixed period eg 99 years) to (say) a farmer or potential home-owner, who will then have to bring in investment as best he can, and typically by borrowing against the security of the lease.

Having put the land into Trust, we then look to the rights of use and "occupation". In the proposed "Community-sized" parcels (say 1500 acres), we would have segments which do not have any rights of exclusive private use - ie "Commons".

We will also have parcels (5 acres or less) where individuals have certain exclusive rights of use, in return for which they will pay a "Community Land Rental" into the collective pot.

Note that other rights - such as fishing rights, rights to renewable energy or a "right to roam" (cf Norway) - may still remain with the Community on land otherwise in exclusive private use.

That "pot" or Land Rental Pool is what will be available/utilised to invest in infrastructure. Those who benefit most from such expenditure (through increases in their location value) would pay more into the pot than others.

There would therefore be a net transfer as between those with above average land use, and better locations, to those with below average land use/location value.

So much for Land, and "Land Rental Pooling"

Capital, on the other hand is Capital is Capital and it will have a market price - a "Capital Rental".

Investors in what is essentially a quasi REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) pool of future land/property rentals will do so (by buying "units" in the Pool) at a rate which would probably be between (say) 1 and 2% for the simple reason that it would be a rental that rises with an agreed measure of inflation.

So the outcome is that an Occupier of a property would pay a "Land Rental" to the community entity in respect of his exclusive use of land, and a "Capital Rental" to the investors in respect of his use of Capital.

rely on some level of full-membership supermajority assent for any changes to rules and relationships to best preserve the individual rights of members.

In order for changes to take place to the LLC agreement ie the inter member relationships between stakeholders, it would be necessary for consensus between all stakeholder groups.

Within stakeholder groups ie intra member, there will be matters that concern only that group, and these will be laid out either informally ("Club Rules") or formally (eg a Management LLC)

Note that the CLP as proposed is not the conventional Co-operative "Organisation" you have in mind: it is a a Cooperative Framework within which the stakeholders "self organise".


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson