CATCH: The Mutual Housing Umbrella and the Birth of the Co-op A Report from the Bloomington Trenches by Joseph Average Snouts in the trough, or How to screw people over and live to tell =20 =09In the Winter of 93-94, what had been for twelve years a hush-hush=20 "problem" in Bloomington erupted into a full-blown crisis. Suddenly, the= =20 city government and local Real Estate developers were scrambling to pass th= e=20 blame and the buck for what had been a decade and a half of deregulated=20 freeloading. Snouts buried in the trough of tax abatements, Federal Home= =20 Funds, and Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs), the avaricious=20 pigs had grown corpulent during the Reagan years, to the detriment not only= =20 of low income families and homeless people, but to the overall quality of l= ife=20 in the community. =20 =09A study done jointly by the state and local housing agencies found that,= =20 not surprisingly, Bloomington has the greatest lack of affordable housing i= n=20 Indiana--more than Gary, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, and Evansville. Now, in= =20 light of a recent Federal Report ranking Bloomington-Monroe County as the= =20 11th poorest metropolitan statistical area in the nation, as well as the ca= pping=20 of the three-year Section 8 waiting list, and the devastating Wetterau and= =20 Thompson plant closings, Real Estate developers and city officials are=20 sweating bullets. =20 =09But the final straw came this Spring, when a consortium of greedy=20 developers calling themselves "Pinnacle Properties" bought out the last=20 vestige of low-income housing in downtown Bloomington: the Allen=20 Building. Home to a diverse array of families and individuals, old and=20 young, townies and students, artists and musicians, anarchists and surreali= sts,=20 the Allen building was a microcommunity in itself--and a stick in the craw = of=20 the mayor's office, which has been hell-bent on driving out anything withou= t=20 a credit card and some purchasing power. It was, in fact, the last bulwark= of=20 what was once a vibrant and diverse public culture in the heart of the city= . =20 =09The rest of that culture had been swept out by gentrification=20 throughout the 80s, forced to move either to the periphery of town or out o= f=20 town altogether. Now the Allen Building is being renovated into high- income student and professional housing, designed for people who can shop= =20 in the costly, effete clothing stores that replaced Bloomington Hardware,= =20 Harriman's News Stand, and a host of other local institutions which had=20 served a broad sector of the community. =09Many homeless people stayed in the Allen Building because the=20 shelters were overflowing with the refugees of urban renewal. Poor familie= s,=20 individuals, and homeless folks depend on close proximity to the downtown= =20 area where most of the jobs and human services are located. Unable to affo= rd=20 cars, and given the horrendous condition of public transportation in town,= =20 they have been mightily stiffed by the rich and powerful. =20 =09Students bore the brunt of the early blame; indeed, the presence of=20 35,000 students in a town of the same size creates monumental competition= =20 for slots in the housing stock. Indiana University is partly to blame for = its=20 atrocious lack of housing contingencies: no student housing has been built= =20 since the early 70s, and the administration maintains a dry-campus law whic= h=20 encourages students to move off campus as soon as possible. And to be sure= ,=20 most students are oblivious to their role as pawns in the gentrification ga= me=20 and in the destruction and disintegration of neighborhoods. =09But in the end, the blame must rest squarely on the shoulders of the=20 profiteers and their supporting lackeys in the city, state, and federal=20 governments. "Our" city government has been so overwhelmingly favorable=20 to business interests that nearly 99% of all the present City Council's=20 resolutions have been in the favor of developers. In other words, ask and = ye=20 shall receive. Aside from council resolutions, the Housing Code enforcemen= t =20 has been nil for low income housing throughout the 70s and 80s, due=20 primarily to the political connections of developers. Code is used in=20 Bloomington--as elsewhere--as a weapon against the poor, not as a set of=20 protections, and this was no more in evidence than when the city=20 government proposed to use the code violations of the Allen Building to=20 condemn the structure and kick out the residents so as to avoid paying=20 relocation costs. =20 =09These are the people to blame, city officials and private developers. = =20 They are the ones profiting--whether economically or politically--from poor= =20 peoples' misery. They point to the market as if it has a life of its own= =20 independent of the morality of its users, as if they were COMPELLED to=20 charge enormously high rents that favored multiple-income student=20 arrangements while squeezing poor and even moderate-income families to=20 the geopolitical margins. =20 =09But when they took on the Allen building, they challenged a group of=20 people who were already fed up with the destruction of neighborhoods=20 through gentrification. Nothing changed from 1993 to 1994 in terms of the= =20 actual scope of the housing "problem," except that now voices were being=20 raised, and the "problem" could graduate to a "crisis" whose dimensions and= =20 origins would be part of public discussion. No longer could political hack= s=20 and rich developers hide behind silence: people from all walks of life wer= e=20 speaking up and articulating diverse concerns and interpretations into a=20 substantial critique. Finally, a lengthy cover-story appeared in the Janua= ry=20 issue of the Bloomington Voice, a local alternative weekly, titled=20 "Bloomington Gentrified," and the city was awash in the rhetoric of crisis.= =20 So we're getting screwed: now what? =09I wrote that article, on behalf of the residents of the Allen Building,= =20 where I had also lived for a time. From that moment on, many of us felt th= at=20 we could not turn back, and that though we were to lose the Allen Building,= =20 we would organize to find workable solutions that would blend our anti- profit, anti-capitalist and grass roots ideals with pragmatic strategies fo= r=20 creating affordable housing. =20 =09Many of us have squatted in other cities, but recognize that squatting= =20 depends on the prevalence of neighborhoods or regions where the housing=20 stock is economically "dead" or comatose. No such opportunities exist in= =20 Bloomington; developers keep a tight grip on properties and check up on=20 them regularly, even if they are unoccupied. Thus, we had to look to other= =20 strategies which would be locally appropriate. Taking our cue from success= es=20 in Madison, Wisconsin, we decided that co-operative housing was our best=20 bet. =09 In January of 1994 we formed a non-profit, grass roots community=20 development corporation dedicated to establishing affordable co-operative= =20 housing in Bloomington on a large scale. CATCH (Citizens Acting Together= =20 for Co-operative Housing), as we envisioned it, would act as a mutual=20 housing association that could leverage public and private monies to buy=20 properties, which we would then develop into co-operatives. By eliminating= =20 the profit variable in the housing equation, an affordable stock of housing= =20 could emerge through co-operative arrangements.=20 =09How, then, have we gone about the nuts and bolts of organizing a=20 mutual housing association? What ancillary projects have we landed=20 ourselves in through this process? =20 Towards the nut, bolt, and wrench of a solution: structure, outreach, and= =20 municipal intervention =09Perhaps the most important question to answer has been that of=20 strategy: how do we, as an organization, take on this mammoth problem? =20 Do we adopt an ingratiating approach so as to grease the egos of city=20 bureaucrats who hand out entitlements (and lose our self-respect and that o= f=20 our community)? Do we hit head on with biting attacks on the municipal=20 government and real estate developers, risking any opportunities to actuall= y=20 accomplish something solid? =20 =09We partially answered these questions through the structure,=20 temperament, and composition of our group. First, in order to get underway= ,=20 we formulated a platform statement and a mission statement, as well as a se= t=20 of by-laws, in order to incorporate and apply for non-profit status. The b= enefit=20 of incorporation is the same for a grass roots organization as it is for a= =20 transnational enterprise: limited liability. No individual in a corporati= on=20 can be sued for damages or held accountable for failure to make payments. = In=20 such cases, the corporation itself dissolves but the individuals will not l= ose=20 their livelihoods in the process--a crucial benefit for groups like ours,= =20 composed of poor, homeless, and low-income people. Next we applied for a= =20 501(c)3 designation as a charitable organization. 501(c)3, or non-profit s= tatus,=20 confirms our commitment to never profit off of housing, and qualifies us fo= r=20 all kinds of grants, low-interest loans, and tax credits. Moreover, any=20 structures we buy will be exempt from property and other taxes. Finally, w= e=20 constructed a set of by-laws, required for incorporation and tax exemption,= =20 and a good idea for fail-safing the organization to insure that its origina= l=20 mission be respected and adhered to. =09Hardwiring the by-laws against the intervention of profiteers or special= =20 interests was a lengthy but worthwhile process. In order to maintain our= =20 mission as non-profit housing developers for ourselves and other poor=20 people who become involved, we wrote in an income-ceiling clause which=20 can only be waved by consensus. We created a board of directors because it= is=20 required by law, but subverted the law by making everyone who joins the=20 group a board member. We created board officers, again required by law, bu= t=20 subverted the legal intent by disempowering them to the status of=20 functionaries with special duties. In practice, tasks will be shared by ev= eryone,=20 while officers do the grunt maintenance. =20 =09Finally we brainstormed nearly every kind of decisions that would=20 have to be made, and assigned a method of decision-making to each=20 concomitant with its weight and importance. The methods include: =20 consensus, 2/3 majority, simple majority, and delegation/autonomous. In=20 this way, we can avoid the pitfalls of trying to make every decision by=20 consensus, but can reserve consensus-building for truly momentous=20 decisions. As part of the by-laws, this will insure a smooth and coherent = and=20 concise decision-making process throughout the life of the organization. =09Next we chose a member to be our executive director, our public figure= =20 and spokesperson, our lifeline to municipal and state agencies and bureaus.= =20 Cheryl Damron, a dynamic powerhouse and schmooz artist extraordinaire, is= =20 the executive director for CATCH. This means that she is our (not-as-yet)= =20 paid staff who we, the board, hire to do all of our dirty work. Of course = we all=20 pitch in for the grant-writing, researching, and so forth, but Cheryl is ou= r chief=20 liaison and front for our group. Besides, very few of us are capable of ta= lking=20 with city bureaucrats and real estate pigs without losing our temper and=20 wanting to string them up! Cheryl does that talking for us. I highly=20 recommend that every municipally-oriented organization have a Cheryl=20 Damron! =09Having an executive director has solved a lot of our problems of tack=20 and approach. Cheryl represents us publicly, and endures the day-to-day=20 negotiations and meeting work with the city officials, state authorities, a= nd=20 various other agencies. Her approach is tactful but never snivelling, dire= ct=20 and to the point, headstrong but never jeopardizing. This frees the rest o= f us=20 up to do unilateral work against gentrification, to develop literature and= =20 flyers and pamphlets against profit-based development, and to generally=20 enhance the already existing anti-rent sentiment in our community through= =20 dissemination and organization. We can take these actions as individuals,= =20 we can write and speak out fiercely as individuals, without having to=20 represent CATCH as an organization. It makes for a clear and delineated=20 relationship between the individual and the collective. =20 =09Our basic strategy for creating the conditions within which affordable= =20 co-operative housing can exist has been through municipal intervention. =20 We take the upper hand in defining the scope and nature of the housing=20 crisis, we counter the US Housing and Urban Development department's=20 definition of "affordable" with one that is locally appropriate and locally= =20 contextualized, we place our feet in the doors of the city agencies and=20 departments, we insert ourselves into the business and the process of=20 municipal development in order to buy ourselves both breathing room and=20 funding, and to make our critiques of development and our solutions part o= f=20 public discussion. Moreover, we always insist that the issue of private=20 enrichment of real estate developers from municipal funds is an ongoing=20 public issue. =09The strategy of municipal intervention has brought us into conflict and= =20 negotiation with city officials on a number of issues surrounding the housi= ng=20 crisis. These include: parking and traffic, zoning, human service funding= ,=20 work and labor, and perhaps the biggest one--economic development. In=20 sum, most of CATCH's work amongst our community and with/against the=20 city machinery comes down to the very basic set of issues that the British= =20 anarchist writer Colin Ward foretells: urban planning and design. =20 =09Drawing on Ward's work on housing and design, as well as economist=20 Herman Daley's writings on steady-state economics, and inserting ourselves= =20 into the business of the city at all points possible, we have articulated b= road=20 critiques of standard capitalist development schemes--which we are working= =20 now to make public. We are steadfastly critiquing some of the sacred cows = of=20 the protectionist market, the racket of capital, and providing our own=20 practical solutions for organizing political-economic arrangements and=20 fostering parallel or counter-institutions. These include everything from= =20 starting up co-operative workplaces and child care centers, to plowing=20 community gardens, expanding green space, creating community food=20 processing shops, organizing rotating credit pools as capital outlay, manda= ting=20 rent control and compact urban form (no-growth policies), starting=20 neighborhood consumer co-ops and low-level food production and=20 distribution networks, developing low-capital alternative energy=20 technologies, preventative health care clinics staffed by lay practitioners= and=20 midwives, and Community Sponsored Agriculture programs. =20 =09Most importantly, we are recommending that these efforts be co- ordinated and integrated democratically, and designed and implemented by=20 non-governmental organizations comprised of people who will be direct=20 beneficiaries, rather than by city officials, profiteers, and other so-call= ed=20 development experts. Basically, then, we are making a public insistence=20 across the board that the process of community "development" and=20 organization be opened up to broad sectors of society, and that avenues be= =20 created everywhere possible for people to become involved and contribute=20 their intelligence, energy, and sweat. =20 Economics and much more in the co-operative challenge =09With the funds leveraged from city monies, we plan to use CATCH, as=20 a municipal housing association, to buy properties and turn them one-by-one= =20 into co-operatives. This entails the development of succinct, complex, and= =20 detailed mortgage plans and other financial contingencies. For example, on= e=20 of the benefits of co-ops is that, rather than pay into the coffers of gree= dy=20 scumbag real estate speculators and landlords, the co-op dweller pays into = her=20 own equity, which represents a share of the total mortgage. Each co-op has= to=20 work out for itself how equity is paid out, but what CATCH will recommend= =20 will be a 2-year minimum commitment, before which time if a co-op'er=20 moves out he will not receive any of his shares back. He will, in that cas= e,=20 have to consider his input as a donation to the co-op. Given that co-op fe= es=20 will be substantially lower than the average rent charged in Bloomington,= =20 both parties end up gaining in such a scenario. But if another dweller sta= ys=20 longer, and moves out after 5 or 6 years, than she gets the major portion o= f=20 her equity back out of the co-op. That does not mean, of course, that she = gets=20 all the money back she put into it, as much of it goes for emergency repair= s,=20 maintenance, insurance, etc. But she will get a portion of the mortgage=20 payment back as her own equity. Still another dweller might be living ther= e=20 when the mortgage is paid off, and will have the option of being a partial= =20 owner of the dwelling. =20 =09A co-op is at root, then, an economic arrangement among people, and a=20 basic way to alleviate the lack of affordable housing. The arrangements=20 among individuals need not rise to any greater complexity. Indeed, any kin= d=20 of building, from standard houses to apartment buildings to motels to trail= er=20 courts to warehouses can be commandeered for co-operative purposes, so=20 long as the basic economic principles apply. =09However, co-operative arrangements can be much more than=20 economic. They can be social, cultural, and political as well, and every g= roup=20 of individuals will design their own particular mix of these concerns. Co-= ops,=20 particularly ones wherein common spaces exist for mingling, performing=20 tasks or projects, sharing child care, cooking, and eating, provide excell= ent=20 models for working social arrangements grounded in mutual aid and=20 support, solidarity, co-operation and sharing, self-respect and respect for= =20 others. =20 =09The details of the processes outlined above are innumerable and can=20 not be adequately covered here, but any interested individuals or groups=20 should contact the addresses I have listed for more information. CATCH wil= l=20 also be glad to provide copies of our brochure, by-laws, and platform=20 statement, meeting minutes samples, and other goodies, provided you send=20 us a few stamps to help cover postage. After all, we are a very poor=20 organization! Some thoughts on the strategic relevance of the mutual housing umbrella: = =20 countering standard anarchist dogma =09What is the use of this approach for anarchists? To begin with, =20 Bloomie anarchists tend to define the most significant, real, and immediate= =20 problems, to develop tools and strategies for attacking those problems, and= to=20 encourage and aid broad political participation in the forging of solutions= . =20 Anarchists in Bloomington are not about spearheading groups like some=20 authoritarian vanguard, or ghettoizing ourselves in anarchist or subcultura= l=20 enclaves: rather we integrate ourselves within the myriad grass roots=20 organizations and agencies around the city in order to learn from them and = to=20 contribute our perspectives. =20 =09Housing is just one area wherein real and immediate problems can be=20 challenged: other areas include food production and distribution, plant=20 closings/de-industrialization and the re-organization of "work," child care= ,=20 and health care. It is our desire to situate ourselves within these strugg= les=20 and to work for anti-authoritarian, non-statist solutions--which does NOT= =20 mean, by the way, refusing Federal monies. If the defense, petrochemical, = and=20 timber industries are not subtle about taking government monies, why=20 should we be? After all, it is OUR wealth produced by OUR toil and creativ= e=20 energies. =20 =09However, the terms by which we accept this kind of money militate=20 against standard Liberal posturings on welfare. First of all, we do not in= tend=20 to re-create the welfare net or become another overburdened social service= =20 agency. Our organizations should be self-help in nature, and composed of= =20 people who will directly benefit from participation and struggle. =20 Furthermore, we should devise strategies which will increase rather than=20 decrease our reliance on mutual aid and support, as well as maximize=20 political participation. Finally, we should use public monies only on proj= ects=20 that will be self-sustaining, insofar as they will not depend on continual= =20 infusion of government aid, but rather on the mobilization of the creative= =20 energies of broad and previously de-politicized sectors of our community. =09In a larger context, we see ourselves as part of a diverse and energetic= =20 international movement of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) both=20 within core capitalist nations like the U.S., and throughout the Third Worl= d. =20 CATCH, as an NGO, sees its mission in tandem with that of most NGOs=20 around the globe: to mobilize people into self-help organizations, to chan= nel=20 energies and funds away from profiteers and elites into projects designed a= t=20 the grass roots level, on a small and intimate scale, and to create account= able=20 and face-to-face quasi-institutional bodies in order to solve the multiple = and=20 complex problems created by capitalism and statism. In other words, housin= g=20 solutions, like other solutions, should not be devised and directed by priv= ate=20 profiteers or the state, but by non-profit NGOs and other groups that rely = on=20 people power from start to finish. =09On the other hand, one of the most glaring ethical problems we face in= =20 our work to establish co-op housing is that we are still participating in t= he=20 housing market, paying mortgages to banks, financing, the whole bit. Even= =20 the term "affordable housing" itself is ideologically challenging because i= t=20 assumes that homes are to be part of a system of commodity exchange, that= =20 housing is not produced for use-value but for exchange-value, and must be= =20 integrated into this network. Thus, all the while we refuse to profit from= =20 housing, others are profiting: home owners profit from selling their=20 mortgages to us, the banks profit by the interest charged on our loans, and= =20 politicians profit by using our success as a feather in their cap--as if to= say, see,=20 we helped CATCH accomplish their goals so WE are NOT to blame for the=20 housing crisis. If we allow this to happen, then people will think that th= e=20 system DOES work, that it doesn't need to be scrapped. We do not want to= =20 provide an inoculation for the liberal statist establishment. =09Nevertheless, it is our belief that the strategies we have developed her= e=20 are the most pragmatic and useful for addressing the particular housing=20 problems in Bloomington. We recognize that nothing short of a revolution= =20 will eliminate the profit-basis of market exchanges for basic human needs. = =20 But we are not content to wait for the onrush of utopia, and moreover feel= =20 that revolution must be a lengthy process of self-education and organizatio= n,=20 so that we can develop democratic, accountable, decentralized=20 organizations/councils/bodies which can not only achieve practical goals in= =20 the interim, but train us in participatory politics for the future. What i= s more,=20 organizing co-operatives can go beyond merely reducing people's costs of=20 living; they will, in fact, exist as parallel institutions, with an anti-p= rofit, anti- capitalist ethic built in at the base. Co-op housing will be a grass roots= self- education process, a way in which we can learn how to organize and house=20 ourselves locally until such a time arrives where we can do this on a grand= =20 scale. =20 =09The development of mutual housing associations such as CATCH, and=20 the establishment of co-ops allows for broad, daily, and direct political= =20 participation in the process of housing ourselves. This in itself is a=20 radicalizing process for many, and a chance to see the contrast between=20 ineffectual municipal bureaucracy and concerted people power. Moreover, by= =20 tying up houses within a co-op umbrella, we effectively take them out of th= e=20 speculative market and prevent them from being subdivided into high-rent=20 student housing. In this way, we can act as a re-invigorated bulwark again= st=20 the gentrification of neighborhoods by developers.=CA =09None of this takes the place of other kinds of strategies designed to=20 raise consciousness among ourselves, as well as the costs for developers an= d=20 profiteers. We NEED groups who are dedicated specifically to disseminating= =20 literature and information on gentrification, and who are hell bent on taki= ng=20 direct action against developers. We NEED and must support the efforts of= =20 squatters, tenant's rights organizations, and housing advocates. And we mu= st=20 support those who work directly to propagandize for anti-authoritarian=20 solutions or revolution. Nothing we do in our work need contradict what=20 others are doing: the anarchist community ought to recognize the=20 importance of integrated strategies and struggles, and the usefulness of=20 organization on multiple levels. To fail to do this will render us as drab= ,=20 simplistic, and undistinguished as the ossified old Left. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *= * * * * * * * * * *=20 * * * * * * Addresses and contacts for further information Citizens Acting Together for Co-operative Housing=09 PO Box 1277=09Bloomington, IN=0947402-1277 People's Housing 7510 N. Ashland=09Chicago, IL=09=0960626 National Association of Housing Co-operatives 1614 King Street=09Alexandria, VA=0922314 North American Students of Co-operation PO Box 7715=09Ann Arbor, MI=0948107 =09