seems to me that more folks ought to seek long-term leases and other alternative modes of land tenure rather than buying a chunk of land. mortgages are trouble. leasing would allow folks to invest more resources into the land instead of into the bank. it would mean being very careful about finding the right landlord and crafting a lease or other agreement, but there are a lot of very substantial advantages.
Robert Ray wrote:
Tel, could you expand on your "all manner of problems" with ownership versus a lease advantage?
Son of Levin wrote:
Allow me to wander a tiny bit. There's no permaculture/land ownership link, just an example of a so-far successful long-term lease situation from the farm I worked on last year, short-handed:
Son of Levin wrote:
Sure. Here's the situation, a little more fleshed-out: ...
What we are doing is treating our workers like they are part of a co-op. We limit the amount of money we withdraw from our company and all the rest of the profit goes back to expansion, buying more land, more equipment, more lifestock, planting more trees, etc.
Thankfully, Costa Ricans have a sense of community and they know if we expand, it means their relative or friend might be able to get a job.
I can't imagine doing something likes this as a committee because it requires people only taking what they need (like ourselves). Most people want more than that.
If you have a common resource, without controls - and very strong ones, someone will start exploiting it, and after that, you have a run on the resource.
Capitalism would imply we would take all profit to ourselves - what we do is reinvest in new jobs, new opportunities.
The advantage is that we ensure everyone is contributing, and anyone who doesn't, is removed.
A co-op, Costa Rican style, does not imply equal power. It means merely that resources are combined in order that smaller units can benefit as though they are larger.
Not to call people cattle, but... I would never starve a cow or horse and expect it to produce, I would never expect a worker to do well if I didn't make sure they were cared for.
Granted, our asset base grows, but as long as we don't touch that asset base, it really doesn't matter who owns it[...]what will turn this into a true co-op is that someday is that we have made plans to turn everything over to the workers in our will, with board of trustees to make sure it doesn't get looted.
Emerson White wrote:
Dude that is totally and completely 100% capitalism. It's not overly and clumsily greedy capitalism, but it is capitalism.
tel jetson wrote:
I don't think a flat rate lease makes sense in this context. something as simple as a fraction of gross sales could work. maybe a floor and a ceiling would be needed as well. an option to buy would be nice.
I've mentioned it in another thread, but the New England Small Farm Institute put together a pretty good primer on alternative land tenure models. I don't have a link right now, but it's easy to find. covers a lot of things that seem inconsequential at first blush, but in reality could end up making the difference between success and failure.