Comment 99307

By Allison Maxted (anonymous) | Posted March 28, 2014 at 12:24:13

My apologies.. hit send early.

Rather than get into a lengthy theoretical debate about whether a "common vision" is possible at all, let us set that aside and look at the alternative. If there is no attempt to reach a community vision for the future of this city and its core then the community will not have a say in the direction that it takes. It is necessary to have a common voice if we want any voice at all. That vision should never be static and should also be based ongoing conversation.

A lot of work that a community land trust will need to do as a democratically run organisation will be to listen to diverse voices and find the points where we can agree, and steward the land accordingly. This includes building on the work that has already been done in the creation of City and neighbourhood plans while always recognising that these static documents are bound to overlook some voices.

What we do know and what I think we can safely say is decided is that whatever our "common vision" is, speculative land-owners are not in a position to steward the land to that end. By definition a speculative land-owner holds land for individual gain usually at the expense of community benefits.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds