Modern town houses of brick and glass on urban street
Free association in housing means you are free to choose who you “live with” in your immediate vicinity and it means you are free to form clustered living arrangements with people with whom you are related or have a fraternal bond.
The mutual benefit corporation is designed to benefit its members, a given class or group of people who own shares in the corporation while the corporation owns the assets and property used to benefit the members. We propose the vehicle of a mutual benefit corporation to provide mutual benefit housing, or clustered living, while preventing the abuse of this right to prompt intolerance, discrimination, and segregation.
Mutual benefit housing is housing owned by a mutual benefit corporation for the benefit of its members. Even if some housing is leased to the public at large, the profits are used to benefit the shareholders who may also, as shareholders, have access to housing. In the case of members, by owning shares they gain access to the housing, they pay only for the shares and/or actual cosgs, like utilities and maintenance.
A group of, say, 30 or so families who form an MBC could buy a condo development with 50 units, using 30 for members and leasing 20 to the public. It may be that the profit from the leased residences covers more than half the cost of the other 30 units occupied by members.
Such MBC’s could be limited to members of a fraternal order or a church or to people in certain income ranges, to people of color, or whatever. It stands to reason that an MBC would be able to limit its membership to people it serbes, as described, thus providing a vehicle for like-minded people to cluster together for close cooperation and mutual support.
In researching the law, it seems possible to have an MBC limited to a specific group of people on the same basis as fraternal benefit societies are formed.
The danger and concern from a Freedomist perspective is that, taken to extremes, this legal device could be used to essentially segregate communities by “race”, though we consider “race” a negative social construct. Imagine whole neighborhoods with “no Jews” signs and you begin to see how this vehicle for mutual benefit could become a cover for racist exclusion.
Clustered living is conceptually the aggregation of a few dozen or so families whose organic cohesiveness allows for very close cooperation without sacrificing individual autonomy or requiring a strong system of command and control. The idea of a group of such families and attached single adults clustering together for very close mutual support, and benefit, seems basically nothing more sinister than an extended family group, which used to be prevalent in most societies.
The issue of using this as a means of racial exclusion comes both when it is scaled behind a few dozen related or organically cohesive families to encompass whole areas and when people not considered in the “in group” cannot access housing.
Our proposal for such clustered living approaches recognizes the instinct and right of individuals to “cluster” but also recommends a limitation to scale while also recommending that even such “clustered housing developments” should offer some housing to the public on the basis of fair housing laws. Segregation and exclusion promote conflict and also tend to marginalize people, denying them equitable access to a basis necessity.
On the other hand, denying people the right to cluster together in such a familial way, whether as relatives or because of some fraternal bond, is also a violation of a fundamental human right to free association. A balanced approach, using an MBC that allows for clustered living on a reasonable scale and that also offers housing to the public, seems the best way to respect both sets of rights. It is also makes economic sense.
What is more, we propose, an MBC as a “landlord” will likely be a LOT better than a private landlord as all MBC members are shareholders and will be available to ensure their clients, those leasing from them, are happy.
We can envision a clustered housing development with 30 or so residences for members, 20 or so for the public, with some common areas for members only and some for all residences, perhaps some shops or a market area, and even facilities for a fraternal benefit society or some subcriber-based club or online community whose members live near the development but who aren’t residents.
Unlike traditional housing where you own the deed, in an MBC the corporation holds the deed, you hold the shares, but, on the downside, if you cease to gualify as a member, like if membership in a fraternal benefit society is the basis of membership, then you could face a scenario where your shares are bought back from you and you either move out or become a renter.
Nothing is perfect and within the scope of existing law and practical necessity, it seems an MBC that also offers housing to the public is a great way to honor our inherent right to free association and to cluster together while ensuring that nobody loses access to housing based on intolerance, bigotry, or discrimination. We therefore tend to promote this idea and would support clarifying legislation making it more clear and easier for people who desire to cluster together to do so. We also would propose laws that incentivize MBC’s to set aside at least 30% of their total inventory of housing spaces to serve the public.
People deserve to be able to form clusters, including through clustered living arrangements, that give them close connections for mutual benefit with people they are related to or have a fraternal bond with. The balance we must maintain is to ensure that in exercising such rights we remain sensitive to the rights and needs of others.
