action · community · gardening · Uncategorized

The Melbourne Model David Holmgren

 

For the last 50 years, the debate about suburban sprawl vs high rise has been repeated ad infinitum with very little questioning of the assumptions behind the debate. Adam Carey & Timna Jack’s article in The Age 22 Feb, 2018 is a current example of the restatement of these outdated options in the context of the supercharged apartment construction frenzy that is taking over inner Melbourne.The article references Infrastructure Australia’s latest report including a third model for Melbourne’s future; medium density London instead of high density New York or sprawling traffic bound Los Angeles. This deft pitch assumes that we must put up more buildings to accommodate the projected 2.8 million extra people who will make Melbourne home by 2046.

The entrenched interests of Australia’s largest industry, property development and construction, myopia and lack of rigor in the academia and politics and a mostly disempowered public have combined to see the debate intensify but never consider any real alternatives, including my RetroSuburbia strategy which aims to create the Melbourne Model of urban renewal.

RetroSuburbia involves making full use and creatively repurposing what we have already built over the last 40 years, the longest running property bubble in human history, before we build and develop over more water and carbon absorbing land that we need to feed ourselves into the future. In this maddening frenzied rush, we condemn our children to live disconnected from nature that we depend on for our daily life and well being.

RetroSuburbia is based on the lived reality of a growing number of ordinary Australians who have been influenced by the permaculture concept, a vital emerging global movement, first taken root in the suburbs of Melbourne 40 years ago. The impact of permaculture, and UK spin off, The Transition Towns movement is at the progressive edge of communities building resilience in a climate changed world. Locally, Permablitz activism that continues to empower young people to hack their habitats for the better, has also spread around the world from Melbourne.

Those questioning the policies favouring population growth with alternative ideas continue to be ignored, or at best, overlooked. But even if we accept the projected population growth as inevitable, the current options to accommodate these numbers all involve constantly putting up more buildings without redressing the results of doing so for the last 50 years. Over that time the orthodoxy accepted by the majority of planners, academics and even environmentalists is that higher population density is the key to improved urban amenity, viable public transport, infrastructure efficiency (read water based sewerage), lower environmental impact and even resilience to climate change and other future stresses.

This orthodoxy is built on many flawed assumptions including;

  • Economic growth is an unquestioned good that will, in any case, continue into the future more or less perpetually.
  • The elimination of soil, plant and animal life in favour of more building is collateral damage that can be compensated for by token symbols of our ongoing metabolic and psycho-social dependence on nature.
  • The daily movement of the majority of residents beyond walking or even cycling distances is an essential element of urban life.
  • The just-in-time movement and on-demand availability of food and all the other essentials of life to this constantly moving population is necessary and sustainable into the future.
  • The provision of our needs within the household and community non-monetary economies is an unnecessary remnant of the past that can replaced by new forms of consumerism in the monetary economy.
  • That more residential construction ranging from high rise redevelopment to infilling the backyards of suburbia is an efficient and effective to achieve the higher population density in existing urban areas.

The Melbourne Model avoids these flawed assumptions, instead focusing on how we can turn the problem of suburbia in the solution of RetroSuburbia.

Apparently 30% of new apartments are speculation chips kept in mint condition rather than homes for anyone. There are roughly 8 million vacant beds in Australian homes. There are endless rooms, garages, sheds and other space full of stuff no one has time to use. The storage industry holding the stuff we can’t fit in our houses continues to grow.

Even the more widely accepted assumption that we need a major increase in public transport infrastructure echoed by the Infrastructure Australia report never considers the way information technology already allows RetroSuburban home based livelihoods and lifestyles to bypass the need to commute. The potential of garden and urban farming to more efficiently displace so much of the resource burning centralised food supply system is beginning to be articulated by advocates and activists but the 20th century land use planning paradigm that hold sway over our public policies assumes it is sustainable to feed mega cities with just-in-time logistics controlled by corporate monopolies.

In my essay Retrofitting the Suburbs published by the Simplicity Institute, I show how policies, affluence and other factors driving more construction in our residential streets lead to a decrease rather than an increase in population density. When we multiply the declining residents by the declining hours of occupancy, as all activity is sucked out of the home and community and into the monetary economy, we find that our cities are mostly crowded by cars carrying one person constantly rushing between buildings that are poorly used.

For the sake of corporate profits and government tax take, we are continually blindsided to commute each day to work, school, childcare, gym, cafe and mall while our homes lie vacant and unused.

So why should we even consider the creaking cities at the heart of empire as models for Melbourne when our own lineage of Permaculture, Transition Towns, Permablitz and RetroSuburbia are already influencing the progressive edge of urban and community renewal around the world, including New York, Los Angeles and London.

The Melbourne model would give us the potential to survive and thrive challenging futures without submitting to the sterile alternatives of the current urban development debate.

 

The Melbourne Model

action · community · Mentoring · Uncategorized

Scrubs at iEmpower

In a bid to tackle the problem of youth unemployment, the Federal Government through the Department of Employment devised the “Empowering YOUth Initiatives” scheme whereby service providers could propose innovative schemes to assist 15-24 year olds to become more employable or ultimately employed. iEmpower Youth Inc, a local not-for-profit, tendered successfully for this program and has now commenced preliminary work on the project, called “Scrubs”.

iEmpower has been working with young disadvantaged people for over 10 years and identified that young people from diverse backgrounds such as migrants and refugees were far more disadvantaged in the job market than the general population for a variety of reasons, the main point being that they are 2.5 times more likely to be unemployed. We also identified that people from these backgrounds are far more likely to start their own businesses and are far more likely to succeed than the general population. Finally, we looked at areas of skills or general labour shortage, one of them being cleaning and maintenance, and Scrubs was born.

The Scrubs project will engage young disadvantaged people of diverse backgrounds from the western, inner western and inner Melbourne catchment areas and train them in cleaning, graffiti removal, maintenance and eventually a variety of other property services. When trained and qualified, they will then become a member of a cooperative, effectively becoming owners of the business that they work in along with an equal democratic vote about how that company operates. They are also provided with mentors and career counselling to ensure that their future is bright.

iEmpower CEO, Abeselom Nega, a well known community leader, said that “the Scrubs project is a very daring venture but it will not only help up to 200 young people into work over the next 2 years, we think our template will set an example for many others in the future. We are very excited with the program and have now commenced recruiting young people into the program.”

To be eligible for this new venture, young people who are interested need to be aged 15-24, currently unemployed and reside in the western, inner western and inner northern suburbs of Melbourne. Participants are still eligible even if they are currently in receipt of other services such as jobactive, DES or Transition To Work.

Any further enquiries can be directed to:

Ahmed Dini (Marketing Manager) 0402 695 879 ahmed@iempower.com.au or contact our office in Kensington on 03 9372 2333 info@iempower.com.au

action · community · Minimalist Me · share · Uncategorized

Clothing Story Swap: 21 April North Fitzroy Library

Want to pass on your unwanted clothing to someone who’ll love each piece the way it deserves? Bring your clean dresses, pants, shirts and skirts to the Clothing Story Swap. Drop adult clothing off before 1:45 on the day and receive up to 5 swap tokens in return. Share a short story about a piece you’re swapping for the chance to win a prize! Return at 2:00 to browse the racks and leave with something new.

Remaining items will be donated to charity. To qualify for swap tokens items must be in as-new or gently used condition without significant stains or faults.

Date and Time

Sat. 21 April 2018

1:00 pm – 3:00 pm AEST

Location

Bargoonga Nganjin, North Fitzroy Library

182 St Georges Road

North Fitzroy, VIC 3068

 

 

action · Ceres · community · gardening · Little Permies Cards · Uncategorized

LittlePermies Cards

Beautifully hand crafted, designed and produced locally in Melbourne  Australia LittlePermies Cards help children connect with concepts such as there is no waste in nature.

Little Permies Cards are available to buy from

Ceres Community Environment Park,  Nursery Phone (+61 3) 9389 0111

Corner of Roberts and Stewart Streets, East Brunswick VIC 3057  Australia

 

mirror

action · community

Neighbors Got Together to Buy Vacant Buildings. Now They’re Renting to Bakers and Brewers

The intersection of Central and Lowry Avenues in northeast Minneapolis is bustling. On the northwest corner is a trifecta of local businesses: A bike shop, a cooperative brewery, and a bakery, in buildings with eye-catching exteriors of rough-hewn wood and silvery porcelain bricks. The neighborhood grocery co-op is one block up the street.
“Is there a way to create a cooperative that would be in the business of creating more cooperatives?”This commercial stretch didn’t always look like this. In 2011, where these three businesses sit, there were two vacant buildings. The empty space was not uncommon along Central Avenue, a long corridor that was created to be the Main Street of the neighborhood, but that had suffered from decades of disinvestment. While a few businesses dotted the avenue, many other storefronts were neglected.

“A lot of people looked at it as too big to tackle,” explains Leslie Watson, who lives nearby.

In 2011, a group of dedicated neighbors came together to change that. In November of that year, five of them, including Watson, became the founding board of the Northeast Investment Cooperative, a first-of-its-kind in the U.S. cooperative engaged in buying and developing real estate. NEIC created a structure where any Minnesota resident could join the co-op for $1,000, and invest more through the purchase of different classes of nonvoting stock. The group began spreading the word to prospective members, and started looking for a building to buy.

One year later, NEIC had enough members to buy the two buildings on Central Avenue for cash. The co-op quickly sold one of the buildings to project partner Recovery Bike Shop, and after a gut renovation, which it funded with a 2 percent loan from the city and a loan from local Northeast Bank, it leased the other building to two young businesses that had struggled to find workable space elsewhere, Fair State Brewing Cooperative and Aki’s BreadHaus. Today, NEIC’s impact spreads beyond the intersection of Central and Lowry. It’s catalyzed the creation of new jobs, engaged its more than 200 members in reimagining their neighborhood, and given residents a way to put their capital to work in their local economy.

“Collectively, that wealth will stay in our community,” says Watson. “If you want to take the long view, that’s the goal.”

While NEIC is unique in the U.S., similar investment cooperatives are sprouting up in Canada, where they’re aided by programs designed to help them grow, as well as favorable policies. Though the model is new, and small, it holds outsize potential for the many communities struggling with northeast Minneapolis’s familiar set of problems, from business districts languishing half-vacant, to essential commercial spaces being controlled by faraway landlords or big retail chains with no regard for neighborhood needs. In the vacuum left by both traditional economic development and Wall Street’s approach to finance, community real estate investment cooperatives offer a glimpse of a better way to channel capital, with benefits that include new jobs in the neighborhood, strong incentives for people to shop locally, local sources for key goods, closer ties with neighbors, and a return on investment.

And it represents a way for these communities to do it themselves.

A view of northeast Minneapolis before Northeast Investment Cooperative was founded. Photo courtesy of the author.

“A cooperative to create more cooperatives”

Several years before northeast Minneapolis got together to form NEIC, a similar initiative was sprouting up more than 1,200 miles away, in the town of Sangudo.

In 2005, Sangudo found out that the school district was planning to close the local high school. The small hamlet in rural Alberta, Canada, had long been draining people and businesses—“for 30 or 40 years, it was dying a slow death,” says Dan Ohler—but the specter of losing a school launched the community into crisis. Ohler, who’s lived in Sangudo for about 20 years, got together with a handful of neighbors to begin looking at what they could do. Armed with a $50,000 grant from the Alberta Community and Cooperative Association, they began exploring different cooperative models, and soon realized that their vision was bigger than a single business.

“Collectively, that wealth will stay in our community.”

“Sangudo was short of just about every product and service that you can imagine,” recalls Jeff Senger, a resident of Sangudo, in a video. “So we started asking ourselves the question, is there a way to create a cooperative that would be in the business of creating more cooperatives?”

To answer that question, Sangudo had to draw up its own blueprints. Alberta is rich in cooperatives, and Sangudo had some nearby references, like a town that had recently gotten together to purchase its own grain elevator. But the thing that they had in mind was different.

“We saw that what we could do was be the financial arm, or financial support, in a way that the bank can’t,” explains Ohler.

In May 2010, 22 founding members incorporated the Sangudo Opportunity Development Cooperative, with a basic structure of the one-member-one-vote cooperative principle, a membership share costing up to $1,000, and the option of additional investment up to $10,000. With this model, SODC raised $220,000 in member capital in its first day. Today, the co-op has grown to 29 members.

For its first project, SODC looked to what its town already had. The owner of the meatpacker in town had been trying to sell and retire, but struggling to find a buyer. SODC stepped in to buy the building, and two SODC members with butchering knowledge took over the business. The next year, the cooperative purchased a second building for project two, and helped a new business, a coffee shop, start up there. For its third project, SODC raised capital to help Sangudo Custom Meat Packers match two government grants for an expansion. Today, the meat shop has purchased its building from the cooperative, grown from two employees under the previous owner to 14, and become an essential piece of the rural economy, processing animals from a wide surrounding area and selling the local meat to top restaurants in Edmonton. Now, four-and-a-half years after SODC incorporated, it’s purchased three lots to begin project four.

Support helps the model spread

While the SODC has been growing Sangudo, it’s also inspired a new initiative dedicated to starting similar cooperatives throughout Alberta. After giving Sangudo its $50,000 seed grant, the Alberta Community and Cooperative Association kept its eyes on the town as it formed the SODC. Two years later, struck by Sangudo’s new model, the ACCA decided to launch a program, “Unleashing Local Capital,” to help other communities do the same thing.

Using a $1.26 million grant from the Alberta government’s Rural Alberta Development Fund, and $440,000 in investment from other sources, the ACCA invested in legal and accounting guidance to draft professional templates for the model, developed a guide to train communities interested in starting investment cooperatives of their own, and then helped those communities launch pilot projects. “We realized that this was something pretty important for saving our rural communities,” says Ohler, who became the face of the program.

As it looked into ways to grow the model, the ACCA hit upon a way to channel Albertans’ savings into their local economy: It realized that investment cooperatives were eligible to be an investment option for Albertans with a self-directed retirement plan, and that the credit union Concentra Financial and the Canadian Worker Co-op Federation already had programs to help cooperatives access these plans. The ACCA now explicitly frames its Unleashing Local Capital program as a way to get Albertans’ investments in retirement plans out of the Toronto Stock Exchange and into their local community.

“We saw that what we could do was be the financial arm, or financial support, in a way that the bank can’t.”

“There’s plenty of money,” says Paul Cabaj, who runs the program, citing a figure that Albertans are on track to have $5 billion invested in registered retirement plans. “But none of it comes back.” Like in the United States, even though self-directed retirement plans are available, only a small portion of Albertans have historically used them. “Self-directed retirement plans have always been around, but the ones who have taken advantage of them, it’s been 3 to 5 percent of the population,” says Cabaj, and only the people who are already comfortable navigating the financial system. Part of Cabaj’s work now is raising awareness about the tool, for both the cooperatives and their members.

Today there are seven Opportunity Development Cooperatives in Alberta, and five more are in the process of incorporating. Crucially, 90 percent of the funds raised so far have been through investments from self-directed retirement plans, Cabaj says. The ODCs are engaged in a range of projects, from a bakery, to a mechanic, to senior housing. One group is talking about starting a medical clinic.

As the model moves through the province, it also chips away at one of the biggest barriers to having more investment cooperatives—it lets people know that this is possible.

“It’s like a barn-raising for the 21st century,” says Cabaj. “This is how communities used to perform, but now it’s like an atrophied muscle. It’s painful at first, but it will get easier.”

Grassroots approach has strengths and challenges

The Northeast Investment Cooperative and the Sangudo Opportunity Development Cooperative formed their models independent of the other, but the groups share a grassroots nature that has both aided their success and created its own hurdles. For both, a key strength has been the dual role that members play as not just investors but as customers, and a challenge has been the cooperatives’ reliance on the volunteer sweat of founding members.

For both investment cooperatives to get off the ground, the most essential resource wasn’t money. It was time.

Long before NEIC had purchased and rented out its buildings, it still had startup costs—the lawyer, the real estate broker, the architect—but the cooperative hadn’t been set up to pay for those things from the initial capital investment. In order to make it viable, the early members and the founding board pitched in their own skills for everything they could, from the website, to the project management, to the stacks of paperwork. NEIC also got creative—some of the contractors who rehabbed the buildings became members of the coop, and were paid in nonvoting stock. Watson estimates that in the startup phase, there was always someone putting in 15 or 20 hours of volunteer work every week.

“I don’t think we could have done it differently, because we needed to say to people, ‘We’re not going to waste your money,” says Watson. “But for project two, we need to construct it so that there’s enough income from property number one. We can’t fund it forever on free labor.”

Ohler echoes her. In Sangudo, it took a close-knit group of dedicated neighbors to make SODC happen, and Ohler says that the same mix has been essential in other Alberta communities that have created active ODCs of their own. “You need a small, core group willing to put in the time, energy, and trust to get this going,” he says.

The flip side of being grassroots, though, is the sheer number of people involved in the cooperative, and the symbiotic relationship that forms between being an investor and being a customer. When the cooperative invests in a business, that business also gets a built-in group of regulars.

In Sangudo, that relationship was reinforced by the terms of the leases that the cooperative arranged with the businesses renting from it. With the meatpacker, for instance, the two agreed on a low monthly rent—“low enough that they could make it even in slow times,” says Ohler—plus a percentage of gross sales. With this set up, “The more we could support them, the more they would make, the more they could pay back to SODC,” explains Ohler. In giving themselves a financial stake in the meatpacker’s success, the cooperative members also gave the meatpacker loyal customers and marketers.

In Minneapolis, the three businesses in the two buildings that were first purchased by NEIC have all become successful on their own, but they count their 200-some landlords among their loyal following. Watson was at one of the businesses, Aki’s BreadHaus, on opening day, and recalls that out of every 10 customers, eight were members of NEIC. “You run into very familiar faces,” she says. “Everybody just takes a lot of pride in what happened, and I know they go to the buildings in part because of that.”

Policy to help investment co-ops spread

While the investment cooperatives that have formed in northeast Minneapolis and in Sangudo have relied primarily on the resources of the communities starting them, both initiatives have also benefited from favorable state and provincial policies. Building on these policies, and expanding them to other states, could open the way for this model to scale up and spread.

“It’s like a barn-raising for the 21st century.”

One of these is a securities exemption for cooperatives. In the laws of both Minnesota and Alberta, there’s an exemption that allows cooperatives to raise capital directly from their members, above and beyond the purchase of membership shares, without having to go through the complex and prohibitively expensive process of registering a securities offering. In the United States, about half of states have laws allowing these exemptions for cooperatives that are raising money from members within the state, but the laws vary widely. Minnesota’s is among the most liberal, and is partly responsible for the state’s thriving cooperative sector, including the existence of the Northeast Investment Cooperative.

In Canada, the policy support goes even further. First, the ACCA provides essential technical assistance, and was able to build up its “Unleashing Local Capital” program through a government grant. Second, the country’s laws allow much broader access to self-directed retirement funds, both for investors to open that type of account and for them to then steer their savings toward local investment opportunities. Federal laws govern the retirement savings plans known as RRSPs, which are comparable to the U.S.’s IRAs, and they allow investors to hold within the RRSP several kinds of private capital investment, including funds for small business corporations, as long as the businesses are operating only in Canada.

In some Canadian provinces, notably Nova Scotia, the support goes even further through investment tax credits. Nova Scotia has created a program called the Community Economic Development Investment Funds, or CEDIF, that couples the self-directed RRSP option with a substantial tax credit of 35 percent for investment in local businesses, which is capped at $17,500 annually on a $50,000 investment. The program allows individuals to form pools of capital that they can then use to operate or invest in local for-profit businesses. Between 2000 and 2014, the program enabled Nova Scotians to invest $64 million in local businesses.

Though such a tax credit is generous, similar investment tax credits in fact already exist in several U.S. states. The difference is that those in the U.S. are designed mainly to benefit large companies in select sectors. Maine, for instance, grants a tax credit of 40 percent for wealthy accredited investors who put money into biotech and other advanced manufacturing businesses. It’s time that states reconfigure these credits to benefit middle- and low-income people and steer capital to growing locally owned businesses, particularly in economically marginalized communities.

To help the investment cooperative model spread, we need to do three pieces of the heavy lifting. First, more states should look at adopting securities exemptions for member investment in cooperatives, like Minnesota’s. Second, coop organizations can look to the role played by the ACCA in Alberta, and provide training and support for this particular kind of cooperative, such as a library of legal and tax templates that investment coops can use to help them avoid having to reinvent the wheel on their own. Third, policymakers and community leaders need to explore ways to steer more capital to these kinds of cooperatives. This could include making self-directed retirement plans more accessible, offering tax credits for local investments, and, in poor communities particularly, adding investment dollars from sources like public pension funds and community foundations.

Bottom lines

While Minneapolis and Sangudo think about how their model can grow, they’re seeing the cooperatives build wealth in their communities through both direct and indirect returns on investment.

From the beginning, NEIC and SODC have both carefully considered the balance between achieving their community aims, and offering investors a return on their capital. This question is motivated as much by their individual projects as it is by questions about how to scale up, and how to turn their model into one of the building blocks of a new economy.

“You have to offer a return to people,” says Watson. “If we’re going to say, ‘We’re building an alternative economy, and here’s a different way to invest your money—but by the way, you’d be better off leaving it in a savings account at 0.2 percent interest,’ then you’re not going to get enough capital.”

“This is a legacy, an investment for the next 20 years.”

As it focuses on expanding, NEIC has not yet paid a dividend, but it has structures in place to do so, as well as structures in place so that owners can capture a percentage of the properties’ appreciating value. For NEIC owners who have invested beyond their voting share, the coop aims to offer more, and to pay out those dividends first. “That’s a long-term strategy to make it a place not just for 600 people to come in at $1,000 each, but for people to do more,” says Watson. “We have to be able to prove that hypothesis before we can expect people to do it at scale.”

At the same time, NEIC is able to operate in a way that’s different from a corporation driven solely by profit, and that flexibility is a critical piece of what it brings to the neighborhood. When the cooperative’s board first looked at the buildings that they ended up buying, they ran some quick calculations to see what they’d be able to offer as a return. “The only thing that seemed to make it work was 2 percent, and our real estate broker just started laughing,” Watson remembers. “But we said, ‘Yeah, we’re OK with that.’”

In Sangudo, the SODC’s first two years brought with it strong returns; at the end of year one, Sangudo Custom Meat Packers generated a 6.3 percent return for the cooperative. Over the past two years, however, the co-op has restructured in order to become an option for self-directed retirement plans, and professional fees to lawyers and accountants have resulted in lower returns.

“That hurts, but we need to look at this in a much bigger way,” says Ohler. “It’s not an investment for the next year, or two years. This is a legacy, an investment for the next 20 years.”

That legacy is one aspect of the investment cooperatives’ indirect returns. In Sangudo, the meat shop has created a dozen new jobs, and the restaurant has hired at least five. The restaurant has become a hub of the community, where 40 people gather at breakfast time. The meatpacker serves farmers who come from miles around to process their livestock. While they’re in town, they pick up some stamps, or refill on gas.

In Minneapolis, many NEIC members are themselves business owners, and see NEIC as a force catalyzing a stronger commercial district that will also drive more business to them. The homeowners who are members know that the healthier the commercial corridor is, the more their homes are worth.

“I think when you work in social justice and economic justice, it’s not your first thought that you want to benefit the small business community, but actually the small business community is so important,” says Watson. “Any structure we can put in place that helps them be stronger and more resilient is good for all of us.”

Both cooperatives are looking ahead to what’s next in their communities. In Sangudo, SODC has purchased three plots of land for its next project, and is considering taking on new capacity to build affordable housing units on the property. In northeast Minneapolis, after a period to catch its breath, NEIC has hired a property manager, and is actively raising membership and capital so that it can buy another building and begin its next project.

Both also believe that the model they’ve created can populate out.

“Someday, 10 years from now, we want to have a convention of community investment cooperatives,” says Watson. “Right now, we’d be the only ones there.”

By Olivia LaVecchia / yesmagazine.org

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/these-neighbors-got-together-to-buy-vacant-buildings-now-theyre-renting-to-bakers-and-brewers/

action · community

Isocracy

Some interesting ideas here.

Isocracy
Our Ten-Point Plan

1. Personal Liberty. Self-ownership, full and exclusive right and responsibility over oneself for adults of adult-reasoning, and by extension, consensus in participation. As John Locke famously wrote, “every man has a Property in his own Person.” We are advocates of free speech, within the limits of defamation etc, following Rosa Luxemburg’s “Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden”, (“Freedom is always the freedom for dissenters”), and even includes “destructive” rights (e.g., voluntary euthanasia), as long as third party expert assessment declares the individual as being compos mentis.

2. Public Emancipation, Equality, and Education. Liberty in the private sphere of life is matched by equality in the public sphere; political emancipation means that all are treated equally. Further, the highest possible levels of education is requisite for members of a society to make rational choices. This is recognised by Robert Charles Winthrop when he wrote; “Slavery is but half abolished, emancipation is but half completed, while millions of freemen with votes in their hands are left without education.”

3. A Social Commonwealth. The public is the rightful owners of natural resources, and that value of which should be used as the sole source for public income. It is also the means to ensure that a parasitic class of rent-seekers is abolished with their expropriations redirected to productive investment. As Rousseau warned: “You are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to no one.”

4. Freedom From Sufferance. We support the promotion of a true, good, and pleasant life for all life and the removal of all which causes suffering to the same. In particular this extends to animal welfare; as Jeremy Bentham wrote: “The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny… What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? … The question is not Can they reason?, nor Can they talk?, but Can they suffer?”

5. External Responsibilities and Benefits. We support levies and charges on activities that generate negative externalities, where the producer’s costs are borne by society in general. Likewise those activities which generates benefits carried by society in general they can be susidised to that level. The combination encourages socially beneficial activity and reduces socially negative activity. Al Gore, correctly said: “Global warming pollution, indeed all pollution, is now described by economists as an ‘externality.’ This absurd label means, in essence: we don’t need to keep track of this stuff so let’s pretend it doesn’t exist… But what we’re pretending doesn’t exist is the stuff that is destroying the habitability of the planet.”

6. Free and Open Source Public Information. Open government and a free exchange of information. Knowledge goods have an increasingly high initial cost and an increasingly low marginal cost of reproduction. This requires public funding for social knowledge generation, and open source public information when produced. Apart from the political benefits of transparency, it will also provide significant positive externalities and reduce the enormous waste of replicated research. As Lawrence Lessing remarks, “Creation always involves building upon something else…. Monopoly controls have been the exception in free societies; they have been the rule in closed societies.”

7. A Free Economy. We support a “free economy”, following the ideas of Silvio Gessell. This includes Freigeld (free money), which removes the economic death spiral arising from treating the means of exchange as a commodity, Freiland (free land), which removes land and resource speculation in favour of productive investment, and Freihandel (Free Trade), which allows all world citizens to engage in the work they have comparative advantage. John Maynard Keynes, who was influenced by Gessell wrote, “I believe that the future will learn more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx.”

8. Mutualism and Worker’s Cooperatives. We strongly support the establishment of worker’s cooperatives with industrial democracy as a standard business form, as an alternative to imposed, top-down state socialism or the plutocratic rule of a capitalist elite. We support the primary aspects of mutualism; free association, mutual credit, and contractual agreements, and gradualism. As Peter Kropotkin said, harmony in society is obtained: “… not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.”

9. Abolition of Standing Armies. The existence of full-time professional soldiers and police employed by the state is a fairly new phenomenon. Their role as a distorting influence on the economy (“the military-industrial complex”) has been well-researched. Their ineffectiveness as an defensive force compared to democratic, voluntary and well-regulated militia is also noted. Ultimately armies are only effective at invading other countries, and police as a tool for tyrants to “invade” the unarmed local civilians. As James Madison accurately wrote: “War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” We support contributions to international security, whilst opposing all nationalist wars.

10. Involvement in Politics. People who are not involved in politics, will suffer governance from those worse than themselves. Our approach to existing political systems is carried out on a pragmatic basis, that distinguishes between a free democracy and State oppression – a continuum which exists often exists the same institution, and has “tipping points” where practical involvement and revolutionary opposition become points of rational choice. Further, as Hannah Arendt understood “… it was the polis, the space of men’s free deeds and living words, which could endow life with splendour – ton bion lampron poleisthai” (the enlightened free life).

The Isocracy Network is an incorporated association, and we invite interested parties to join us. Write to public@isocracy.org or P.O. Box 20, Parkville, Vic, 3052.
– See more at: http://www.isocracy.org/plan#sthash.pUelg82r.dpuf

action · community

Grassroots Sustainability: A Film and Information Night 19 May

Grassroots Sustainability: A Film and Information Night
Monday 19 May 6.30-7.45pm
North Fitzroy Library
240 St Georges Road

Come and be inspired by stories of resilience and hope from the global Transition movement as we screen excerpts from the film In Transition 2.0.You’ll hear about communities growing food everywhere, localising their economies and setting up community power stations.

Find out what’s happening in Yarra and share your ideas.

Discover the library’s sustainable living resources including our new “green gadgets” for loan and the Transition Book Group.

Book online at http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/libraries or phone 1300 695 427
Further information: Jill Allan 94265664 jill.allan@yarracity.vic.gov.au

action · community

URBAN AGRICULTURE Petition: Please sign and share.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/reinstate-ongoing-urban-agriculture-funding-in-city-of-yarra-now.html

REINSTATE ONGOING URBAN AGRICULTURE FUNDING IN CITY OF YARRA NOW!
Petition published by Glenda Lindsay on May 10, 2014
44 Signatures [View this Petition’s Signature Map]
[Sign Petition]
Target: friends and colleagues
Region: Australia
Sign the petition

Petition Background
AS the single most effective way of reducing our environmental footprint, ‘foodmiles’’ & foodwaste to landfill (responsible for around 40% of greenhouse emissions) growing & sharing food locally gives our diverse community increased access to healthy activity; fresh, nutritious food, neighbourhood connectivity, skillsharing, social enterprise opportunities and local resilience in a time of rising transported food costs, population densification and climate change.
Petition:
WE, the under-signed residents & supporters of City of Yarra’s stated priority of : “STRENGTHENING URBAN AGRICULTURE” (in Council-initiated surveys, and as a transparent commitment to our community in Council Plan 2013-2017) are deeply disturbed that ongoing funding for Yarra’s innovative, successful and widely recognised leadership in local Urban Agriculture initiatives has been axed from Councils 2014/2015 Draft Budget.

PLEASE HONOUR YOUR COMMITMENTS: REINSTATE ONGOING URBAN AGRICULTURE FUNDING NOW!

action · community · transition town · Yarra

Urban Ag funding axed from Yarra’s DRAFT budget: and how to change this!

Urban Ag funding axed from Yarra’s DRAFT budget:
and how to change this!

Hello foodgardening fans
see Leader article in link at end 😦
………then read what we can do about it 🙂

Disturbing news: if this bad idea makes it into Councils final budget this month, our neighbourhoods will lose valuable gains made in increased community interaction, physical activity, health and harmony through shared food-growing, especially in street planter boxes. These have helped make nutritious fresh food accessible in a time of increasing food insecurity and rising prices: an important social justice issue. And local food-growing reduces food-miles, over consumption and even landfill when food waste is composted and used to enrich local soils so they’re better able to retain moisture. What’s not to love!

Without the diligent work of councils part-time Urban Agriculture Facilitator in supporting residents, navigating the differing and complex issues of councils varying sections, this becomes way more difficult.

Councillors need to know what we think: we have until May 23 to
*comment on draft budget (open now for resident feedback via http://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au)
*call your ward councillors ( contact details on council website) to ask if they will vote to restore Urban Ag Facilitator funding. Tell them your opinion.
*organise a PETITION TO COUNCIL from your food-gardening friends, neighbours, local networks
*Come to Councils budget info night 5.30-6-30pm TUESDAY 20th MAY @ Richmond Town Hall
to raise your concerns/ give your feedback / present petitions
*MOST IMPORTANTLY: please tell your neighbours, friends, families, local networks and circulate it via social media so we have a chance to have our say!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/central/greens-cr-amanda-stone-unhappy-with-cuts-to-environmental-initiatives-in-yarra-council-budget/story-fngnvlpt-1226909118974

Thanks for helping out
Glenda Lindsay

action · community

Fitzroy Community Food Centre focus group: Thursday April 24

Dear Food Community Friends

You are invited to a Fitzroy Community Food Centre focus group on Thursday April 24th 2014, 10.30am – 12.30pm at the Atherton Gardens Community Kitchen located next to the Community Garden at the rear of 125 Napier Street Fitzroy.

Cultivating Community is engaged in an exciting feasibility study of the community kitchen and garden space based at Atherton Gardens in Fitzroy. Currently Cultivating Community coordinates the management of the kitchen, supporting and encouraging a variety of groups who utilise the space, and also run a weekly cooking program (http://www.cultivatingcommunity.org.au/food-systems-projects/community-kitchen/)

Visions of the Fitzroy Community Food Centre are grand, and largely inspired by Canadian models –

http://www.thestop.org/

http://thelocalcfc.org/

The aims of FCFC are to provide a thriving hub of community food activity. Imagine a week in the life of the Fitzroy Community Food Centre …

· Community and school cooking programs

· Small local enterprise including catering and cooking classes

· Community produce markets

· Wood-fired oven baking groups

· Cooking and gardening workshops

· Co-ops and food swaps

· Mothers groups

· Vocational education and training linkages

· Community food advocacy evenings

We are seeking the wisdom of people in the local or food community to contribute to the development of this project.

We hope you can make it to the discussion. Please RSVP by Tuesday 22nd April to neesh@cultivatingcommunity.org.au or call 9429 3084.

If you are unable to make the date but would like to discuss the project further, please contact Neesh as above.

Please forward to people who you think we should be invited to this discussion.

Kind regards

Peta & Neesh