SPECIAL ISSUE RAIN Reinhabiting The Land $1.50 No Advertising VOLUME VIII No. 8
Page 2 RAIN June 1982 Rain Magazine Editors: Mark Roseland John Ferrell Contributing Editors: Laura Stuchinsky Gail Katz Graphic Design: Linnea Gilson RAIN COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER Staff: Nancy Cosper Steve Johnson Steve Rudman Comptroller: Lee Lancaster Interns: Ann Borquist Bruce Borquist RAIN: Journal of Appropriate Technology Volume Vlll, Number 8 June 1982 Printing: Times-Litho Typesetting: Em Space Cover Photograph: Karen Gottstein RAIN Magazine publishes information which can help people lead more simple and satisfying lives, make their communities and regions more economically self- reliant, and build a society that is durable, just, and ecologically sound. RAIN is published 10 times a year by the Rain Umbrella, Inc., a non-profit corporation located at 2270 NW Irving, Portland, Oregon 97210, telephone 503/227-5110. Subscriptions are $25/yr. for institutions, $15/yr. for individuals ($9.50 for persons with incomes under $5000 a year). Copyright © 1982 Rain Umbrella, Inc. No part may be reprinted without written permission. The movement rents. Not everyone, but far too many of us are renters. In the cities and in the countryside, renting makes us vulnerable, it makes us weak. For some it may be unavoidable, but for many the limiting factors are psychological and technical, factors which can be overcome. "Over half the total national wealth of the United States is tied up in real estate, and over 25 percent of all real- estate value in America is in land. After equipment and structures, land is the largest single component of national wealth. Three percent of the population owns about 55 percent of all American land and 95 percent of the private acreage, most of it in ranches, farms, and forests. This includes ownership by fewer than six hundred companies and corporations of about 11 percent of the nation's land area, and some 23 percent of all private land in America." (from Wolf's Land in America, reviewed on page 15). Life comes from the land. And so the land must be cared for. The government and the big corporations have made it clear that they are not going to care for the land, an affront both to the land and to us. It is therefore apparent that if we are indeed committed to creating a society that is durable, just, and ecologically sound, we need to take the land back. And we need to care for it — properly — with respect, kindness, intelligence and love. That's what this special issue is all about — rernhabit- ing the land. We begin with a history of what- tums-out-to-be-not-so-new thinking about land, then explore various models for getting ahold of land — urban as well as rural. These include land trusts, intentional communities, and communal ownership. Further on we take a look at rural economics, information access for country people, building codes and owner-builders, and ways to make (or avoid making) a living. We've tried, as always, to be useful as well as stimulating, to provide you with the tools and resources you need to bring your dreams to life. This issue is inspired by my own experience, in recent months, of buying land communally (see how on page 12) and preparing to make a hands-on go of it this summer — housebuilding, fish farming, tree crops, ducks, you-name-it, practicing what I preach and trying to make it work. I'm also starting up a nonprofit research and educational center. The Matrix Institute (PO Box 240, Applegate, OR 97530 — put us on your mailing list!), to carry on the work I've been doing for the last several years in education, appropriate technology, social ecology, information access, attunement, and half a dozen other buzzwords. Consequently, I'll be cycling out of RAIN, for a while at least, but you'll continue to see my contributions along with those of Carlotta, who has gone back to school to finish up her degree, and Steve Rudman, who is heading off across the waters for a sabbatical year in Europe. (People don't actually leave RAIN — they just go through "life changes." Steve Johnson, one of RAIN's founders, and former editor Tom Bender are both contributors to this issue.) We're leaving the ship in good hands, so don't you worry. 'Til next time, smooth sailing and happy landings! —Mark Roseland
June 1982 RAIN Page 3 This Land Was Made For You and Me Finding New Roots In The Past by John Ferrell The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me. — Yahweh to the Children of Israel, Leviticus 25:23 There is on earth no power which can rightfully make a grant of exclusive ownership in land . . . For what are we but tenants for a day? Have we made the earth, that we should determine the rights of those who after us shall tenant it in their turn? ... Let the parchments be ever so many, or possession ever so long, natural justice can recognize no right in one man to the possession and enjoyment of land that is not equally the right of his fellows. —Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 1879 All the natural resources of the earth — the land, the forests, the oil, the minerals and the waters — are the gift of nature, or Nature's God to all humankind. No title to absolute ownership ofany part of the Earth can be traced back to a deed issued by the Creator of the Earth. All natural resources are by their nature trustery, not property. — Ralph Borsodi, A Decentralist Manifesto, 1958 When Henry George died suddenly in 1897 his passing was a news event around the world. His funeral in New York City resembled that of a departed president or great national hero. Yet today few people even recognize his name. Seldom has a man so famous in his own lifetime fallen so quickly and completely into historical obscurity. Who was Henry George? He was a self-educated printer and journalist who watched closely and thoughtfully as America expanded rapidly westward following the Civil War. It was a “Gilded Age" of land speculation which brought incredible wealth — to a few. George, who had fought his way out of dire poverty and had observed extremes of wealth and impoverishment in many parts of the world during his early years as a seaman, was deeply troubled by economic inequities. Like Karl Marx, he set out to discover a remedy for the poverty which persisted — and deepened — amidst expanding wealth. In 1879, George published the results of his research in a book called Progress and Poverty. In it he challenged his readers to re-think the very concept of land ownership. "Wherever we can trace the early history of society," he said, "... land has been considered ... as common property, in which the rights of all who had admitted rights were equal." In George's view, this was simply a recognition by our ancestors of a law of nature, and its violation in modem societies was at the root of the economic injustice he sought to remedy; Henry George 1839-1897 The great cause of inequality in the distribution of wealth is inequality in the ownership of land. The ownership of land is the great fundamental fact which ultimately determines the social, political, and consequently the intellectual and moral condition of a people. And it must be so. For land is the habitation of man, the storehouse upon which he must draw for all his needs, the material to which his labor must be applied for the supply of all his desires; for even the products of the sea cannot be taken, the light of the sun enjoyed, or any of the forces of nature utilized, without the use of land or its products. On the land we are lK>m, from it we live, to it we return again — children ofthesoilas truly as is the blade ofgrass or theflower of the field. Take away from man all that belongs to land, and he is but a disembodied spirit. As a believer in the free market of Adam Smith, George had no quarrel with individual title to land and did not advocate confiscation or nationalization. Instead, he called for recognition that landowners were actually tenants on a commons belonging to human society as/a whole and should pay a fair rent on the value of their land to society. This rent could be collected in the form of a land tax falling only on the unearned income which landowners would be able to realize by the mere fact of ownership rather than on any additional value they might create through their own efforts. Thus, hoarders and speculators would be punished while small farmers and entrepreneurs who used their holdings carefully and productively would be rewarded. Over time, George believed, the land tax would result in resources being redistributed to those who could use them best. The tax burden of hardworking people would be significantly less, income levels would rise among the formerly disadvantaged, and the problem of unemployment would lessen. Progress and Poverty was a publishing sensation. It was
Page 4 RAIN June 1982 translated into all the major European languages and became a worldwide bestseller. George's ideas gained a following among millions of ordinary people and were praised by as diverse a group of intellectuals as ever agreed on a single issue. Tolstoy read Progress and Poverty to his peasant workers and urged the czar to give serious attention to what George had said. Sun Yat Sen, the future father of the Chinese republic, vowed to make George's teachings the basis of his program of reform. George himself became an important American political figure, and came close to being elected mayor of New York City. Georgism as a major political movement did not long survive its leader, but it continued to inspire an eclectic mixture of polticians and social thinkers at both ends of the political spectrum. Many leaders of the early-twenti- eth century progressive movement in the United States said their interest in reform began with Henry George. George Bernard Shaw said the same was true for many of the early British socialists. Even Chiang Kai Shek, after being driven off the Chinese mainland by the Communists, tempered his rightwing authoritarian rule on Taiwan with a land reform policy based largely (as Sun Yat Sen had wished) on Georgist principles. One of the most interesting of George's American followers was Ralph Borsodi. Bom in 1886, Borsodi was, like George, largely self-educated. He lived through nine eventful decades, always more than a little ahead of his Hme. He pioneered in the back-to-the-land movement, organic agriculture, natural foods, intentional communities and appropriate technology — all before World War II. During the war, he published a global peace plan which anticipated today's bioregional planners by stressing the need for replacing nation-states with administrative units based on land areas whose topography made them naturally unified systems. The plan also harked back to Henry George in calling for a tax on the possession of mineral resources, which were to be treated as the natural heritage of all of humankind. This tax would be used to support a Global Authority with limited administrative functions. The world's leaders were clearly not ready for Borsodi, but his ideas about land and resources made a lifelong impression on a young man named Robert Swann who was in prison for conscientious objection to the war. Swann joined a study group with other prisoners interested in decentralist politics and learned alx)ut Borsodi's experiences in the 1930s organizing intentional communities as trusts with each member family leasing land from the community as a whole. Over the next twenty years, as Swann actively involved himself in the peace and civil rights movements, he conhnued to ponder the need for new systems of land tenure and as he worked with Blacks in the deep south during the mid-60s, he was particularly struck by their urgent need to acquire a land base of their own. He learned that Ralph Borsodi had just returned from India where he had spent several years studying the Gandhi-inspired Gramdan movement, which placed donated land in trusteeship under village control for the benefit of the poor. Swann and Borsodi made contact and decided to join forces. In 1967 they formed the Institute for Community Economics which was dedicated to sponsoring and assisting in the formation of community land trusts based on Borsodi's concept (derived from Henry George) of "trustery," or stewardship, toward land and resources. Swann met with Slater King, a Black real estate dealer and civil rights leader who shared his interest in providing a land base for southern Blacks. King was impressed with the land trust model as outlined by Swann. It seemed to be a particularly equitable method of landholding which also could provide protections against Blacks losing their investments through white chicanery. Swann and King, together with other civil rights leaders, eventually secured funding from a variety of sources to begin New Communities, Inc. on 4,800 acres near Albany, Georgia. The trust combined five acre private homesteads on some of its land with cooperative farming in other areas. Eami- lies received a lifetime lease on their land from the community as a whole and held private ownership of their improvements. Today, New Communities is still active, and its Eeatherfield Earm project is the largest Black- owned single-tract farm in America. Since the experience with New Communities, the Institute for Community Economics has assisted in forming dozens of land trusts in a variety of rural and urban settings. Community land trusts have yet to acquire an amount of property sufficient to bring real changes in American land use patterns, but they are serving an important purpose in providing the models which inspire increasing numbers of people to recognize there is more than one way to look at their relationship to the land. Henry George predicted a century ago that attitudes toward land would change slowly. But he also predicted that "one day, jushce and peace will flood the world, and people will treat land as their common heritage."nn ACCESS Henry George School 5 East 44th Street New York, NY 10007 Henry George School of Social Science 833 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Both of these institutions offer courses and publications relating to Georgist soc- cial and economic theory. The School of Living P.O. Box 3233 York, PA 17402 - Founded nearly half a century ago by Ralph Borsodi, this organization has been at the forefront of many movements for change. They have a good selection of literature by or about Borsodi and Henry George. Progress and Poverty, by Henry George, 1978 edition, $10.00 from; E. P. Dutton 2 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 The Institute for Community Economics 151 Montague City Rd. Greenfield, MA 01301 413/774-5933
For three days last October, 40 people met in Cambridge, Massachusetts at the invitation of The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy to discuss their private efforts to save land in the United States. The people who participated and their counterparts at home represent a complementary alternative to government involvement in land conservation and preservation. They are part of a diverse and innovative group known collectively as the “land trust movement." Whether they call themselves “trusts," “conservancies," “foundations," or "reliances," members of this movement share one unifying characteristic: a commitment to the preservation of land resources (natural, aesthetic, cultural, economic or social). They are organized to preserve land for the public good through private efforts. While a few land trusts date back several decades, the emergence of local private land conservation groups on a widespread basis is a relatively recent phenomenon. Since 1975, local programs have been organized at the rate of 20 per year and now total over 400 nationwide. They have so far secured over 675,000 acres of open space and resource land in all parts of the United States. Types of Land Trasts The majority of the people who attended the conference in Massachusetts came from trusts that work specifically to preserve open space, which traditionally is not developed or farmed but is preserved for public recreation. In the case of wilderness areas, it may be preserved in its natural state. The Nature Conservancy (1800 N. Kent St., Arlington, VA 22209) is an example of this type of environmental trust. Emerging from the environmental land trust movement is the farm trust movement. The New American Farm Land Trust (1717 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20036) is an example of a trust established to save prime farm land. They are concerned with public educaHon, land protection, and policy development as well as with providing technical assistance to help save farms from urbanization. Community land trusts go beyond the preservation of natural resources to the preservation of the cultural, economic and social resources of the land. CLT's are primarily focused on land for housing and productive uses. They work in both rural and urban settings to preserve family farms and revitalize neighborhoods. The Featherfield Farm project in southwest Georgia is an example of a large-scale CLT. It set out to build an enHre small town on a several-thousand acre farm under the control of local low-income people. Ownership is for the common good by providing access to land and decent housing as well as facilitating long-term management. Community land trusts offer support and assistance to another group of people who are outside of the land trust movement but closely aligned with it: the homesteaders and commune dwellers who have intenhonally located in a community in order to establish'ties with the land. The Land Trust Legal Model Homesteads and communes are faced with the problems of setting up a legal system to hold htle to the land. The land trust model may offer them a legal "statement" of their shared values toward the land. Legally, a land trust is a group of people who have joined together in the form of a non-profit corporation, and because the group is formed for purposes that benefit the public interest, it is eligible to apply for tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This status can serve as a double-edged sword: it breathes life into the organization by allowing tax- deductible donations while at the same time choking it with IRS restrictions and standards. Once a group is incorporated as a non-profit corporation (done at the state level) and has gained tax-exempt status (done at the federal level) it has a wide variety of tools at its disposal to actively seek acquisition of land and its resources. These tools include charitable contributions, conservation easements, bargain sales and limited development rights. Charitable contributions. The charitable contribution deduction in the Internal Revenue Code allows taxpayers to donate land, interests in land, cash and other resources to tax exempt organizations and subtract these gifts from their taxable income. Conservation easements. An easement places a use restriction on the title to land. A conservation easement defines what limited use is allowed. For instance, the Marin Land Trust holds conservation easements to farms which were threatened by high speculation which would convert that land to urban use. By granting the conservation easements to the land trust the farmers protected their land from urbanization and thereby served the public interest by preserving agricultural land, food production and rural community. The easement reduces the value of the land from its speculated use to its actual use. The trusting of the easement legally binds the owner or future owner to the restricted use (agricultural only) in perpetuity. Conservation easements have become a popular tool
Page 6 RAIN June 1982 of land trusts in their efforts to preserve land, but participants at the October conference in Massachusetts expressed concern that recent changes to the national tax policy cast doubts that conservation easements will be treated as charitable deductions in the future. They urged local trusts to develop a diversified program of land acquisiHon. Hand in hand with the acceptance of the conservation easement comes the obligation to monitor the easement. The goal in taking easements (as in the Marin case) is maintaining the productivity of the land as well as maintaining the rural lifestyle. Because the conservation easements are granted in perpetuity, the trust holding them must design its internal structure to accommodate this responsibility. Bargain Sales. In the case of a bargain sale, the owner conveys to the trust the full title at a price below its fair market value. The owner can then claim the difference between the sale price and the fair market value as the charitable contribution. This technique is often used in the pre-acquisition of land for public agencies. Once purchased the trust sells the land at cost plus operating expenses to get it into the public domain. This method has worked well in areas where the government is slow to act an4 land of public significance is liable to be lost in the shuffle. Limited Development. Limited development always involves compromises and some loss of open space. The role of the land trust is to persuade the developer to cluster the development in order to preserve the special characteristics of the land (e.g. an ecosystem, or prime agricultural soil). Benefits of Land Trust Status Association with a land trust, be it a small local group or a regionally-based one, offers homesteaders and communal residents the benefits of shared resources such as technical assistance, news of other land trusts, updates on regulations and laws affecting land use and (most importantly) the support that comes from a shared land ethic. To be part of the land trust movement is to actively address our need to assure the preservation of land and its resources for ourselves and those who will come after us. □□ Anne Maggs is a land trust advisor and treasurer of the Oregon Community Land Trust (c/o Dept, of landscape Architecture, 409 Agriculture Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331), a regionally based land trust which seeks to network land trusts in Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and British Columbia. ACCESS The Community Land Tivst Handbook, edited by Charles Geisler and Charles Matthei, 1982, from: Rodale Press Organic Park Emmaus, PA18049 This hasn't been published yet, but it promises to be a knockout. In the meantime, contact the authors for more information at the Institute for Community Economics, 151 Montague City Road, Greenfield, MA 01301, 413/774-5933. “How To Form YourOwnLand Thist,” single copies free from: The Trust for Public Land 82 Second Street San Francisco, CA 94105 415/495-4014 Emphasizing preservation of agricultural and public use lands, this folder has loads of technical information. The Land Trust Exchange 3 Joy Street Boston, MA 02108 Publications available include the Proceedings of the October '81 land trust conference mentioned above ($14.00 ppd.), a National Directory listing 400 land-saving organizations ($14.00 ppd.), and Exchange, a new bi-monthly periodical ($20/yr.). Rekindling Trust The Adventures of New Society Gardens, Inc. by Lee Lancaster Nobody owns the house I live in. Or rather we own it as a community. I live in a community land trust house. Our land trust was formed eight years ago as a way to radically change our relahonships to property and to be part of the movement to create a more nearly just, ecologically sound and sustainable society. We grew to own two large houses in the city and a spin-off group purchased a 64 acre farm nearby. Now we are at a loss for where to go from here. It seems that the dreams we had are impossible. Our most cherished ideal was to replace the nohon of private ownership of land with holding land in "trust"
June 1982 RAIN Page 7 for the common good. We saw evils inherent in the private ownership system that lead to the exploitation and destruction of land for short term profit and that left large numbers of people impoverished and powerless. We heard of others who were trying to solve some of the problems of land tenure and some of these new ideas rang with a truth as old as the hills. Property can be defined as the value created by people. You can "own" only that value that you make. Everything else, particularly the land, the air, the water, is the birthright of all living things, and cannot be owned as property but should be used as "trustery" — in trust for all, present and future. The relationship we wanted of people to land is not of ownership but of stewardship. We formed a non-profit — but not tax-exempt — corporation (New Society Garden, Inc.) to own the land and purchased houses. We discussed our relationship to the land and to each other. We developed processes for making decisions in an atmosphere of respect and mutual benefit. We wrote consensus decision making into our bylaws. As a group we were able to accomplish things we couldn't have done alone, we were more powerful. Members in the household collectives shared incomes and decided together how to pay expenses. People were supported to work on projects like anti-nuclear power campaigns or starting a recycling business. When that no longer seemed the best way to meet diverse needs we changed it. Our involvement together helped to bring us out of ourselves, to broaden our horizons and to develop us as individuals. We felt strength in support and sharing. Out of our progress came our hardest problems. We did not like our landlords. Landlords profit by exploiting the need of the landless for housing, landlords interfere with freedom of expression whether it is driving nails into walls to hang pictures or putting political slogans in the windows. Landlords are loath to spend money on paint or insulation or fixing the leaky faucet. Landlords have the power to raise the rent and evict. The landlord- tenant system institutionalizes roles of power and powerlessness. So we abolished the role of landlord and decentralized the function. Each house would be maintained by the collective of people living in it. Each collective would be responsible for selecting who would live in the house and for paying the bills. We failed to acknowledge the services provided by the landlord role; provision of capital, property management and long term maintenance. We also failed to account for the skill and work required. Most of us have been trained as tenants our whole lives, some as property owners. We did not succeed in putting off those roles. The dichotomy of owner-renter roles was reinforced by habit, by the expectations of new people moving in and ultimately by the other legal and economic structures in our society. Our collectives lacked cohesiveness and long term commitment because we were committed to preserving our individual mobility. We wanted the corporation to have the responsibilities of ownership but did not want to exercise that commitment as individuals. As people left the communal/collective situation it became difficult to find new members to share the costs, much less the responsibilities. The corporation had to become more the landlord. The Board of Directors, made up of some of the residents and other people from the community, had to look for new tenants when a house became vacant, to replace the furnace when it broke, and to raise the rent to We learned that the visions we try to bring to life cannot be too far divorced from present methods. pay the costs. We had to have work parties to clean up the accumulation of years. The work didn't hurt us, the lost idealism did. Responsibility and accountability also need tools and structure to work. Our excitement about this new land tenure system diminished. Our structure did not permit any individual to have equity except in the form of a loan to the corporation. This limited the sense of individual involvement and hampered the ability to attract capital for new houses. As we began to make payments on the principal of the mortgages we found we had to pay corporate income tax, taxes that would not be paid by individuals owning their own homes. And finally, as the economy changed (particularly the skyrocketing interest rates) it became impossible to consider growth of the land trust as we had envisioned it. We learned that the visions we try to bring to life cannot be too far divorced from present methods. We learned that we must allow and expect ideas to change in the face of experience. We can make our work easier if we are able to restate our goals to be compatible with currently acceptable legal and economic arrangements. There are lots of options and I would like to briefly present some that I have heard of; LAND TRUSTS have become a great deal more sophisticated in the last decade and have developed a variety of tools for saving land. Usually they are tax exempt organizations that hold or convey land for some public benefit. In rural settings land trusts work to preserve special land as scenic, wilderness, forest or agricultural areas. In cities land trusts hold land as historic places, open space, and in some cases provide land for such things as low income housing projects. HOUSING COOPS are organized to benefit their members. Limited equity coops are usually designed to provide housing for low and middle income people. Unlimited equity coops are more favorable investments, much like condominiums. JOINT OWNERSHIP AGREEMENTS can allow people to share the benefits and responsibilities of property much like a partnership. CREATIVE COMBINATIONS can overcome some of the hurdles in the current real estate market. For example, tax-exempt land trusts can convey donated land to communities to use as gardens or for low income housing cooperatives. Housing coops can attract capital by forming limited partnerships with investors for the tax shelters. Other types of organizations focus action on aspects of land use, environmental and economic issues. We can see some of our visions become reality, but not by charging off blindly like Don Quixote to conquer evil and defend virtue. We need to be clever, to learn well the use of the tools available to us, and to persevere. □□
Page 8 RAIN June 1982 Sometimes The Magic Works Alpha Farm Ten Years Later Alpha Farm by Caroline C. Estes In the early 1970s a group of people in Philadelphia, along with many others throughout the country began to have a strong “leading" that they should start a land based intentional community somewhere in the United States. All of them had been involved in some kind of social activism, and were aware that there was something else drastically needed to change the direction of our social order. At that time they wrote a prospectus stating — "The renewal of the social order, we now see, must begin with ourselves . . . We seek to change our basic assumptions and patterns of daily living, to accomplish this we must alter our patterns of thought. We must live ourselves into the future we seek." It was felt that a rural, holistic community was needed and — within one short year of the initial vision — land was found, funds raised, like-minded people gathered and the community life begun in rural Oregon. As though by divine design, the name for the community became known: the old homestead had once served as a tiny post office named Alpha. And so. Alpha, the first letter of the Greek alphabet — meaning the beginning — was the community name. Our feeling concerning land ownership was that it involved a responsible stewardship and that the owning of land was a privilege. Each plot of land has a sense of “place." Each has its own function and cycles and those living on it need to always learn how to tune into these cycles. In all cases, the land must be treated — along with everything else — with care. Such different sources as the American Indians, biodynamic agriculturist Rudolf Steiner and our friends at Findhom Community in Scotland have influenced our learning of an appropriate harmonic role in relation to the earth. We garden and farm biodynamically, raising most of our own vegetables, grains, fruit, honey, eggs, and dairy products. Our diet is primarily ovo-lacto-vegetarian and dinners have become a family ritual. But self-sufficiency on the land is mostly still a "dream" for us, and it is necessary to have other economic endeavors to meet our many needs. Along with keeping up the homestead, we run a local cafe/bookstore/craft shop in a nearby community. This has allowed us, from the beginning, to interact with our neighbors, and to become active in the concerns of our area. Beginning the store at the same time we started Alpha stretched us, and in some ways too far. But on looking back, it was very important to our being able to stay together and to begin fulfilling our basic desires in coming together. It gave us a necessary day in and day out opportunity to express to others our concerns and our dedication to renewing the world — and the specifics of how we saw that being done. Also during the first year we bid on, and were awarded, a contract for rural mail delivery with the U.S. Postal Service. This has been a steady source of income and has again allowed us to get to know our neighbors over a thirty mile area. It also required us to be constant and diligent in our work — since "the mail must go through" — and it has, through all the types of weather Western Oregon is prone to having. This has been an important factor in our acceptance in the community. Ten years ago it was a different social climate than today, and it would have been easy to have been dismissed as "those people up the road" or as "laid back hippies." The store and the mail route allowed us to demonstrate that we were serious in our commitment to the community, and allowed others to have a chance to meet us in a business way. It is important to remember that the early 1970s were a bit more hostile to new ideas than the early 1980s. Much is now taken for granted that was new at that time. We also perform seasonal contract work for the Forest Service, mostly treeplanring; engage in some construction contracting and custom tractor work; and from time to rime have had small-scale cottage industries, most recently sandal-making. Our most recent economic happening has been the opening of a hardware store in the same small community where our cafe/bookstore is. It appeared that this was a need the area had and we were
fortunate in being able to fill it. It seems to us that one of the key ways intentional communities can become a part of their larger community is by watching for ways they can fill “holes." It might be anything from helping a local clinic get started to furnishing a baby-sitting service. Most small communities are lacking in the everyday services that are taken for granted in cities — and people moving into intentional communities often bring talents and skills that can be uhlized by the larger community. By developing and offering a variety of sWlls to your neighbors it is possible to generate an income, but more importantly it is a way of being in contact with those about you. We have tried to make the saying “work is love made visible" real in our area. And the mutual exchange of ideas on social or political issues becomes easier over a cup of coffee after you have worked together or had a chance to meet. Although the variety of undertakings offers some economic stability through diversity (and an absolute guarantee against boredom), economics is not a primary motivation for living at Alpha. We have a common purse; all income is shared collectively, and each person's needs are well covered, but not expensive habits or desires. Our income is largely re-invested in building the community. The community is organized as a cooperative corporation; each person who becomes a member is also included in the directorship of the corporation, and whatever economic assets she or he has are transferred to the corporation in return for shares unhl such time as they might wish to leave. Thus, individuals living at Alpha are economic equals. One of the commitments made in the beginning was to try and simplify our lifestyle. Compared to middle-class America, life at Alpha is simple. We heat with wood, and we do not own a television or many of the amenities that are frequently taken for granted. But we live comfortably. On our 280 acres we have a variety of homes — a large old farmhouse, an assortment of cabins, cottages, lodges, yurts, trailers and a pyramid, plus a new five bedroom house. Each person has their own room and this is true of couples as well as single people. We eat breakfast and dinner communally — with each person taking turns fixing the meal during the week. And, obviously, the amenities of life — clothing, toothpaste, soap, rugs, furniture, etc. — are provided by the farm to the extent that we have any. All that goes to make a home in the country under a moderate definition of “simplicity." And the definition of simplicity, along with all else, is decided by consensus. Alpha uses the Quaker form of decision-making which honors “that of God" within each individual. This means that when making a group decision, each individual must listen carefully, remain open- minded, and consider deeply, knowing that she or he must accept the consequences of the decision since all are indispensable to its being decided. So we never vote or have a minority overruled — we only proceed on the basis of agreement. In the beginning, before we knew each other well, we made virtually all decisions in group meetings. Over the years, we have delegated a great amount of responsibility and therefore decision-making to teams, committees and managers. Now we still meet as a group once a month to act on overall policy decisions, but most of the everyday work is decided by small groups or individuals. The importance of trying to be in touch with all aspects of community life requires each of us to be awake all the time. On one occasion we had a woman visiting from Findhom who believed she was in touch with the nature spirits. She told us that she felt the nature beings at Alpha were needing a space kept wild for them — where we did not intrude. In our desires to be good stewards of the land, to improve the land, and upgrade its fertility, we had assumed that we needed to work each foot of ground — when in fact we needed to listen more carefully. And so we set aside a space at the beginning of Alpha Creek — a wild and wonderful spot on the land where we would not encroach, but allow the nature spirits to have as their home. To some this seems odd, but to us it seemed right. However, it is also true that our land did need a'lot of work and love — fertilizer and lime, Hlling and toiling — and now it is beginning to return to us as useful crops. We have learned through trial and error what will grow in the Coast Range of Oregon (where we get about 70 inches of rain each year). Our garden is bountiful and we have just planted a large orchard which will begin bearing in about 5 years. The other aspect of living communally which is important — as important as the land we live on or the work we do — is the interpersonal work we do with each other. Living closely and being mirrors for each other evokes a need to be honest and truthful, but also compassionate and caring. We have used a meeting to work through our problems with each other, as well as other personal “one on one" meetings. The one thing we are sure of is that problems do not just go away. They need to be faced, worked with and solved. Be they interpersonal or community wide, the need to be aware of each situation as it arises is paramount. Energy can be dissipated quickly if someone is trying to not deal with a problem. The first ten years of our life together has been excihng and challenging and we are beginning to see more clearly the way ahead — but we still are just beginning ... “to live ourselves into the future we seek.'.'DD June 1982 RAEM Page 9 ACCESS EARTH ComeUNITY NEWS PO Box 465 Mapleton, OR 97453 Earth Community Network (ECN) is a "network of light centers (new age missions) to help us develop and maintain the rising culture through the dark ages of ecological and economic catastrophe." About 30 west coast groups from San Diego to Vancouver, B.C. are involved. Sponsored inihally by the Institute for the Study of Conscious Evolution in San Francisco, the ECN newsletter has merged with Alpha Farm's bi-monthly newsletter ($4/yr). ECN held a networking conference last fall, and another is being planned for October of 1982. For more information about ECN or its member groups, send a SASE to the above address.
Page 10 RAIN June 1982 Bhagwanecology Riparian Recovery at Rajneeshpuram One model of land tenure has received an uncanny amount of attention this last year — the religious commune. (For a good overview see "Spiritual Communities," April '82, special issue of Communities, $1.50 from Communities, Box 426, Louisa, VA 23093). The followers of a controversial Indian mystic, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, have been making waves worldwide since their $6 million purchase last July of the 64,000 acre (about 100 square miles) Big Muddy Ranch on the high desert of north- central Oregon. Their vision is to turn the desert into a "green oasis of farmland" and establish a "planned community" of some 2000 inhabitants on a part of the ranch. This kibbutz-like city will be called Rajneeshpuram ("expression of Rajneesh"). In nearby Antelope (pop. 40), however, the neighbors are quite convinced they are the victims of an "invasion” of these orange- and maroon-clad disciples from Western Europe, India, Australia, and the U.S. Unlike the people at Alpha Farm (described elsewhere in this issue), the Rajneesh have made little effort to befriend the existing community, and town-gown relations have gone from cool to hostile. The media, smelling blood, have arrived in force — over 100 different crews were there on the same day in April — yet the reports also indicate that few of the reporters have even the vaguest understanding of what the Bhagwan and his followers are about. There is more than one side to this story, and in all modesty the only report 1 can in good conscience recommend is my own ("Om,OmOn The Range,” New Age, Jan. '82, $2.50 from New Age, 244 Brighton Ave., Allston, MA 02134). Most of the attention is focused on the effort to incorporate Rajneeshpuram, which at this writing is tied up in two ludicrous elections and a series of court battles. In addition, the Governor has made some foolish comments, the federal immigration service is trying to deport nearly a third of the Rajneesh community — Bhagwan himself may be up for review in June — and a "watchdog” group has sprung up called "Citizens for Constitutional Cities." Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the work continues. To our knowledge, the following report is the first to describe what is actually being done to create this "green oasis" in Oregon's high desert. —Mark Roseland by John Perry The modem mind has been too aggressive against nature, and it has created the ecological crisis. Our whole approach is wrong, it is destructive. We only take from the earth, we never give anything back. We only exploit nature; we only go on taking, and all the resources are being spent. But things have now gone to the extreme. Either man has to drop his aggressive athtude or man has to get ready to say good-bye to this planet. —Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Last summer a number of followers of Bhagwan Shree [Rajneesh purchased and settled on the one hundred square mile Muddy Creek Ranch in semi-arid central Oregon. Their objective was "a place that could be restored to a green oasis as a tribute to a living and loving Master." They could hardly have taken on a more difficult task. They chose a land overlooked by nature and abused by humans. The thin soil, steep slopes and low rainfall combine to create an ecologically fragile environment that has suffered over the years from shortsighted and insensitive fanning and ranching pracHces. The ranch land is sculpted out of the high lava plateaus that lie to the north and west. It constitutes nearly two complete watersheds — the Muddy and Currant Creeks — which slope to the east where they join the John Day River. Looking east from the ranch one can see the beginning of Oregon's northeastern highlands, the alpine-like Blue Mountains. This is open range, big sky country and it is beautiful. The low annual rainfall (12V2" average) was once enough to provide a continuous flow of clean and clear water, even in the driest months. Wherever water exists in arid lands nature usually provides a bloom of life, a plant life which in turn provides a rich and varied habitat for animals large and small. This interactive system of water, plant and animal life, the riparian system, over the years becomes fine tuned to provide mutual support for all its parts. Science is just beginning to understand the important role that the plants in a riparian system play in regulating the flow of water as well as cleansing the water through filtration of soil particles. Streams with a healthy riparian system carry clean water. If the riparian community is destroyed, one can expect streams with high sediment loads. One can also expect lower ground water levels if the rate of runoff is not checked by plants. Healthy up-
June 1982 RAIN Page 11 Solar Greenhouse, Rajneeshpuram John Perry land grasses and riparian vegetation lock the water in the soil long enough to allow percolahon into the ground where it can stay and reemerge as a spring during drier periods. Plants are part of nature's flywheel, controlling and regulating the flow of water. Without their work water takes on a destructive role, flooding and eroding the land. The first pioneers here saw a land that looked rugged but was, in fact, quite fragile. It could be ranched and farmed, but only with the greatest respect and sensitivity to the existing natural order. Easily harmed, it would be slow to heal. Unfortunately, overgrazing has taken its toll at Muddy Creek Ranch. Much of the perennial grass on the hillsides has been replaced by annual grasses. Weeds began to take over — cheatgrass and medusahead. Very little vegetation is left to slow runoff from a spring thaw or a flash storm. Gullies appeared, the soil transported down streams in intermittent muddy torrents. The cattle, unable to forage on the depleted slopes, grazed more and more along the banks of the streams. Plants and the habitats they helped to create were destroyed as cows trampled the banks and the streams. The water, loaded with sediment, no longer benefited from the cleansing action of the plants. Streams that once had perennial flows began to dry up in the summer. First it was only at the upper reaches. Later, as the ground water level dropped, some of the streams dried up along their enhre length. Soon the junipers began to dominate the creek banks, denying water to nearby vegetation and inhibiting the natural, successional recovery of riparian plants. The creeks which once were a linear oasis in the desert became muddy wastelands incapable of supporting life. The conditions found at Muddy Creek Ranch are, unfortunately, ones that most Oregonians have come to accept. But the followers of Rajneesh have a different vision and are realizing it with incredible speed. They are working toward the hme when their ranch will provide most of the needs for their planned community of 2,000. Their short-term goal is to control erosion in the upland gullies and to rebuild the riparian systems. Fences are being built to keep out livestock and grass is being planted in and along the gullies. Workers are cutting the junipers and laying the cuttings along the stream banks as an organic riprap where they will slow the water and promote the natural recovery of the riparian plants. Willow slips are being planted in place of the junipers. They are fast growing and will help to stabilize the soil and provide the needed canopy over the streams. The soil erosion program alone is an immense undertaking. They have decided to halt the open grazing, even at a reduced level. But these people are not willing to settle for a smaller yield from the land. On the contrary, they expect more. The flat land in the low valleys will be intensively farmed. They have already constructed five greenhouses and planted 1,200 acres in grain. This spring they will plant 8,000 fruit trees as well as 18,000 grape slips. Sixty acres will be planted in alfalfa and another 50 acres in assorted vegetables. None of this can be done without water for irrigation during the summer growing season. It is estimated that if just one inch of runoff from the entire watershed could be held on the land, it would be capable of irrigating 1,500 acres. The key to this will be a new dam that will impound water from the newly restored streams. Major improvements in the riparian system are expected to happen quickly, but replenishment of the ground water will take longer — perhaps up to one hundred years. An aquifer recharge program is being considered to speed up that process. Their plan is to be self-sufficient in food and to make a profit on their other operations within three to five years. There is much at stake. Much of what they are doing is untried. If they succeed they could be a bright spot in central Oregon's depressed economy. But the real success or failure of the project will hang on its ability to demonstrate a new way to settle the land. If they are right, they will have indeed produced a fitting tribute to their Master. □□ John is a Portland architect specializing in appropriate technology and renewable energy designs.
Page 12 RAEM June 1982 The au thor and a friend Rusty Park © Matrix Institute Have you discussed your hopes and dreams? Are you willing to commit your energy and money come hell or high water? To Love, Honor, and Convey How To Create A Communal Ownership Contract Owning land or buying a house doesn't mean you have to be — or get — rich. Nor does it mean you have to join or form a community with lots of people. You can do it with just a few close friends. I know. The communal ownership contract described below made it possible for four of us to buy 40 beautiful acres with an initial investment per person no higher than $4000 and in one case as low as $1000. Here's how. — Mark Roseland © by Becky West Buying land (or a house) communally can be a piece of cake. All you need is a place that grabs your heart, a small amount of money, and plenty of time to do your homework. A successful and happy purchase of 40 undeveloped acres in Oregon with three other people prompts me to share this information. We bring to our land a diversity of knowledge and experience. We are a writer, a nurse, a medical technologist and a special education teacher, of various ethnic and regional backgrounds. None of us have high-paying jobs, none of us have lots of money. What we all have is a vision, a common desire to live on, own and care for land. We found trust, knowledge, and the relationships you have with each other to be the essential ingredients for communal ownership. (Hopefully, lots of trust and knowledge.) Have you discussed your hopes and dreams? Are your attitudes toward life similar? Are you willing to commit your energy and your money for a period of time come hell or high water? Although your contract will set the structure for your legal interactions, your day-to-day interactions will be much less defined. Begin with the intricacies of group dynamics. Assure one another of your willingness to be open, honest, and flexible. This is your foundation. Make it unshakeable. With your interpersonal relationships clarified, it is time to look at some contractual considerations which you can later tailor to your particular needs. The following factors are integral to a successful and legal communal ownership contract. They are stated here briefly in a checklist form to provide the contract designer easy access to important considerations. This model may not
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz