No es casualidad que la Universidad de Kenyon, en Gambier, Ohio, aparezca en gran cantidad de listas de los más hermosos campus universitarios de los Estados Unidos. Cuando el obispo Philander Chase fundó esta universidad en la cumbre de una colina arbolada en el año 1824, su visión era lograr un entorno rural sereno que promoviera el pensamiento serio y la buena conducta. Durante 189 años, la universidad y todos aquellos que han pasado por ella han valorado este entorno. Los ritmos atemporales que presenta el paisaje permiten obtener vistas agradables que alimentan el espíritu en cada estación, y tanto los estudiantes como el cuerpo docente utilizan las hectáreas rurales adyacentes al campus para realizar trabajos de campo relacionados con diferentes disciplinas, desde la sociología hasta la química, pasando por la biología. Aun mucho después de graduarse, los exalumnos de la universidad recuerdan el campus, los campos y bosques circundantes y el curso serpenteante del río Kokosing, un pintoresco río del estado de Ohio. Como parte integrante de la experiencia en Kenyon, es precisamente este entorno el que atrae el interés de los posibles estudiantes y sus padres, ya que implica mucho más que un conjunto de hermosos bienes naturales: representa el pasado, el presente y el futuro para Kenyon.

En la década de 1820, Chase adquirió originalmente unas 1.600 hectáreas para la universidad y el pueblo de Gambier, además de otras 1.600 hectáreas adicionales, lo que representó una inversión total de US$18.000. No obstante, en los cinco años siguientes a su fundación, Kenyon comenzó a vender las hectáreas en las que había invertido debido a las dificultades económicas que estaba atravesando. Para principios de la década de 1970, los terrenos de la universidad se habían reducido a menos de 300 hectáreas.

Hacia la última década del siglo XX, era evidente que la universidad no podía dar por hecho su encantador entorno natural. En primer lugar, el propietario de un inmueble ubicado sobre el río Kokosing directamente enfrente de la entrada a Kenyon anunció sus planes para establecer un parque para vehículos recreativos. La universidad compró la propiedad por una prima significativa y, posteriormente, compró unas 90 hectáreas adicionales con el fin de detener las propuestas de desarrollar un distrito de negocios a lo largo de la autopista estatal que conduce a Gambier. Al mismo tiempo, el crecimiento y el desarrollo estaban modificando el paisaje en amplios sectores de la zona rural del condado de Knox. A medida que aumentaba la cantidad de subastas de granjas, ventas de terrenos, subdivisiones realizadas de manera atropellada y desarrollos comerciales, quedó claro que debían tomarse medidas al respecto.

La Philander Chase Corporation al rescate

En 1995, la universidad se encontraba en la primera etapa de una campaña de 5 años para recaudar fondos que comprendía una meta de 1 millón de dólares para la “adquisición de terrenos con el fin de preservar el entorno que [la universidad] tanto aprecia”. La primera donación para la preservación provino de un exalumno que, en 1997, visitó el predio un soleado fin de semana de primavera. Después de caminar hasta la cumbre de una colina que daba al valle del río Kokosing para ver el entorno que Kenyon deseaba proteger, este exalumno transfirió 1 millón de dólares a la universidad. Hacia fines de la campaña, en el año 2000, la universidad había recaudado más de 3 millones de dólares, es decir, había triplicado la meta establecida para preservar el espacio abierto.

Esta campaña demostró que los exalumnos y otros donantes consideraban el tema de la conservación del suelo muy importante en sus listas de donaciones benéficas y que la protección de los terrenos alrededor de la universidad continuaría atrayendo la lealtad y las donaciones de los exalumnos de Kenyon. Al mismo tiempo, los programas estatales y federales estaban comenzando a brindar un financiamiento significativo para la conservación del suelo. Debido a que la universidad no reunía los requisitos para recibir dicha asistencia, resultó crucial establecer una entidad especial.

Recuadro 1: Catalizadores de la conservación

La historia de la Universidad de Kenyon en cuanto a la protección de las granjas y campos circundantes al campus universitario representa un caso ejemplar de una institución académica que cataliza medidas de conservación de paisajes a gran escala. Como tal, esta historia es sólo una entre más de una docena de casos compilados por el Instituto Lincoln en un libro que se publicará próximamente, “Catalizadores de la Conservación”, editado por James Levitt, fellow del Instituto Lincoln. Levitt comenta que “este libro nos dará una idea de las prácticas llevadas a cabo por universidades, facultades y organizaciones de investigación independientes en todo el mundo, que van más allá de su misión de enseñanza e investigación para aplicar su reconocida experiencia en la conservación del suelo, que, en muchos casos, se realiza literalmente ‘in situ’”.

Lo que resulta extraordinario en estos casos no es sólo su impacto sino también la amplitud el alcance de la diversidad organizacional y geográfica que representan. Las organizaciones académicas y de investigación están catalizando estas iniciativas mucho más allá de la base de operaciones de Kenyon en Gambier, Ohio, hacia lugares tan remotos como Australia, las islas caribeñas de Trinidad y Tobago y el bosque boreal canadiense. Las iniciativas, por lo general, abarcan una amplia gama de intereses que representan a los sectores público, privado, sin fines de lucro, y académico y de investigación, e involucran una gran variedad de disciplinas de las ciencias naturales, las ciencias sociales, los estudios profesionales y las humanidades. El estudio y la divulgación de las buenas prácticas en cuanto a la conservación del suelo a gran escala son el tema central de dos proyectos actuales del Instituto Lincoln y sus contrapartes en la iniciativa conjunta formada a tal fin con la Red Profesional para la Conservación de Paisajes a Gran Escala (www.largelandscapenetwork.org) y la Red de Catalizadores de Conservación (www.conservationcatalysts.net).

En el año 2000, la universidad creó la Philander Chase Corporation (PCC), una entidad sin fines de lucro independiente, con una misión simple: “Preservar y mantener los terrenos agrícolas, los espacios abiertos, los lugares pintorescos y los paisajes característicos que rodean a Universidad de Kenyon y a Gambier, en Ohio”. La estructura de organización de la PCC, consistente en un directorio formado por 15 miembros, es única entre los fideicomisos de suelo. La PCC es una organización de categoría 501(c)3 y Kenyon College es el único miembro, según las disposiciones establecidas en la ley de entidades sin fines de lucro de Ohio. Aunque la organización es una entidad que funciona por separado a instancias de su directorio, Kenyon College es la organización de control y ratifica la elección de los directores de la PCC. Tanto el presidente de Kenyon como el presidente del directorio de la PCC son, ex officio, miembros respectivos del directorio de la otra organización.

Uno de los objetivos de la PCC consiste además en evitar que los futuros directorios vendan hectáreas y en mejorar las relaciones entre la universidad y la ciudad. Aunque las interacciones entre Kenyon y la comunidad en la que está emplazada no presentaban mayores problemas, existía cierto grado de fricción, ya que, aun cuando la PCC funcionaba bajo los auspicios de la universidad, los residentes de la ciudad en general percibían a la PCC como una entidad por separado que comenzaba desde cero.

Asistencia de los socios locales

Tal como se sugirió anteriormente, la PCC tuvo la suerte de recibir el financiamiento en un momento especialmente oportuno, ya que sus intereses coincidían y se superponían con iniciativas similares que se estaban gestando en el estado de Ohio y en el condado de Knox, lo que brindó el marco y las estrategias que, posteriormente, ayudarían a la PCC a llevar a cabo sus tareas.

En 1996, el gobernador de ese entonces, George Voinovich, estableció una comisión bipartidaria denominada Unidad Especial para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas de Ohio, formada por representantes del gobierno, del sector empresarial, del sector académico y del sector agrícola. En junio de 1997, esta unidad especial informó que, en los 45 años anteriores, se habían perdido más de 2,8 millones de hectáreas (el 33 por ciento de los terrenos agrícolas de Ohio) para su utilización en actividades no relacionadas con la agricultura. Dos recomendaciones específicas prepararon el camino hacia medidas de conservación más amplias: la creación de la Oficina para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas, perteneciente al Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, y una declaración de principios en la que se establecía el compromiso del estado de proteger sus terrenos agrícolas productivos de una recalificación para usos no agrícolas que sería irreversible.

El estado anunció, además, la creación de un programa de Subsidio en Bloque para el Desarrollo Comunitario de 10.000 dólares con el fin de apoyar los planes municipales de “preservación de terrenos agrícolas”, lo que desembocó en la creación de la Unidad Especial para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas del Condado de Knox en el año 1988. Me desempeñé en la unidad especial de este condado, donde me encomendaron “evaluar el estado de la producción agrícola en el condado, analizar alternativas para el desarrollo sin planificación y presentar recomendaciones para la preservación de los terrenos agrícolas del condado de Knox”.

En el año 2000, el electorado estatal aprobó la creación del Fondo Limpio de Ohio, un programa de bonos de 400 millones de dólares destinado a preservar las áreas naturales y los terrenos agrícolas, proteger los arroyos, generar oportunidades de recreación al aire libre y revitalizar áreas urbanas mediante la recuperación de terrenos contaminados abandonados para un uso productivo. Este fondo (que el electorado renovó en el año 2008) dedicó 25 millones de dólares al Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio, administrado por el Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, para ser utilizados durante un período de cuatro años.

Otro desarrollo clave a nivel del condado que se dio en esos momentos fue la creación del Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek, un fideicomiso de suelo privado sin fines de lucro que trabaja junto con los propietarios para conservar los terrenos agrícolas, los corredores fluviales, las áreas protegidas de acuíferos y cuencas, los hábitats de vida silvestre, los bosques y otras áreas particularmente sensibles desde el punto de vista ecológico de la región central de Ohio, entre la que se cuenta el condado de Knox.

Desde sus inicios, la PCC determinó que, para lograr el éxito, sería fundamental crear buenas asociaciones de trabajo, por lo que entabló relaciones con los encargados de elaborar políticas a nivel del pueblo, la ciudad, el condado y el estado. Desde los Comisionados del Condado de Knox hasta el Distrito de Conservación del Suelo y el Agua, pasando por la Comisión de Planificación Regional, la PCC estableció y ha mantenido relaciones productivas. También resultó de vital importancia que, en mi carácter de director gerente de la PCC, fuera también un participante activo en varias de estas organizaciones.

Estrategias de preservación de la PCC

En medio de este entorno dinámico, la PCC comenzó a funcionar. Antes de la creación de la PCC existían varios informes y numerosas recomendaciones a nivel municipal, pero la PCC actuó como uno de los primeros catalizadores para tomar medidas en todo el condado. Al estar en consonancia con la filosofía de la PPC de ayudar a los demás, el Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio recientemente establecido brindó la oportunidad perfecta para que la PCC se relacionara con la comunidad agrícola local con el fin de ayudarlos a proteger sus tierras de los proyectos de desarrollo perjudiciales.

Según el Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio, los propietarios de terrenos no podían solicitar derechos de servidumbre directamente, sino que un condado, pueblo, municipio o fideicomiso de suelo debía solicitar dichos derechos en nombre de los propietarios. Poco tiempo después de publicarse las pautas en el año 2001, dos agricultores locales solicitaron a la PCC que actuara en calidad de auspiciante local. El estado recompensaba a los solicitantes que con-stituían terrenos más grandes al unir propiedades adyacentes, por lo que los agricultores reclutaron a sus vecinos y se organizaron para asistir a talleres auspiciados por la PCC con la ayuda de la Oficina para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas. Durante el primer año del programa, la PCC ocupó el tercer lugar entre las fuentes más grandes de solicitudes en todo el estado. Sólo se financiaron 24 solicitudes, y la PCC recibió uno de los derechos de servidumbre tan codiciados.

Al año siguiente, la PCC se las ingenió para ayudar a aumentar los puntajes de los agricultores en la parte expositiva de las solicitudes. Los solicitantes auspiciados por la PCC obtenían puntajes altos en las preguntas objetivas, pero la mayoría obtenía puntajes más bajos que otros solicitantes del estado en las cinco exposiciones. Por lo tanto, le pedí al presidente del departamento de Lengua inglesa de Kenyon (reconocido como uno de los mejores del país) que reclutara a unos 20 estudiantes para que ayudaran a los agricultores a escribir sus exposiciones. Los estudiantes se reunieron con los agricultores en sus hogares, los entrevistaron y los ayudaron a elaborar exposiciones persuasivas. Este trabajo conjunto tuvo un éxito rotundo. Los agricultores disfrutaron de poder conocer a los estudiantes de Kenyon, a los estudiantes les encantó visitar las granjas y conversar con los agricultores y, en los años siguientes, las solicitudes de los agricultores obtuvieron los puntajes más altos en las exposiciones.

Las propiedades bajo protección permanente cercanas a la granja de un solicitante obtenían puntos adicionales, por lo que la PCC obtuvo de la universidad un derecho de servidumbre de conservación en el Centro Medioambiental de la Familia Brown, de 153 hectáreas. En forma similar, la PCC pidió al Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek que solicitara un financiamiento a los Fondos Limpios de Ohio con el fin de adquirir un derecho de servidumbre sobre terrenos de propiedad de la PCC. El resultado fue positivo para las tres partes involucradas: la PCC obtuvo dinero en efectivo por la venta de los derechos de servidumbre y conservó la propiedad de los terrenos; el Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek recibió el derecho de servidumbre; y los solicitantes de derechos de servidumbre agrícola obtuvieron puntos adicionales.

La PCC impulsó los puntajes de los solicitantes locales aumentando también los aportes que igualaran a la cantidad de subsidios estatales. Ohio financia solamente el 75 por ciento del valor total de los derechos de servidumbre y el 25 por ciento restante debe provenir del propietario o de alguna otra fuente. Si los solicitantes deciden voluntariamente pagar más del 25 por ciento (lo que reduciría la obligación del estado) el estado otorga entonces puntos adicionales a dichos solicitantes. Así, mediante el uso de su propio dinero y persuadiendo a los Comisionados del Condado de Knox de que aportaran unos 300.000 dólares para apoyar el programa, la PCC logró que muchas más solicitudes se tramitaran con éxito.

Con el correr de los años, la PCC también aumentó los puntajes de los solicitantes cuyas propiedades reunían los requisitos para lograr la designación de “Granjas Centenarias” por parte del Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, mediante la cual se honra a las familias que demuestran haber sido propietarias de sus tierras en forma continua por al menos 100 años. Las Granjas Centenarias recibieron puntos adicionales y, gracias al impulso y la guía de la PCC, 5 de las 18 Granjas Centenarias del condado de Knox solicitaron con éxito derechos de servidumbre y lograron conservar sus tierras.

A la vez que ayudaba a los agricultores locales a proteger sus propiedades, la PCC también se dedicó a crear un parque del condado. Con dinero generado por la campaña de recaudación de fondos de la universidad y otras donaciones posteriores se adquirieron tres propiedades por un total de 82 hectáreas, que luego se revendieron, sujetas a las restricciones contenidas en las escrituras respectivas. Una de estas propiedades, la granja Prescott de 68 hectáreas, ubicada entre Gambier y Mount Vernon, resultó ser muy importante para Kenyon, ya que allí se origina el arroyo Wolf Run, que desemboca en el río Kokosing y pasa por el Centro Medio-ambiental de la Familia Brown. Una empresa de Pensilvania dedicada a los desarrollos ya había comprado terrenos justo enfrente de la granja Prescott, en donde tenía la intención de construir 225 viviendas. Antes de que esta empresa desarrolladora pudiera adquirir también la granja, la PCC la compró a 626.000 dólares.

Un año más tarde, la PCC aceptó revender la granja al Distrito del Parque del Condado de Knox con la condición de que dicho distrito obtuviera subsidios estatales para adquirir la propiedad y establecer el primer parque del condado de Knox. Dado que los fondos otorgados por el estado requerían que el distrito también aportara sus propios fondos (una suma de dinero que el distrito no poseía), la PCC ayudó a convencer a la Fundación Comunitaria de Mount Vernon y a los Comisionados del Condado de Knox para que donaran los terrenos de su propiedad que eran adyacentes a la granja, a fin de satisfacer el requisito de fondos aportados por el distrito. El plan funcionó. El distrito del parque obtuvo el financiamiento y adquirió la propiedad de la PCC, el condado de Knox logró crear el nuevo Parque Regional Wolf Run de 116 hectáreas, y la zona de nacimiento del arroyo Wolf Run quedó protegida de los proyectos de desarrollo.

Aunque ciertos casos de éxito ocurrieron sin financiamiento alguno, muchos de los logros fueron el resultado directo de la disponibilidad de dinero. Además de las donaciones de exalumnos y amigos durante dos campañas impulsadas por la universidad, la PCC se aseguró de recibir fondos adicionales provenientes de fuentes estatales, federales y del condado, que superaron los 2,1 millones de dólares. La noción original de que los exalumnos y otros donantes podrían estar interesados en “preservar la naturaleza en la experiencia de Kenyon” demostró una vez más ser correcto.

Universidades y facultades como catalizadores de la conservación

La PCC, tal como se ha desarrollado, es un modelo que presenta la estructura legal y las herramientas necesarias para actuar como un catalizador efectivo de medidas de conservación. Para el año 2013, la PCC había comprado un total de 93 hectáreas que administra y alquila a los agricultores; había facilitado la creación de 35 derechos de servidumbre que abarcan 1.700 hectáreas; y, junto con el Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek, había protegido un total de 2.730 hectáreas en el condado de Knox. Del total de 137.190 hectáreas del condado, la cantidad restante de 66.640 hectáreas sin proteger supone una enorme oportunidad para la comunidad conservacionista del suelo local.

Aunque se están llevando a cabo medidas conservacionistas de grandes proporciones tanto a nivel nacional como internacional, las actividades de conservación locales cumplen una función invaluable y tienen mucho que aportar a las actividades a mayor escala. Según el Censo de la Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelo de 2010, los 1.723 fideicomisos de suelo activos que funcionan en los Estados Unidos han logrado conservar, en conjunto, un total de 19 millones de hectáreas. Existen 7.500 instituciones educativas terciarias en los Estados Unidos. Si solamente el 10 por ciento de dichas instituciones se involucrara en la conservación del suelo utilizando un modelo similar al de la PCC, esto representaría un gran paso adelante del movimiento conservacionista.

Cada institución que adoptara el modelo de la PCC tendría su propio entorno de características únicas. No obstante, el modelo puede aplicarse en forma amplia, ya que cada elemento que formó parte de la creación de la PCC es absolutamente replicable en cualquier institución educativa del país.

La Philander Chase Corporation comenzó a funcionar en un tiempo en que existía una creciente preocupación en torno a la erosión del paisaje rural que se fue dando con cada operación realizada. El objetivo era local, ya que estaba relacionado con Kenyon College y sus alrededores. Sin embargo, la experiencia y los objetivos de la PCC pronto fueron compartidos por agencias aliadas y con intereses coincidentes del condado de Knox y otros lugares, lo que posibilitó la existencia de oportunidades de mayor envergadura. Esta experiencia demuestra que lo que ocurrió aquí puede darse en cualquier otro lugar.

Sobre el autor

Doug Givens fue el director gerente fundador de la Philander Chase Corporation. Givens también se desempeñó como presidente del Comité de Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas, perteneciente a la Comisión de Planificación Regional del Condado de Knox, y fue miembro de la Junta Asesora para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas de Ohio. Además, Givens fue fideicomisario fundador del Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek y presidente del Fondo Brown. Actualmente, Givens se desempeña como vicepresidente, director y miembro del comité ejecutivo de Scranton-Averell Company (un holding de bienes raíces), como director de Bradford & Carter Company (una empresa dedicada al desarrollo inmobiliario) y como director de la Fundación George B. Storer. Trabajó en la oficina de desarrollo de Kenyon College durante 28 años y se jubiló en calidad de vicepresidente en el año 2000. Givens obtuvo su título de grado y su maestría por la Universidad de Indiana, y se doctoró en Derecho por el Kenyon College. 

Recursos

A Place with a View for the Future. www.kenyon.edu/x44947.xml.

Knox County, Ohio. 1998. Knox County Comprehensive Plan: Focus 2100 Advanced.

———. 1999. Knox County Farmland Preservation Taskforce Report.

———. 2003. Cost of Community Services Study.

Land Lords. https://orgsync.com/35905/chapter.

Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. 1997. Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force Findings and Recommendation: Report to Governor George V. Voinovich. Ohio Issue 1. Environmental Bond Act. 2000.

Owl Creek Conservancy. www.owlcreekconservancy.org.

Philander Chase Corporation. www.kenyon.edu/philanderchase.xml.

Philander Chase Corporation Articles of Incorporation. www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=200013300715.

Rural Life Center, Kenyon College. http://rurallife.kenyon.edu.

It is no accident that Kenyon College, in Gambier, Ohio, appears on so many lists of America’s most beautiful campuses. Since Bishop Philander Chase founded the college on a wooded hilltop in 1824, he envisioned a serene rural environment that would promote serious thought and good conduct. For 189 years, the college and those who have found their way to it have valued this setting. Timeless rhythms in the landscape afford views that please the eye and nourish the spirit in every season, and students and faculty members use the rural acres adjacent to the campus for fieldwork in a variety of disciplines ranging from sociology to biology and chemistry. Long after graduation, alumni remember the campus, the surrounding fields and forests, and the twists and turns of the Kokosing State Scenic River. Integral to the Kenyon experience, it is this environment that captures the interest of prospective students and their parents. More than beautiful natural assets, they represent the past, present, and future for Kenyon.

In the 1820s, Chase originally purchased 4,000 acres for the college and the village of Gambier plus an additional 4,000 acres as an investment for a total of $18,000. Within five years of its founding, however, Kenyon began selling the investment acreage in response to financial difficulties. By the early 1970s, the college’s land holdings had dwindled to fewer than 750 acres.

By the final decade of the 20th century, it was clear that the college could not take its charmed setting for granted. First, the owner of a property on the Kokosing River and directly across from the entrance to Kenyon announced plans to establish a recreational-vehicle park. The college purchased the property for a substantial premium and soon thereafter bought an additional 225 acres in order to quash proposals for a business district along the state highway that leads to Gambier. Concurrently, growth and development were changing the landscape in broad swaths of Knox County’s rural countryside. As farm auctions, land sales, pell-mell subdivisions, and commercial developments accelerated, it became clear that action was required.

Philander Chase Corporation to the Rescue

In 1995, the college was in the early stage of a five-year capital campaign that included a $1 million goal for “land acquisition to preserve the surroundings [the college] so cherishes.” The first preservation gift came from an alumnus visiting one sunny spring weekend in 1997. After walking to a hilltop overlooking the Kokosing River valley, to see what Kenyon needed to protect, he wired $1 million to the college. By the end of the campaign, in 2000, the college had raised more than $3 million—three times the goal for open space preservation.

The campaign showed that alumni and other donors ranked land conservation high on their charitable giving list, and the protection of land around the college would continue to enlist the loyalty and charity of Kenyon alumni. At the same time, state and federal programs were beginning to provide meaningful funding for land conservation. Because the college was ineligible to receive such assistance, the establishment of a special entity was crucial.

In 2000, the school formed the Philander Chase Corporation (PCC) as a separately incorporated nonprofit entity with a simple mission: “To preserve and maintain the farmland, open spaces, scenic views, and characteristic landscapes surrounding Kenyon College and Gambier, Ohio.” With its own 15-member board of directors, PCC’s organizational structure is unique among land trusts. It is a membership 501(c)3 organization, and Kenyon College is the sole member under provisions of Ohio nonprofit law. Even though the corporation is a separate entity operating under the direction of its board, Kenyon College is the controlling organization and ratifies the election of the corporation’s directors. The president of Kenyon and chair of PCC are ex officio members of one another’s boards.

PCC also serves to prevent future boards from selling off acreage and to improve town-gown relations. While interactions between Kenyon and the surrounding community were not a major problem, there was some friction; although PCC functioned under the college’s auspices, local residents generally perceived it as a separate entity with a clean slate.

Aid from Local Partners

As suggested above, PCC was lucky to have been founded at an especially opportune time, when its concerns coincided and overlapped with similar initiatives taking shape in the state of Ohio and in Knox County, providing the framework and strategies that would later help PCC carry out its work.

In 1996, then-Governor George Voinovich commissioned a bi-partisan Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force consisting of representatives from government, business, academia, and agricultural interests. In June 1997, the task force reported that in the previous 45 years, more than seven million acres (33 percent of Ohio farmland) had been lost to nonagricultural uses. Two specific recommendations set the stage for broader conservation efforts: the creation of an Office of Farmland Preservation within the Ohio Department of Agriculture and a policy statement declaring the state’s commitment to protect its productive agricultural land from irretrievable conversion to nonagricultural uses.

The state also announced a $10,000 Community Development Block Grant program to support local “farmland preservation” plans, which led to the formation of the Knox County Farmland Preservation Task Force in 1998. I served on the local task force, charged with “evaluating the state of agricultural production in the county, exploring alternatives to unplanned development, and making recommendations for the preservation of the farmlands in Knox County.”

In 2000, state voters approved The Clean Ohio Fund, a $400 million bond program to preserve natural areas and farmland, protect streams, create outdoor recreational opportunities, and revitalize urban areas by returning contaminated brownfields to productive use. The fund (renewed by voters in 2008) dedicated $25 million, to be spent over a four-year period, to the Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program administered through the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

Another key county-level development at that time was the establishment of the Owl Creek Conservancy. A nonprofit private land trust, the conservancy works with landowners to conserve farmlands, stream corridors, aquifer- and watershed-protection areas, wildlife habitats, woodlands, and other ecologically sensitive areas of central Ohio including Knox County.

From the beginning, PCC determined that good working partnerships would be essential for success, and so it forged ties with policy makers at the village, township, county, and state levels. From the Knox County Commissioners to the Regional Planning Commission to the Soil and Water Conservation District, PCC established and continued to nurture productive relationships. It was also critical that, as the managing director of PCC, I was an active participant in many of these organizations.

Box 1: Conservation Catalysts

The story of Kenyon College’s protection of the farms and fields near its campus is an exemplary case of an academic institution catalyzing large landscape conservation. As such, it is one of more than a dozen narratives being compiled by the Lincoln Institute in a forthcoming book, Conservation Catalysts, edited by Lincoln Institute fellow James Levitt. He reports that “the volume will give us a picture of the practice of universities, colleges, and independent research organizations around the globe that are going beyond their research and teaching missions and applying land conservation expertise, in many cases quite literally, ‘on the ground.’”

What is remarkable about these cases is not only their impact, but also the span of organizational and geographic diversity they represent. Academic and research organizations are catalyzing these initiatives well beyond Kenyon’s base in Gambier, Ohio, to places as widespread as Australia, the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Canadian boreal forest. The initiatives often encompass a broad range of interests representing the public, private, nonprofit, and academic/research sectors and involve a wide variety of disciplines in the natural sciences, social sciences, professional studies, and the humanities. The study and sharing of best practices in large landscape conservation is the focus of two ongoing efforts of the Lincoln Institute and its joint venture partners, the Practitioner’s Network for Large Landscape Conservation (www.largelandscapenetwork.org) and the Conservation Catalysts Network (www.conservationcatalysts.net).

PCC’s Preservation Strategies

Amid this dynamic environment, PCC began its operations. Before its establishment, there were reports and numerous recommendations at the local level, but PCC was an early catalyst for countywide action. In keeping with PCC’s philosophy of helping others, the newly established Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program provided the local farming community to help them protect their land from adverse development.

Under the Ohio Agriculture Easement Purchase Program, landowners could not directly apply for easements; a county, township, municipality, or land trust had to apply on their behalf. Shortly after the guidelines were published in 2001, two local farmers asked PCC to act as their local sponsor. The state rewarded applicants who formed larger blocks with nearby properties, so the farmers recruited their neighbors and rallied many of them to attend workshops hosted by PCC with help from the Office of Farmland Preservation. In the program’s first year, PCC was the third largest source of applications statewide. Only 24 applications were funded; PCC received one of the coveted easements.

The following year, PCC ingeniously helped raise local farmers’ scores on the essay portion of the application. PCC’s applicants scored highly on the objective questions, but most scored lower than other applicants statewide on the five essays. So I asked the chair of Kenyon’s English department, renowned as one of the nation’s best, to enlist about 20 students to assist farmers in writing their essays. Students met with the farmers in their homes, interviewed them, and helped them craft compelling essays. The effort was a rousing success. The farmers enjoyed getting to know Kenyon students, the students loved visiting the farms and talking with the farmers, and in following years their applications earned top essay scores.

Permanently protected property in close proximity to an applicant’s farm garnered additional points, so PCC secured a conservation easement from the college on the 380-acre Brown Family Environmental Center. In a similar manner, PCC asked the Owl Creek Conservancy to apply for Clean Ohio Funds to purchase an easement on PCC-owned land. The result was a threefold win: PCC received cash for selling the easement and continued to own the land, the Owl Creek Conservancy held the easement, and agricultural easement applicants received additional points.

PCC boosted local applicants’ scores by increasing its local match of state subsidies as well. Ohio funds only 75 percent of an easement’s total value; the remaining 25 percent must come from the landowner or another source. If applicants volunteer to pay more than 25 percent, lowering the state’s obligation, the state awards “bonus” points to the applicant. By using its own money and persuading the Knox County Commissioners to contribute nearly $300,000 to support the program, PCC ensured more successful applications.

Over the years, PCC also raised the scores of applicants whose property qualified for the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Century Farm designation, honoring families who demonstrated continuous family ownership for at least 100 years. Century Farms received extra points, and, with encouragement and guidance from PCC, five of Knox County’s 18 Century Farms successfully applied for easements and conserved their land.

While helping local farmers protect their properties, PCC helped create a county park at the same time. Using money generated by the college’s fundraising campaign and subsequent gifts, three properties totaling 202 acres were purchased and then resold subject to deed restrictions. One of these properties, the 168-acre Prescott farm between Gambier and Mount Vernon, was especially important to Kenyon as the source of Wolf Run Creek, which flows into the Kokosing River and through the Brown Family Environmental Center. A development company from Pennsylvania had already purchased land across the road from the Prescott farm and planned to build 225 homes there. Before the developer could purchase the farm as well, PCC bought it for $626,000.

A year later, PCC agreed to resell the farm to the Knox County Park District only if the district obtained state subsidies to acquire the property and establish Knox County’s first park. Because state funding required matching grants—money the district did not have—PCC helped persuade the Mount Vernon Community Foundation and the County Commissioners to donate land they owned adjacent to the farm to satisfy the matching fund requirement. The plan worked. The park district got the funding and purchased the property from PCC, Knox County had a new 288-acre Wolf Run Regional Park, and the source of Wolf Run was protected from development.

While some successes happened without funding, many of the accomplishments directly resulted from the availability of money. In addition to donations from alumni and friends during two college campaigns, PCC secured additional funding from state, federal, and county sources in excess of $2.1 million. The original notion that alumni and other donors might be interested in “preserving the nature of the Kenyon experience” proved to be correct again.

Colleges and Universities as Conservation Catalysts

PCC, as it has developed, is a model with the legal structure and tools needed to be an effective conservation catalyst. By 2013, PCC had outright purchased 230 acres that it manages and leases to farmers, facilitated the creation of 35 easements encompassing 4,216 acres, and, with the Owl Creek Conservancy, protected a total of 6,746 acres in Knox County. Of the county’s 339,000 total acres, those remaining 164,666 unprotected acres provide a tremendous opportunity for the local land conservation community.

While large landscape conservation is taking place nationally and internationally, local conservation activities have a valuable role to play and a great deal to contribute to grander-scale activity. According to the Land Trust Alliance 2010 Census, the 1,723 active land trusts operating in the United States had collectively conserved 47 million acres. There are 7,500 post-secondary educational institutions in the United States. If only 10 percent of these institutions engaged in land conservation using a model similar to PCC’s, it could be a major step forward in the conservation movement.

Each institution where the PCC model might be adopted would have its own unique environment. Nevertheless, the model is widely applicable; every element that led to the formation of PCC is eminently replicable at any educational institution in the country.

The Philander Chase Corporation began at a time when there was growing concern about the deal-by-deal erosion of the rural landscape. The goal was local: it related to Kenyon College and its environs. But PCC’s experience and aims were soon shared by overlapping and allied agencies in Knox County and beyond, leading to and suggesting larger possibilities. This experience demonstrates that what happened here can happen elsewhere.

About the Author

Doug Givens was the founding managing director of the Philander Chase Corporation. Givens also served as chair of the Farmland Preservation Committee of the Knox County Regional Planning Commission and member of the State of Ohio Farmland Preservation Advisory Board. He was a founding trustee of the Owl Creek Conservancy and president of the Brown Fund. Mr. Givens is currently the vice president, director, and member of the executive committee of the Scranton-Averell Company (a land holding company); a director of the Bradford & Carter Company (a real estate development company); and a director of the George B. Storer Foundation. For 28 years, he worked in the development office at Kenyon College, retiring from the vice presidency in 2000. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Indiana University and received a doctor of laws degree from Kenyon College. 

Resources

A Place with a View for the Future. www.kenyon.edu/x44947.xml

Knox County, Ohio. 1998. Knox County Comprehensive Plan: Focus 2100 Advanced.

———. 1999. Knox County Farmland Preservation Taskforce Report.

———. 2003. Cost of Community Services Study.

Land Lords. https://orgsync.com/35905/chapter

Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. 1997. Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force Findings and Recommendation: Report to Governor George V. Voinovich. Ohio Issue 1. Environmental Bond Act. 2000.

Owl Creek Conservancy. www.owlcreekconservancy.org

Philander Chase Corporation. www.kenyon.edu/philanderchase.xml

Philander Chase Corporation Articles of Incorporation. www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=200013300715

Rural Life Center, Kenyon College. http://rurallife.kenyon.edu

The foreclosure crisis and its impact on the U.S. economy seem far from abating as mortgage delinquencies and foreclosure filings continue to climb. According to RealtyTrac, a total of 2.8 million properties had foreclosure filings during 2009, or one out of every 45 residences. That foreclosure rate was 21 percent higher than in 2008 and 120 percent higher than in 2007. Maintaining home ownership has proven to be a tenuous, if not impossible, proposition for many homeowners.

Some researchers, policy makers, and advocates are questioning whether conventional, market-oriented home ownership is the best form of housing for low-income households and communities. While others continue to extol the many benefits of home ownership, they question the way it is structured and suggest that alternative models of resale-restricted, owner-occupied housing may help low-income homeowners keep their homes more successfully.

Research on one of these alternative models, the community land trust (CLT), found delinquencies and foreclosures to be far lower among the owners of CLT homes than the owners of unrestricted, market-rate homes during the market downturn of 2007–2009. This article presents these findings and examines aspects of CLTs that may help to explain the sustainability and success of CLT home ownership.

Community Land Trusts

CLTs are nonprofit organizations that utilize public and private funds to provide affordable home ownership opportunities for low-income households (usually those with gross incomes less than 80 percent of the area median income). Traditionally, CLTs purchase and retain title to the land under detached houses, attached townhouses, or multi-unit condominiums. The land is leased to residents who hold a deed to their individual homes. Some CLTs use other legal mechanisms, including deed covenants, second mortgages, or cooperative housing models, to convey ownership and subsidize properties.

CLTs provide homeowners with pre-purchase and post-purchase stewardship services to protect them from high-cost or predatory mortgage lending. CLTs also intervene to cure delinquencies and prevent foreclosures. In exchange, homeowners accept limitations on the resale price and the equity they may remove from their homes. Through this arrangement, households unable to afford market-rate homes are able to realize most of the financial and social benefits of home ownership, while CLTs are able to maintain affordability of their homes for future buyers.

Reevaluating Low-Income and Minority Home Ownership

Cross-sectional investigations have found that home ownership is the most robust explanatory factor of wealth in low-income and minority households. Home equity made up 56 percent of the wealth in households within the bottom quintile on income in 2000 relative to 32 percent for all households (Herbert and Belsky 2008). Before the housing market crisis, home equity accounted for approximately 62 percent of wealth for African-Americans and 51 percent for Hispanics, but only 44 percent for whites (McCarthy, Van Zandt, and Rohe 2001).

The financial benefits of home ownership may only be realized if low-income households are able to enter and sustain it. Longer durations of tenure greatly increase the likelihood of financial returns. When studies have examined home ownership over time, they find that low-income households take longer to enter owner-occupied housing and are more likely to return to renting; indeed, roughly half of low-income households exit home ownership within five years of purchase (e.g., Reid 2005).

Risk factors associated with losing one’s home are more common among low-income and minority homeowners. They are more likely to obtain high-risk loans for purchase and refinance, and they are more vulnerable to trigger events, such as unemployment or health issues, which are associated with higher incidents of delinquencies and foreclosures (Immergluck 2009). Almost half of low-income households are severely cost-burdened by their housing expenses (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2008). Length of tenure, loan terms, affordability, and trigger events may impact sustaining home ownership and affect the likelihood that low-income and minority homeowners will accumulate wealth or debt.

Costs of Foreclosure to Communities

The costs of foreclosure extend well beyond the households that lose their homes, impacting the immediate neighborhood and surrounding municipality. Studies in Columbus (Ohio), Chicago, and New York City have shown that foreclosed properties significantly diminished nearby housing values, and that rates of depreciation were greater for lower-income than higher-income neighborhoods. Depreciation leaves remaining homeowners vulnerable to negative equity, default, and foreclosure. Foreclosures, which are associated with rises in vacant properties and crime, tend to cluster in low-income and minority neighborhoods (Immergluck 2009).

Foreclosures also impose costs on municipalities due to vacant property demolition, administrative fees, and outstanding or declining property taxes. Apgar and Duda (2005) modeled the costs of a foreclosure in Chicago and found that more than a dozen agencies could be involved in over two dozen activities, which were estimated to cost the city up to $34,199 per foreclosure. Moreno (1995) estimated the cost to Minneapolis and St. Paul for the foreclosure of houses with FHA mortgages and found that municipal losses were approximately $27,000 per foreclosure. Higher rates of delinquencies and foreclosure filings during 2009 portend continued losses for households, neighborhoods, and municipalities.

Overview of the CLT Study

In March 2010, the National Community Land Trust Network (the Network) designed and conducted the 2009 CLT Delinquency & Foreclosure Survey (Thaden 2010). All 229 CLTs in the Network’s database were invited to participate in the online survey, and 53 CLTs (23 percent) completed it. Eleven respondents did not have CLT homes with outstanding mortgages at the end of 2009, so they were not included in the final analysis. The remaining 42 CLTs in 22 states had 2,279 resale-restricted, owner-occupied homes in their portfolios, 2,173 of which had outstanding residential mortgages as of December 31, 2009. The median number of mortgaged homes for these CLTs was 30.

The primary purpose of the survey was to examine how many residential mortgages held by CLT homeowners (referred to as CLT loans) had been seriously delinquent, entered the foreclosure process, or completed the foreclosure process in 2009. Survey items were designed for comparison with results from the Network’s 2008 survey, as well as results from the 2008 and 2009 National Delinquency Surveys conducted by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).

The Network’s survey replicated the definitions used by the MBA for loans that were (1) “In the Foreclosure Process,” which includes loans in the process of foreclosure regardless of the date the foreclosure procedure was initiated; and (2) “Seriously Delinquent,” which includes loans that were at least 90 days delinquent or in the process of foreclosure. The secondary purpose of the Network’s survey was to explore the practices and policies of CLTs that may help to explain the primary results.

Delinquencies, Foreclosures, and Cures

When comparing the performance of CLT loans to that of conventional mortgages for market-rate homes, it is important to emphasize that CLT loans are held by low-income households. MBA and Residential Mortgage-Backed Security (RMBS) loan samples are not limited to low-income borrowers. Considering that low-income homeowners in the market are more prone to delinquencies and foreclosures, the differential outcomes reported below may have been even greater if loans held by low-income borrowers could have been isolated for comparison in MBA and RMBS samples.

Serious Delinquencies and Foreclosure Filings in 2009

Figure 1 presents the percentages of CLT loans and MBA prime and subprime loans that were seriously delinquent or in the foreclosure process at the end of the fourth quarter of 2009. Only 0.56 percent of CLT mortgages were being foreclosed (12 out of 2,151 loans; CLT median = 0, range = 0–2), whereas the percentage of MBA loans in the foreclosure process was 3.31 percent for prime loans, 15.58 percent for subprime loans, 3.57 percent for FHA loans, and 2.46 percent for VA loans (MBA 2010). When all types of MBA loans were combined, the overall MBA percentage was 4.58 percent. Overall, MBA loans were 8.2 times more likely to be in the process of foreclosure than CLT mortgages.

On December 31, 2009, 1.62 percent of CLT mortgages were seriously delinquent (34 out of 2,099 loans; CLT median = 0, range = 0–6), while the MBA loan percentage was 7.01 percent for prime loans, 30.56 percent for subprime loans, 9.42 percent for FHA loans, and 5.42 percent for VA loans. A prime loan within the MBA sample was 4.3 times more likely to be seriously delinquent at the end of 2009 than a CLT mortgage.

2008 and 2009 Comparisons

The percentage of CLT mortgages in the foreclosure process at the end of 2008 was 0.52 percent (10 out of 1,930 loans), demonstrating a percentage point change of .04 over one year. For all MBA loans, the percentage in the foreclosure process at the end of 2008 was 3.30 percent, showing a percentage point increase of 1.28 by the end of 2009. The respective percentage point increases were 1.43 for prime loans, 1.87 for subprime loans, 1.14 for FHA loans, and 0.80 for VA loans.

The percentage of CLT mortgages that were seriously delinquent at the end of 2008 was 1.98 percent (36 out of 1,815 loans), demonstrating a percentage point decrease of -0.36 (figure 2). The percentage of MBA prime loans that were seriously delinquent at the end of 2008 was 3.74 percent, a percentage point increase of 3.27. The percentage point increases were 7.45 for subprime loans, 2.44 for FHA loans, and 1.30 for VA loans (MBA 2009).

In sum, the percentage of MBA loans that were in the foreclosure process or seriously delinquent increased from the end of 2008 to the end of 2009, while the percentages for CLT loans remained consistently lower.

The CLT Network’s surveys gathered additional information not collected by the MBA. During 2009, 0.42 percent of CLT loans completed foreclosure (9/2,160) compared to 0.26 percent during 2008 (5/1,928), which illustrates a percentage point change of 0.16. When homeowners are foreclosed upon, CLTs have a vested interest in recovering the property from the lender in order to minimize the loss of the public subsidy and preserve the affordability of the unit. No foreclosed CLT homes were lost from CLT portfolios during 2009.

2009 Cure Rates

The 2009 Network survey also gathered information on the number of serious delinquencies during the year and the total that were resolved. The percentage of CLT loans that had ever been seriously delinquent during 2009 was 2.80 percent (58/2,075). Respondents reported that 29 out of 57 were cured (51 percent).

CLTs have unique contractual rights to implement stewardship activities and intervene with homeowners and lenders in order to make mortgage payments current or preclude foreclosure completion. Respondents were asked to explain how they provided these cures, which included facilitating short-sales, offering financial counseling or referrals to foreclosure prevention programs, providing direct grants or loans to homeowners, arranging sales and purchases of a less expensive unit, and working with homeowners and lenders on permanent loan modifications.

Fitch Ratings, a global rating agency, reports cure rates for RMBS loans. They define cure as the percentage of delinquent loans returning to a current payment each month. The percentage of RMBS delinquent loans in August 2009 that had been cured was 6.6 percent for prime loans and 5.3 percent for subprime loans. Since CLTs define cures as resolving impractical financial situations for their homeowners, rather than solely as making mortgage payments current, RMBS and CLT rates are not comparable. However, these findings indicate that CLTs more often terminate serious delinquencies through a broader range of activities.

Stewardship Activities of CLTs

Intrinsic to the CLT model is a commitment to stewardship, which aims to promote positive outcomes and sustainable home ownership for residents long after they have purchased a CLT home. While stewardship is a core component of every CLT’s programming, its implementation can vary greatly. Therefore, the survey collected data on the prevalence and variety of stewardship activities in an effort to explain the low rates of delinquency and foreclosure among CLT homeowners.

The greater affordability and lower loan-to-value ratio found in CLT homes may explain part of the difference between CLT and MBA loans. However, stewardship is almost certainly a contributing factor. Without the protective shield of the CLT, low-income CLT homeowners would be prey to the same economic pressures and circumstantial factors that threaten home ownership sustainability among their market-rate counterparts. Survey results indicate that CLTs are implementing stewardship policies and practices in the following five areas, which may help to explain why CLT loans have outperformed the market.

Pre-Purchase Education

Homebuyer education enables sound mortgage decisions and prepares individuals for the responsibilities of home ownership. Because owning a CLT home entails unique contractual rights, responsibilities, and resale restrictions, supplemental education is offered frequently. The study found that 85 percent of CLTs required general homebuyer education and 95 percent required CLT-specific education prior to purchase.

Pre- and Post-Purchase Stewardship

Pre-purchase stewardship also included referrals to CLT-trained lawyers and lenders, an activity reported by 83 percent of the respondents. A one-on-one meeting of prospective homebuyers with a financial counselor was required by 71 percent of CLTs. Approximately 50 percent of all CLTs offered such post-purchase stewardship services as ongoing financial literacy training; staff outreach to homeowners; formal communications to remind them of policies; referrals for contractors or repairs; and mandatory meetings with defaulting homeowners.

Prevention of High-Risk Loans

Research finds that subprime and predatory lending have occurred more often during acquisition of refinance and home equity loans than during purchase (Immergluck 2009). Eighty-three percent of CLTs required their homeowners to seek the CLT’s permission to refinance or take out home equity loans, thus ensuring that the loan terms will not compromise affordability or home ownership sustainability and that homeowners comprehend the loan’s impact on their equity.

Detection of Delinquencies

CLTs also adopted policies and practices to monitor and detect homeowners who may be headed toward serious delinquency. Most CLTs charge a monthly ground lease fee (typically $10–50) to offset their costs. According to 90 percent of respondents, late payment of these fees was used as an indicator that a homeowner may be late paying their mortgage. Further, 69 percent of CLTs reported that they detected delinquencies through informal interactions with homeowners, and 55 percent of CLTs reported that 80–100 percent of seriously delinquent homeowners contacted the CLT on their own volition. Close to 50 percent of CLTs reported that lenders were legally obligated to notify the CLT of delinquencies or foreclosure proceedings.

Intervention with Delinquent Homeowners

CLTs reported an array of interventions with homeowners at risk of foreclosure. Two activities that are instrumental components of federally sanctioned foreclosure prevention programs were also implemented by CLTs: 71 percent contacted lenders as soon as they became aware of delinquencies; and 57 percent provided homeowners with direct financial counseling. Over half of CLTs reported other activities that enable residents to keep their homes, such as providing rescue funds for outstanding mortgage payments. For homeowners unable to keep their homes, 49 percent of CLTs reported activities to prevent completed foreclosures, such as facilitating sales to low-income buyers or directly purchasing the homes.

Discussion and Conclusions

The prevalence of stewardship activities among the nation’s CLTs may help to explain why CLT loans are outperforming most market-rate loans in terms of delinquencies and foreclosures. It may also explain the high cure rates among CLT mortgages that become seriously delinquent, as CLTs intervene to arrest the slide toward foreclosure. In this respect, CLT home ownership appears more sustainable than private market options for low-income homeowners, suggesting that CLTs may provide a less speculative and more reliable avenue to wealth accumulation for low-income and minority homeowners.

Low-income households can only enjoy the economic benefits of home ownership if they are able to remain homeowners for a number of years. If they lose their homes to foreclosure—or simply return to renting after discovering that the costs and burdens of home ownership are too difficult—low-income households cannot build wealth. The findings of the Network’s survey make clear, however, that few CLT homeowners are losing their homes to foreclosure. Moreover, other research on CLT homeowners has found that they far exceed the 50 percent home ownership retention rate reported among conventional market, low-income homeowners. Preliminary results from a study by The Urban Institute, which includes three CLTs, found that over 91 percent of low-income households remained homeowners five years after buying a CLT home. They either continued to occupy their CLT home or resold it to purchase a market-rate home (Temkin, Theodos, and Price, forthcoming).

CLT home ownership not only lessens foreclosures and increases the chances of success among the population most at-risk of losing their homes, but it also indirectly prevents costs of foreclosure for neighbors, municipalities, and lenders. Such exemplary performance implies that greater investment in this model, including its stewardship activities, is both warranted and overdue.

Only one-third of CLTs reported receiving any funding for foreclosure prevention activities during 2009, while many reported increasing stewardship activities to buffer homeowners from the economic downturn and foreclosure crisis. The study also found that only one-third of CLTs received funding to create new CLT units from foreclosed and vacant housing stocks during 2009. Hence, CLTs are not adequately resourced to create home ownership opportunities from the crisis, which could help to preclude negative outcomes associated with unsustainable home ownership in the future.

Jacobus and Abromowitz (2010) call for a reevaluation of the ways that the federal government encourages home ownership. They recommend targeting existing resources to purchase-subsidy programs like CLTs in order to more efficiently use public dollars and expand and maintain home ownership opportunities. This study provides further support for that policy recommendation.

About the Authors

Emily Thaden, M.S., is a doctoral candidate in the Community Research and Action Program at Vanderbilt University and is employed as the Shared Equity Development Specialist at The Housing Fund in Nashville, Tennessee.

Greg Rosenberg, J.D., is director of the CLT Academy of the National Community Land Trust Network and the former executive director of the Madison Area Community Land Trust. He was a contributing author to The Community Land Trust Reader (Lincoln Institute, 2010), and is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School.

References

Apgar, W. C., and M. Duda. 2005. Collateral damage: The municipal impact of today’s mortgage foreclosure boom. Minneapolis, MN: Homeownership Preservation Foundation.

Herbert, C.E., and E.S. Belsky. 2008. The homeownership experience of low-income and minority households: A review and synthesis of the literature. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 10(2): 5–60.

Immergluck, D. 2009. Foreclosed: High-risk lending, deregulation, and the undermining of America’s mortgage market. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jacobus, R., and D.M. Abromowitz. 2010. A path to homeownership: Building a more sustainable strategy for expanding homeownership. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress (February).

Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2008. State of the nation’s housing 2008. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies.

McCarthy, G.W., S. Van Zandt, and W.M. Rohe. 2001. The economic benefits and costs of homeownership: A critical assessment of the literature (Working Paper No. 01-02). Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.

Moreno, A. 1995. The cost-effectiveness of mortgage foreclosure prevention. Minneapolis, MN: Family Housing Fund.

Mortgage Bankers Association. 2009. Delinquencies continue to climb in latest MBA National Delinquency Survey. Washington, DC (March 5).

–––—. 2010. Delinquencies, foreclosure starts fall in latest MBA National Delinquency Survey. Washington, DC (February 19).

Reid, C.K. 2005. Achieving the American dream? A longitudinal analysis of the homeownership experiences of low-income households (CSD Working Paper 05-20). St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center for Social Development.

Temkin, K., B. Theodos, and D. Price. Forthcoming. Balancing affordability and opportunity: An evaluation of affordable homeownership programs with long-term affordability controls. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Thaden, E. 2010. Outperforming the market: Making sense of the low rates of delinquencies and foreclosures in community land trusts. Portland, OR: National Community Land Trust Network. (This report is also available as a working paper on the Lincoln Institute Web site.)