CC image from harrypope

Following up on the previous post on the limits and potential benefits of Fundrise:

First, from Payton Chung, an excellent breakdown of the limits and potential benefits of the crowdfunding platform. Payton identifies three general benefits to a Fundrise-like system: ‘slower’ and cheaper money; participation and trust of the investors; and as an opening for even better investment vehicles.

The idea of ‘slower’ money refers to the more patient investment from Class C shareholders who cannot realistically expect a quick flip or immediate return. Such patient capital is particularly useful when navigating projects that do not follow the path of least regulatory resistance – as Payton notes, slower money “eases longer-term thinking about the investment.”

Participation and trust speak to the idea of channeling broad-but-shallow support for development from a mostly silent pool of the community (potentially representing a silent majority). Payton notes that some local control helps gain support, but that support is not limitless. I would liken it to the disparate treatment of chain stores and restaurants compared to locally owned ones. The local retailers might gain more support than a chain, but that support is far from universal or far from guaranteed.

Transitioning to better investment vehicles requires more than just what Fundrise is offering – not just for development, but for long–term ownership and stewardship. Payton cites co-ops as an example:

Fundrise is certainly a great idea, but the lack of community control limits its ability to establish trust in the community development enterprise. Yet it’s an important part of a broader conversation that’s just beginning around using crowdfunding innovations to improve communities. We can try many other tools — some new, some tried-and-true — to give communities greater control and input over their character and future. Cooperative businesses, like the one I founded, are growing all across America, and they play a key role in affordably housing thousands of Washingtonians (including myself).

Second, the idea of an increasing role for cooperatives is linked to the second article: an update on the status of DC’s mandatory inclusionary zoning statute from Aaron Wiener at the City Paper.

The code requires the provision of subsidized housing units for all developments above a certain size. However, in for-sale properties, the requirement to preserve long-term affordability in the units requires some sort of deed restriction to prevent the later sale of a unit at market rates. This both limits the long-term appreciation of the property, but also makes traditional mortgage-based finance difficult. Such a program for preserving long-term affordability might be at odds with the traditional model of housing finance and home ownership. Wiener writes:

The central difficulty in selling the units has been that lenders were unwilling to provide loans for IZ units because those units would remain affordable in the event of foreclosure, limiting the bank’s ability to recoup its money. But recently, the rules changed to allow the units to return to market prices.

Purchasers of affordable units have issues with the system, as well. Cooperative ownership (both market-rate and limited equity) might present a better way to manage permanently affordable units.