Why CBC Needs a Co-op Revolution

By Ludovic Viger

December 3, 2025

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

“CBC Centre” by fw_gadget, CC BY-SA 2.0

Let’s be honest: CBC’s current model is a relic. Seventy percent government-funded, it’s a political football—kicked between Liberal lifelines and Conservative defunding threats. The 2025 budget debates, projected from the national anxiety over global trade and tariff threats, show the perennial problem: funding discussions are about Ottawa’s political priorities, not the needs of the network or the public. Cuts persist, and trust erodes.

Why? Because forcing a one-size-fits-all narrative—whether it’s the government’s spin or the opposition’s axe—alienates the very people it serves. Activism might scream “defund now!” or “fund forever!” but it’s a shouting match that stalls progress. As I’ve long argued, shoving ideology down throats breeds resistance, not solutions.

Contrast that with advocacy’s power. It’s passionate but open, building bridges through dialogue and adaptation. Cooperatives embody this—think worker-owned cafes weathering trade wars or housing co-ops rebuilding after wildfires. CBC could be the same: a multi-stakeholder co-op where journalists, regional producers, and users co-own the mission. No guilt trips, no ultimatums—just a shared stake in Canada’s story.

The stubborn Canada Post strike, which has been dragging into its third week as of October, hints at the hunger for this: workers want ownership and security, not just wage handouts. Why not CBC too?

The co-op model fits like a glove. The International Cooperative Alliance’s principles—democratic member control, member education, concern for community—mirror what CBC could be: a network owned by those who create and consume it.

• Tariffs threatening ad revenue? A co-op diversifies with user subs.
• Job cuts looming? Worker-owners vote to reinvest profits.
• Regional voices fading? Producers from Halifax to Whitehorse get equity stakes.

It’s not about dismantling CBC—it’s about retooling it for resilience, relevance, and trust. Let’s see how this might look by 2030.

A Day in the Life of CBC Coop: The 2030 Vision

Fast-forward to that snowy 2030 morning. The Commons buzzes with purpose. Here’s how CBC Coop works, blending three stakeholder pillars into a cohesive whole:

Workers as Storytellers (40% Voting Power)

Journalists, producers, and tech crews—anyone on payroll—earn equity shares vesting over three years. No more top-down edicts from faceless execs. Editorial boards rotate annually, elected by guild votes. In Regina, the ag team scraps a fluffy urban sprawl piece because it ignores Prairie water wars—a decision rooted in local expertise, not Ottawa’s agenda.

Pay? Transparent tiers averaging $85K, up 20% from 2025 lows, with profit pools split by output and mentorship. It’s Defector Media’s scrappy success—worker-driven, ad-light, thriving on subs—scaled nationally. When the 2028 recession hit, there were no mass layoffs; co-ops weather downturns 30% better (per ILO stats), thanks to shared risk. They simply voted to reduce pay-outs and maintain jobs.

Producers/Regional Hubs as Equals (30% Power)

Coast-to-coast “nodes” own their beats. Vancouver beams Pacific salmon scoops, Iqaluit covers Inuit land claims, Toronto dives into urban pulse—all syndicated via a central HQ in Ottawa that handles shared costs (tech, archives) like a federated co-op.

It’s producer co-op vibes: Each hub elects a rep to the assembly, pooling resources à la Desjardins credit unions. Halifax leads on Atlantic fisheries, splitting 70/30 revenue with Central. No more “fly-in, file-out” hacks; locals own the narrative, cutting carbon footprints and boosting trust—viewer retention leaps 35%. When tariffs tanked Maritimes exports in ’26, Halifax’s crew pivoted to trade impact documentaries, winning Geminis and policy nods.

Users/Communities as Guardians (30% Power)

You, the listener, hold the reins. Subscribe for $10/month—ad-free access, early podcasts, voting rights on big calls like ad policies or emergency coverage (e.g., wildfire alerts during BC’s ’28 blazes). Community reps from co-ops—farmers, First Nations, SMBs—join via lotteries, ensuring no echo chamber.

Funding blends 60% subscriptions (2 million members by 2029), 25% ethical sponsors (green energy co-ops, not Big Oil), and 15% from a statutory heritage grant, secured post-2027 as a public good, not a political pawn. It’s taz-style reader ownership: When users voted emergency funds for trade docs in ’26, it sparked a national conversation—and revenue.

The Payoff

By 2030, CBC Coop’s $125 million deficit? History. Revenues climb 25% via niche pods (“Tariff Talks” with Carney alums) and co-branded events (live debates at food co-ops). Job security? Solid—600+ rehired since ’27. Independence? Ironclad—critics can’t slap “state media” labels when users and workers own the mic. Culturally, it’s a revelation: Aisha’s salmon series morphs into a food sovereignty push, linking Haida kelp to Nunavut caribou.

The guiding principle is no longer “Ottawa knows best”; it’s “We all know best.”

From Fantasy to Reality: The Advocacy Path

This isn’t sci-fi—it’s achievable by December 2025 if we lean into advocacy, not activism.

Activism might demand “defund CBC!” or “bail it out!”—polarizing moves that fracture trust, a pattern we see in stalled labour talks like the recent Canada Post strike. Advocacy, though? It builds consensus.

Imagine a cross-party task force—sparked by your op-eds—drafting the Co-op Conversion Act by spring 2026. Picture CMC (Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada) piloting with Radio-Canada’s French nodes, testing worker-user governance. Envision a crowdfunded seed loan bridging the capital gap, with Vancity credit union chipping in as the anchor investor.

The hurdles? Early governance snags and securing startup cash. But that’s co-op maturity: Listen, adapt, thrive. Data backs this—Desjardins grew assets 10% in 2024 amid downturns, proving co-ops’ edge. CBC Coop could mirror that, dodging tariff-hit ad losses and AI-driven freelance cuts. It’s not about burning bridges; it’s about building them—inviting journalists, producers, and you, the viewer, to co-own the future.

Why This Matters for Canada

CBC isn’t just a broadcaster—it’s a cultural heartbeat. Yet, as tariffs loom (with the threat of a Trump-era 25% hit still hanging over the USMCA review) and regional divides widen, it’s at risk of becoming a relic.

A co-op model counters that:

• It empowers workers with equity, not layoffs.
• It gives regional hubs a voice, not neglect.
• It provides communities with choice, not mandates.

It’s a laboratory for social change, proving passion doesn’t need polarization—advocacy does the heavy lifting.

Look at the Canada Post strike: Workers crave ownership, not ultimatums. CBC’s journalists echo that—why not give them stakes? Look at Nova Scotia’s wildfires: Co-op housing rebuilt faster with member funds; a co-op CBC could prioritize such stories. This is bigger than media. It’s about redefining how Canada tells its story—democratically, collaboratively, sustainably.

Conclusion: Own the Mic, Shape the Future

As 2025 winds down, the air’s thick with uncertainty—tariffs, strikes, budget battles. CBC stands at a crossroads: fade as a government pawn or rise as a co-op champion. Activism’s ideological push might grab headlines, but it fractures the community it claims to serve. Advocacy, with its dialogue and adaptability, builds the trust needed for progress.

Imagine CBC Coop by next December: A network where you vote on coverage, journalists own their desks, and regions lead the charge—all without a taxpayer bailout. It’s not a fantasy—it’s a choice.

So, I ask you: Will you push an agenda, or build a story together?Join a media co-op pilot—start with NB Media’s indie model, vote in their assemblies. Rally your MP for the Co-op Conversion Act. Drop your thoughts below: Worker-only, or full multi-stake? Let’s script this future, because Canada’s story deserves to be ours.

Ludovic Viger

Ludovic Viger is an Ottawa-based author and entrepreneur. His book, The Great Canadian Reset: How Co-Ops Can Save Canada’s Economy, explores cooperative models as pathways to economic democracy, drawing from global examples and Canadian contexts to propose resilient alternatives to corporate media dominance.

Imagining the Merger of “Refuse Fascism” and “The General Strike”

By Phil Wilson

December 2, 2025

Source: Nobody's Voice

Image by Paul Goyette, Creative Commons 2.0

This is the time when everyone has a choice to make – actually a series of choices all premised on a single decision. Every US adult will consider whether or not to resist fascism. Some of us may be in better position to act – those with vulnerable immigration status, or with connections to those labeled as state enemies may be at risk for Draconian retaliation, while many of us can engage in substantial resistance with little immediate likelihood of state retaliation.

Once the fight to bring an end to US fascism becomes a personal cause, the subsequent choice involves the means of resistance. Does one conceive of the current white supremacist, saber rattling, misogynistic, oligarchic-capitalist, genocidal regime as a mere blip in the electoral cycle to be parried with a few extra dollars to reelect Chuck Schumer, or does one see the present US predicament as requiring civil disobedience at a pitch never previously imagined? This ought to be a no brainer to anyone who accepts the label of fascism as the accurate way to understand Trump and his regime of billionaires, predators and stooges. Fascism, by definition, seeks to install ongoing repression, to mutilate government bureaucracies and replace officials with grotesque replicas in an act of unacknowledged parody. The sycophantic SCOTUS, the appointment of RFK Jr. as Secretary of Health, the deployment of Pete Hegseth atop the military and Kristi Noem as the head of Homeland Security all together reflect the aura of a screaming nightmare. The first step toward national redemption requires a cold hard gaze.

Perhaps another way to unpack the particular character of US fascism involves seeing it as a manifestation of collapsing empire – fascism has become the default for the longstanding practice of war and colonial extraction. As US global control slides into ruins before the more capable Chinese economic expansion and the BRICS Alliance, the corporate gaze turns inward with the aspiration to squeeze the wealth, once acquired abroad, from its own citizenry. Picture an ordinary person during a critical food shortage whose famished eyes alight upon its own cats and dogs. Our citizens have historically been blind to the corporate policies of war and extraction upon which our collective prosperity has been built, but now it is our medical insurance, our schools, our food, our rent being ransacked for profit. If the US supported fascist regimes abroad who engaged in cruel atrocities, now it comes home in the guise of border security or “replacement theory” rhetoric. We, the ordinary citizens of this terrible predatory empire have abruptly been transformed into the Vietnamese villagers of long ago. This is not indulgent metaphor – the troops march into our neighborhoods, and we have a brand new sense of identity – “the enemy within.”

The people of Vietnam unknowingly instructed future US generations about the tactics of resistance. US power proved a half century ago to be a mirage – the resolve and ferocity of a poor nation exposed the vulnerabilities of a corrupt empire. The lesson was reenacted in Iraq and Afghanistan and may ultimately be reshaped to include the collapse of Israel and Ukraine. The last battle to close down the US Empire will, if I am correct, be centered in New York, Chicago and LA. I am not yet fantasizing about armed guerrilla warfare in downtown DC – the sensible first step involves non-violent civil disobedience.

In previous pieces I have honed in on the organization named after its tactics – “The General Strike.” This group aspires to accumulate some eleven million workers to engage in work stoppages. The number, eleven-million, is not a random figure, but the quantity of opposition that conforms to the 3.5% rule. Social science researchers believe that massive resistance has a precise threshold to upend an oppressive regime.

There are enough different organizations opposed to the Trump regime to confuse many of us – we have “Indivisible,” “No Kings Day,” “Refuse Fascism,” “Democracy Forward,” and a number of other groups. For me, “Refuse Fascism” has the most concise and clear aspiration – the immediate removal of Donald Trump and his regime. Refuse Fascism ticks most boxes for me – the use of non-violent tactics, the aspiration to flood US streets with millions of protesters and the intention to bring together a diverse assortment of factions, all riveted on the single minded goal of getting rid of Trump and his fascist movement.

Perhaps it matters little which organizations provides the inspiration and organizational resolve to fill the streets with protestors, but The General Strike held a webinar last week that struck me as revealing unique and compelling characteristics. Noam Chomsky, in his short pamphlet on “The Occupy Movement,” quoted Howard Zinn’s call to focus “on the countless small actions of unknown people.” Of course, “Occupy” succeeded, albeit too briefly, to create a popular groundswell of passionate resistance with a young, anonymous base.

“The General Strike” webinar seemed to rather consciously court the same constituents as did “Occupy” – young, “unknown” people – but offers a more specific means of resistance. One webinar presenter, introduced simply as, “Ben,” gave a history of the general strike as a time honored tool of the US labor rights struggle. As an elderly, retired worker, I wondered what role I might have. Fortunately, the GS website specifically defines the purpose of retired workers as:

“During the strike, retirees can contribute by boycotting big corporations, providing mutual aid and financial support to striking workers, and doing everything possible to spread the word in the meantime.”

My own chosen role thus becomes – at least for now – “to spread the word.”

The idea that 11 million anonymous folks can bring down the monstrosity of US fascism – a cult of celebrity, of autocratic predators wielding vast sums of money – reprises the David and Goliath narrative. Across the left it has been (ironically) almost impossible to toss off the straight jacket of individualism, and its evil shadow – celebrity. Thus, ones thoughts of the US leftist movement, however vague and fractured it might be, automatically leads us to a hall of names – Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, AOC, Noem Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, etc. but “The General Strike” heroically refuses to either coopt or create celebrities. We will not be saved by famous heroes, they implicitly tell us. There are, astonishingly, no names promoted on “The General Strike” website. Their “leaders,” appearing on the webinar last Saturday, November, 22, go only by their first names. One of the founders, who hosted the event, identified herself only as “Eliza from upstate New York.” The General Strike Website provides even less detail:

“Two friends living in New York City made this website after Roe V. Wade was overturned in 2022, but the concept of a General Strike dates back centuries.

The General Strike is a decentralized network of people and organizations committed to striking once we reach 3.5% of the U.S. population, or 11 million people. We don’t have a traditional “leader” or hierarchical structure, and no one gets paid to do this work. Instead we have an ever shifting network of organizers, all building towards the General Strike in their own ways.”

I had written several months ago that I wished that this organization would embrace “direct democracy” as a stated goal, but upon my updated reflection, it appears that the revised website consciously strives to promote the egalitarian values that one associates with direct democracy – a system of government in which decisions are made by public referendum or by “citizen’s assemblies” made up of ordinary people chosen via “sortition.” Neither The General Strike website, or its affiliated Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) convey any explicit, unequivocal aspiration to employ direct democracy as the vehicle to manifest equalitarian, socialist governance, but the decision to imagine leaders as nameless, common people rather intuitively evokes that vibe for me. There is also this quote from the PSL website defining the nature of a new socialist government that aims to sever the themes of narcissism and self-promotion from the act of political administration:

• Elected officials of the new workers’ government will be paid an average worker’s salary and will receive no special privileges.

Direct Democracy, according to South African Marxist sociologist Michelle Williams, has become a new point of interest among Marxists, and I have written that worker run cooperatives, as proposed by Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, situates direct democracy within the structures of workplace decision making.

For the record, since my last piece on The General Strike, the organization has released a much more detailed set of demands:

“Specific demands will come from leaders and experts of existing fights for racial, economic, gender and environmental justice once we have reached 6M Strike Cards. Stay tuned for updates and submit your input below in the meantime. The broad list includes, but is not limited to:

 Affordable housing

 Climate action

 Constitutional convention

 Criminal justice reform

 Disability rights

 End military aid for occupations and/or ethnic cleansing

 Gun safety

 Immigration reform

 Indigenous rights

 Labor rights & living wages”

 LGBTQIA+ rights

 Paid family & medical leave

 Racial justice

 Repeal Citizens United

 Repeal Right to Work laws

 Reproductive rights

 Student debt reform

 Tax the rich

 Universal healthcare

 Voting rights

 Welfare & child support reform

While some of these demands, such as “repeal citizens united,” and the rather vague, “Constitutional convention,” address the concept of a reimagined political system freed from the control of corporate money, almost all of the other demands focus on basic human rights. We have become so dehumanized that demands for universal health care, an end to military aid for occupation and ethnic cleansing and paid family and medical leave strike us as radical and utopian concepts.

Many of the speakers at The General Strike Webinar identified themselves as members of the above referenced PSL – one of several Marxist factions emerging as key organizational players in the fight against fascism. Like “Refuse Fascism” that gathers a number of diverse members and organizations under the leadership of the “Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP),” The General Strike features an unprecedented collection of perspectives and organizations willing to come together under the organizational leadership of those identifying as Marxists. Socialism has incrementally made its way, despite decades of media propaganda, into mainstream awareness. It is however, not enough to merely give Marxists a grudging seat at the table of public discourse. War, climate/environmental destruction, poverty and fascism have inevitable roots in capitalist greed. Who has more qualifications to lead the battle against fascism than socialist movements?

The General Strike lists a number of partners, including – SEIU 503 sub-local 581 representing Oregon teachers. Indivisible, the children’s rights organization, LATINX Parenting, the environmental group, Troublemakers, and the above mentioned, PSL. This eclectic gathering of organizations reflects the same diversity apparent in Refuse Fascism, a group under the leadership of Bob Avakian’s RCP, whose website now features photos of George Conway, Rachel Maddow, Alex Padilla and JB Pritzker – figures far removed from any association with Marxism. As I have stated already, there are no celebrities, no familiar photos, and no famous people promoted at The General Strike, a seemingly small point, but a very meaningful one for me. I imagined, as I signed my “strike card” for this organization, that my voice will be no less heard than anyone else’s.

Some people will obviously cringe at the thought of allying themselves with an organization in which Marxists have a prominent role. A lifetime of capitalist propaganda has left us broken and confused. However, for me, this is essential. If a movement becomes powerful enough to remove the fascist regime, what then? Do we return to neoliberal democracy and its environmental ruin? The climate/environmental apocalypse cannot, according to Degrowth advocate, Jason Hickel, be addressed under capitalism. The very second demand on The General Strike website is “Climate action.” The PSL website prioritizes ending all fossil fuel and nuclear energy. This is not naïve idealism, but a critical matter of survival.

The General Strike, for me, offers a vision for action – a strategy of civil disobedience as a necessary step to bring an end to US fascism. The General Strike also recognizes the priority of alliances between people with different political views. You don’t have to be a Marxist to engage in a general strike, but the reflexive US tendency to view Marxism through the lens of cold war ideology now becomes a dead weight impeding the task before us. Having explored both “Refuse Fascism” and “The General Strike,” I am impressed that both have embraced a philosophy of coalition building. I am uncertain if either or both factions have attempted to merge together in some way. If not, I hope that sectarianism can be set aside toward our nation’s most critical task.Email

Phil Wilson

Phil Wilson is a retired mental health worker and union member. His writing has been published in ZNetwork.org, Current Affairs, Counterpunch, Resilience, Mother Pelican, Common Dreams, The Hampshire Gazette, The Common Ground Review, The Future Fire and other publications. Phil's writings are posted regularly at Nobody's Voice (https://philmeow.substack.com/).

From Tenant Power to Social Housing: Pathways to a Just Housing System

By Fernando X. Abarca Abarca

December 4, 2025

Source: Non Profit Quarterly

Image Credit: “Migrant Imaginary” by Layqa Nuna Yawar, layqa.info

I have lived all my life in Los Angeles, but I have never seen anything like the level of destruction we experienced this past January due to the fires that ripped through our neighborhoods. In real time, I saw the devastating impact of climate change. At the same time, landlords across the city were spiking rents because the wellbeing of their tenants was last on their list of considerations.

Unfortunately, while moments of crisis make visible so many amazing acts of solidarity, generosity, and support from people looking to help those in need, they also present us with the ugliest side of greed and profit-seeking under our capitalist system.

It’s the need to respond to this greed that’s leading more and more tenants to join tenant unions and demand that public officials pass legislation that protects against price gouging and price fixing. Rent control is one key policy that can protect tenants, but ultimately we need solutions that put land and housing into social ownership. And the success of these efforts starts with all of us, collectively, as tens of millions of people who make up our renter nation fight for housing as a human right.

A Pattern of Vulture Capitalism

Grotesque approaches from private equity companies and investors in times of profound tragedy and chaos did not appear out of nowhere in 2025. We have seen this movie before. After the foreclosure crisis–induced Great Recession, the United States experienced one of the biggest-ever wealth transfers from families to Wall Street. We saw it yet again during the COVID-19 pandemic as families struggled to keep up with rents and mortgages in the face of widespread job losses.

Banking on disasters as opportunities to make profits at the expense of the planet and marginalized communities has become the norm in a pattern of vulture capitalism. Increasingly, a small number of large corporations are using their financial capital to acquire our cities’ remaining affordable housing stock.

The constant land grabs consequently give these large corporations expanded control. To date, traditional private market solutions have not relieved the problem. This is not by accident. It is by design.

As long as we continue to treat housing as yet another Wall Street lever for profit generation, those with financial power over the market will continue to make massive windfalls through the current system, and we will continue to be unable to solve this housing question.

The Roots of US Tenant Organizing

In 1872, Friedrich Engels published his pamphlet, The Housing Question, writing that “the housing shortage is no accident; it is a necessary institution, and it can be abolished together with all its effects on health, etc., only if the whole social order from which it springs is fundamentally refashioned.”

The economic concept of supply and demand encourages us to believe that the only way out of the housing crisis is to build more housing. But after 150 years of building housing, the question Engels wrote about in 1872 troubles us still. It turns out that while building new affordable and accessible housing is necessary, it is insufficient to solve our housing crisis.

To help those who are most marginalized, we must also focus our attention on preserving the remaining affordable housing stock we have.

Tenant fights and organizing efforts have occurred in the United States since the turn of the 20th century. New York perhaps best encapsulates the success of tenant organizing efforts during that period, with a series of successful rent strikes and eviction blockades throughout the state, leading to policies that improved the living conditions of low-income tenants living in slum dwellings. One key policy win was the passage of rent control in 1920.

During World War II, rent control became national policy (and remained in effect until 1947), but New York has been one of only a handful of states that have maintained the policy since then. Two other states—California and Oregon—have passed statewide rent control guidelines. There are also several municipalities that have similar policies in place.

The Pandemic Lights a Fire

During the COVID-19 pandemic, tenant organizing expanded rapidly, as millions of people mobilized when faced with the threat of eviction. Tenants galvanized to advocate for rent cancellation and eviction moratoriums to maintain their housing during the pandemic, and organized for stronger renter protections for the long haul.

Organized tenant efforts became part of the national conversation. For example, Moms for Housing in Oakland, CA, drew attention to and challenged the notion of a housing shortage when they occupied vacant units owned by a real estate investment firm. Due to their action, they were able to move in, and the units were ultimately placed in a community land trust. More recently, in 2024, local tenant unions joined forces in forming the national Tenant Union Federation.

Rent control remains a central tactic to protect tenants from landlords who spike rent without remorse or concern for tenants’ health and wellbeing. Rent control is also a key mechanism that tenant unions and organized groups can use to fend off speculation in their neighborhoods.

Rent control fights are inherently fights against corporate control. In concrete terms, it is a government program that limits the amount of money a landlord can demand for leasing a home. Rent control laws are usually enacted by municipalities, and the details vary widely, but all are intended to keep housing affordable.

As demonstrated in the Swing State Housing Poll, conducted by Right to the City Action and the Center for Popular Democracy, rent control is wildly popular. According to the US Census, nearly half of all renters (21 million families) are housing cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30 percent of their income on housing; over half of those renters (12.1 million families) are severely cost-burdened (paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent), according to a 2025 Harvard study. Many families facing such constraints are put in the impossible position of making life-or-death decisions each month to either pay rent, feed themselves, or cover their medication.

Until policies like rent control are implemented across the United States, housing will remain widely unaffordable. The fight for rent control is worthwhile, not only because it ensures that rents are capped to maintain affordability, but also because it weakens large investment firms’ interest in distressed housing assets. If we can cap the rents of our units, we can limit the profits of these companies, and that is an important step to enable advocates to advance our society toward a more just system where housing is treated as a human right.

A housing supply strategy that does not rely on “the market” is required to at least supplement private housing.

A Social Housing Vision

Controlling rent is only a first step. Many conventional economists say that rent control discourages private landlords from building. The data are less clear on this point than many landlord advocates claim. What is clear is that both in cities that have rent control policies in place and those that do not is that the cost of housing is far too high for far too many US families. The market system of housing supply is not working, period. This means a housing supply strategy that does not rely on “the market” is required to at least supplement private housing.

Social housing is a public option for housing that has three key qualities: It is permanently affordable, protected from the private market, and under democratic community control of the residents who live there. There are various models of social housing such as public housing, community land trusts, and housing cooperatives. In all forms, public backing is critical in order to bring social housing to scale.

In Los Angeles, tenants have been at the forefront of some of the most innovative social housing initiatives in the country. In 2022, voters in Los Angeles approved the ballot initiative known as Measure ULA (United to House LA), which has already collected $375 million through a “mansion tax.” This imposes a 4 percent tax on property sales over $5.1 million and a 5.5 percent tax on sales over $10.3 million, with the goal of investing a substantial portion of that money into affordable and social housing solutions.

In February 2025, in Seattle, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1A, which authorizes a 5 percent tax on employee compensation over $1 million per year to fund social housing citywide and is expected to generate about $53 million annually.

Policy wins such as those in Los Angeles and Seattle will make it possible for resident-owned housing cooperatives and homes stewarded by community land trusts (CLT) to become a much larger percentage of overall available housing. In other words, public funding can allow social housing to be built to scale.

In Los Angeles, ULA funds can be used both to support housing preservation, such as tenant acquisitions for distressed properties at risk of being flipped, as well as build new housing for some of the city’s most vulnerable residents—like farm workers, day laborers, and restaurant workers—and others, including teachers and nurses.

While most cities have yet to achieve policy gains like these, ground-up tenant organizing efforts elsewhere provide guidance and inspiration for what is possible. A well-known example is the Sky Without Limits Cooperative in Minneapolis, MN.

After close to a decade of organizing and court dates, the residents of the five buildings that make up Sky Without Limits were finally able to remove their landlord and buy the building, allowing residents to collectively manage and make decisions about their own homes.

For years, these tenants (who would eventually become housing co-op co-owners) in Minneapolis fought to have their slumlord make repairs to their almost uninhabitable units. With support from their sister organization, United Renters for Justice/Inquilinxs Unidxs, residents of the five buildings created bylaws and agreements for their housing cooperative. The city’s land bank, supported by the nonprofit Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Twin Cities, raised the capital, and the tenants are currently in the process of raising $2 million to take direct ownership and transition the buildings to community housing co-op control.

Projects like Sky Without Limits give us a glimpse into what it will take to establish governing structures and decision-making practices where residents are involved, leading the strategies and developing the best infrastructures for them. Democratic governance is at the center of these solidarity economy models. Within this alternative economic system, we can tap into our biggest advantage: ourselves, the people that make up the renter nation within the United States.

But as we attempt to move away from the extractive toward the regenerative, we will need both the private and public sectors to play a role in providing the resources and policies to move toward a more solutions-oriented approach to solve our modern-day housing question.

A People-Centered Strategy

We cannot transform our current housing system without tenant organizing. We know tenants are best positioned to bring the solutions and strategies required to reinvent our housing system and have a more harmonious relationship with the land.

From policy fights at City Hall to the development of resident-owned and -controlled property management companies that prioritize transformative justice practices instead of punitive measures to ensuring residents have all the amenities they need to thrive, tenants are rising and putting new ideas and strategies to the test.

While our movements have yet to build the level of connection to the land needed to prevent the continued natural resource extraction, we are seeing organized tenants take the fight to both the public and private sectors through strategies to stem the loss of the limited affordable housing stock that still exists in our cities.

The formation of strong tenant unions that enact policy change at all levels of government to ensure renters are protected from speculative practices weakens the financial sector’s hold over the market.

These vital wins and long-term fights will lead to new opportunities to get creative and try alternatives that shift the current economic system to one that centers solidarity—on the path toward a more social and democratic land and housing system.Email

Fernando X. Abarca Abarca

Fernando X. Abarca is a Salvadoran American housing justice organizer based in Los Angeles/Tongva Lands, CA. He is currently the loan fund organizer for Right to the City Alliance.