Community Benefits Agreements

National Survey on CBAs

2010-08-12T08:36:00.000-07:00

Dr. Tom Musil at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, is conducting a national survey on CBAs, and readers who have participated in CBAs should take a few minutes to fill it out. There hasn't been very much research on how CBAs are being implemented and monitored or on the views of people who are involved in the CBA process or represented by coalitions. And there are a lot of CBAs and CBA coalitions out there that haven't received extensive publicity or academic attention. The survey, which is confidential, should help to flesh out this information.

Complete the survey here.

An "Obstructionist Manifesto"

2010-08-09T11:37:00.000-07:00

I've been very busy of late, and not following the news or posting as often as I would like. I apologize. The short version of the news in Buffalo is that Bass Pro, the long-proposed anchor tenant of the Canal Side project, pulled out, and CBA supporters are getting a lot of blame. (The mayor called them "obstructionists" and the Buffalo News called the CBA a "job killer.") Mark Goldman, a business owner who has written several books about Buffalo, wrote an "Obstructionist Manifesto" in response to the CBA-naysayers, and it's well worth considering. Some excerpts:
I believe that the Hippocratic Oath, “First do no harm,” while it applies to medicine, also applies to city planning.... As an obstructionist, I believe that all plans that cause harm must be stopped.

As an obstructionist, I believe that when a small group of tightly connected political insiders hijacks the city planning process, it must be stopped.

As an obstructionist, I believe that when these same insiders, for reasons unknown to most of us, are given tens of millions of dollars of the public’s money to spend without the public’s consent, they, too, must be stopped.

As an obstructionist, I believe that when that same group makes plans to turn our city’s splendid waterfront into a big-box retail mall surrounded by surface parking lots, it should be stopped.

As an obstructionist, I believe when the entrepreneurial instincts and desires of our people are stifled and undermined by the lavishing of tens of millions of public dollars on failing retail chains, that must be stopped. As an obstructionist, I believe that all these old and failed ways of planning for our waterfront must be swept aside.

As an obstructionist, I believe that unless and until city planning reflects the values, ideals and aspirations of the people who live and work here, it cannot work and therefore must be stopped. Only when public projects have the credibility of being created by the people directly involved in their use can they succeed.

...

As an obstructionist, I believe in a truly democratic and public planning process that is embraced by our whole community....

.... Only this kind of process can produce a plan that is real, authentic and sustainable. Once these plans and ideas have been clearly articulated and carefully studied, we should, following a real competition, turn them over to the best design professionals who would help us realize our waterfront vision.

The debate continues on Buffalo's waterfront and possible community benefits

2010-07-14T06:02:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC, a subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corporation) finalized an agreement with the New York Power Authority to issue $105 million in bonds for Buffalo's waterfront redevelopment project. As of today, this news is up on NYPA's website, but not ECHDC's, even though you would think (hope) the lead agency on the project would want to be more open about its dealings. According to the Buffalo News, NYPA's investment, which includes $55 million in funding for waterfront developments, is "helping to make amends for past decisions that... shortchanged Western New York."

Just after the agreement was finalized, the Buffalo Common Council held a public hearing over the waterfront development, which is continuing to generate controversy, mostly over living wage issues. The city, which controls part of the property, doesn't want the project to go forward without a CBA, and a lot of community groups agree. They want to ensure that quality jobs, not just any jobs, are provided for local workers and that there's support for independent and local businesses.

The ECHDC though, along with pro-business advocates, think that a CBA will stymie development. A living wage requirement certainly would not go down well with the project's proposed anchor tenant, Bass Pro, which is notorious among subsidy wonks for playing the public fisc for all it can get.

Buffalo State College economics professor Susan M. Davis pointed out "the irony of business people asking for subsidies and then turning around and calling it [a living wage] 'socialism[.]'" On the other hand, Julia Vitullo-Martin from New York City's Regional Plan Association claims that "[w]hat they [CBAs] really do is increase the costs of development tremendously--and often halt it altogether." She cites the recently failed Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment project in the Bronx, which fell apart after community groups and city leaders refused to approve the subsidized retail project without a living wage guarantee. I can't really argue with her. There are a lot of companies that don't want to deal with CBAs and meddling community groups. And CBAs do increase costs, but I would phrase it differently: they force developers to pass on public subsidies to *gasp* the actual public. I would also say to Ms. Vitullo-Martin, have some optimism; the Kingsbridge failure might be a blessing in disguise. The next development proposal for the property might offer something a lot better.

Jordan Levy, chairman of the ECHDC, says that the CBA campaign is interfering with the authority's negotiations with Bass Pro. "We're hopeful we are going to bring them to conclusion," Levy said, "but if this community is saying we don't want Bass Pro, I'm not sure that even an act of Congress is going to get them to come here."

Yes, Mr. Levy, this project is about the Buffalo community, and the interests of the community should come before Bass Pro's bottom line. Maybe it's time to start listening to what the community wants.

Fake NIMBYs

2010-06-10T07:54:00.001-07:00

I first heard about the Saint Consulting Group a few years back when I saw an executive speak at a legal conference about NIMBY and the socio-political dynamics of development opposition. It was a fascinating lecture, and it introduced me to some *very* important acronyms like CAVEmen and NIMTOO.

The short explanation of what Saint does is that it's a development consultant. If you're a developer and you want to get a project built, Saint can help you. Or if you want to stop a project from happening, they can help you with that too.

And that's where it gets interesting, because Saint has learned to apply the Harvard approach (see here for more) to development opposition battles. They call their tactics "black arts." The most important thing to remember? If you want to get a project stopped, convince everybody that you're on the side of soccer moms and Joe Sixpacks. Do not let them know that you're being bankrolled by the developer's corporate competition.

The WSJ published a fascinating profile of the company this week, and it explains just how Saint has been clandestinely fighting Wal-Mart projects on behalf of supermarkets everywhere. Basically, after the grocery store chain hires them, the Saint folks move into town, adopt fake names, start fake NIMBY groups, and then try to delay, and ultimately kill, the Wal-Mart. They'll use phone banks to make it look like lots of people are calling the mayor and city council to complain. They'll make up stories about how evil Wal-Mart is to convince neighborhood residents to join the opposition. And then of course come the lawyers and the high stakes development litigation. The funding comes from the supermarkets, but Saint employees don't tell anybody that. They just say they have connections.

There's something distasteful about all of this, with large grocery chains like Safeway and Giant paying Saint to create astroturf grassroots campaigns to trash Wal-Mart. But what Saint does is legal, and aside from the secrecy, it's not so different from what real CBA coalitions do. In fact, a while after my first encounter with Saint, I met some Saint employees at a conference about CBAs. They were keeping up on real grassroots techniques, presumably to better enable them to help their clients. So I'm guessing that if there aren't already, it will only be a matter of time until there are some Saint-backed CBAs out there...

The Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act

2010-05-31T13:23:00.000-07:00

Picture via KimTheWolf (flickr), showing a protest sign at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. (where the living wage is almost $15 per hour.

The Kingsbridge Armory CBA campaign may have tanked, but its supporters have not been deterred. They're hoping the city council will enact the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, which would mandate a $10 minimum wage for all projects receiving more than $100,000 in subsidies. As many people have argued of late (including myself), institutionalizing the living wage would be preferable to relying on CBAs and deal-by-deal negotiations. "[T]his debate is not just about one parochial section of the Bronx," explained Ruben Diaz, Bronx Borough President. "This is a citywide debate."

Some details about the bill:

The law would apply to projects receiving all sorts of subsidies, not just direct cash payments. It would count indirect subsidies like bond financing, tax abatements or exemptions, tax increment financing, fee waivers, energy cost reductions, environmental remediation costs, property acquisition write-downs, and other discretionary assistance.
Projects used exclusively for affordable housing, or to house social services, arts, or cultural organizations would be exempt from the wage requirement. (Okay, but what does "exclusive" mean?)
Covered employers include the developer/subsidy recipient; subsequent owners of the property; tenants and subtenants; and contractors that work on the project for 30 days or more (including temp services, food service contractors, and on-site service providers). However, non-profits with annual budgets of less than $1 million would not be subject to the wage requirement.
Employees would be entitled to a living wage, regardless of their part time, temporary, or seasonal status. Independent contractors would be covered too.
The living wage would be $10, or $11.50 for employees not receiving health insurance. These rates would be adjusted annually, based on the local consumer price index.
The living wage requirement lasts for the longer of 30 years or the duration of the subsidy.
Employers have to post notice of the living wage rules, give a copy of the notice to each employee, and keep records of hours worked and wages paid. The city comptroller's office can inspect those records whenever it wants, either on its own initiative or after receiving a complaint. If an investigation uncovers evidence of a violation, the comptroller would hold a fact finding hearing, and then issue an order, disposition, or settlement. Remedies could include: requiring payment of back pay plus interest to the wronged employee; a fine, not to exceed 200% of the total amount due to the employee; requiring the disclosure of additional records; and/or requiring the reinstatement of any employee retaliated against for trying to enforce the wage requirement.
If an employer receives two violations in any six year period, the employer would become ineligible for financial assistance for five years.
Developers and employers would also have include clawback provisions in their financial assistance agreements with the city or city economic development agency, and if an employer failed to cure a violation, it could lose its financial assistance and even be required to pay back already received subsidies.

Well, Mayor Bloomberg has predictably opposed the bill. As explained at the Atlantic Yard Report, his reasoning is completely illogical:

Bloomberg's conclusion: "The free market works much better."

"Having the public subsidize some workers and not others is not fair," he added.

Um, couldn't the same be said about "some projects and not others"?

I would add, isn't it a little unfair when employers, but not employees, get subsidies? And c'mon, we're not really talking about socialism here, we're talking about $10 per hour in one of the most expensive cities in the world. We're talking about ensuring families a decent quality of life.

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., is one of the bill's chief supporters. City Councilmembers Annabel Palma and G. Oliver Koppell sponsored the bill at his request, and it's received endorsements from about 20 other councilmembers. City comptroller John Liu and Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio are also on board. And about a dozen other community organizations have signed on to the Living Wage NYC campaign.

No doubt we'll be hearing more about this. For more to read:

Sam Dolnick, Wage Proposal May Prompt Fight at City Hall, The New York Times, May 23, 2010
Daniel Massey, Living-wage debate gets broader, louder, Crain's New York Business, May 23, 2010
John Del Signore, Bloomberg Expected to Fight "Fair Wage" Bill, Gothamist, May 24, 2010
Eliot Brown, Living Wage Bill Formally Introduced; Bloomberg Smirks, The New York Observer, May 25, 2010
Molly Zelvonberg, Keep the working poor working, fair wages law is "Nice," but stupid says Bloomberg, NY Examiner, May 25, 2010
Jeanmarie Evelly, Kingsbridge Armory Battle Inspires Citywide Living Wage Bill, Bronx News Network, May 26, 2010
Michelle Chen, Living Wage Fight Revitalized in New York City, In These Times, May 28, 2010
Juan DeJesus, Pols, Labor Leaders Launch Wage War Against Big Business, NBC New York, June 2, 2010

New Haven community group asks city to enforce CBA

2010-05-27T05:26:00.000-07:00

Representatives from Communities Organized for Resonsible Development (CORD) brought a petition to the mayor's office this week asking the city to enforce the CBA involving Yale's Smilow Cancer Center. Specifically, CORD wants the city to confirm whether Yale has lived up to its local hiring promise. The group's leaders say that Yale representatives have refused to meet with them.

Now, Yale is supposed to provide annual reports on compliance with the CBA's jobs provisions. But the CBA is contained in the development agreement made between Yale and the city, and since CORD isn't a party it can't force Yale to comply directly. Or could it? The development agreement doesn't expressly disclaim the existence of third party beneficiaries, and it acknowledges that certain promises made by Yale and the city were intended to benefit the community.

The third party beneficiary issue is addressed in a recent law review article by Patience A. Crowder, More Than Merely Incidental: Third-Party Beneficiary Rights in Urban Redevelopment Contracts, 17 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 287 (2010) (available to download here, for a small fee). Crowder contends that community residents are indeed third party beneficiaries to urban redevelopment contracts, and the article gives an excellent overview of the inconsistent and often complicated law of third party beneficiaries. While Crowder acknowledges that establishing third party beneficiary status for urban community members may be difficult, CORD's case is strengthened because the development agreement specifically states that Yale agreed to "certain commitments to the City and the community as requested by the City[.]"

Sustainability and the Columbia University expansion project

2010-05-21T05:25:00.000-07:00

A new law review article critiques the Columbia University expansion project through a rubric of sustainability. This is sustainability in the broad sense--not just environmental sustainability, but economic and social sustainability too. The article puts the Columbia CBA into context, discussing how educational institutions interact with local communities and how "university creep" can impact neighborhoods. Regarding Columbia and West Harlem, the article looks at public participation and community engagement issues, including eminent domain, gentrification, and the CBA.

Can Urban University Expansion and Sustainable Development Co-Exist?: A Case Study in Progress on Columbia University was written by my Albany Law School colleagues Keith Hirokawa and Patricia Salkin.

New York City Bar Association panel on CBAs

2010-05-18T05:49:00.000-07:00

The New York City Bar Association last night held a panel on CBAs. Audio is available here, and you can read recaps at Atlantic Yards Report and Noticing New York.

The panelists generally agreed that the CBA process in New York would be improved if signatories didn't accept payments from developers and if CBAs included better enforcement provisions. Additionally, they agreed that some CBA provisions, like living wages and local hiring, should be enacted as city-wide policies, and that the city's land use review process should be changed to allow more meaningful public input. Some of these changes just might happen. Al Rodriguez, General Counsel to the Bronx Borough President, said that next week a living wage bill will be introduced in City Council, and there have been murmurs of late that the Charter Revision Commission might deal with land use and community planning (see, for instance, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's Recommendations to the Charter Revision Commission, and recent news that the commission will hold a land use "issue forum").

Cincinnati School Construction CBA

2010-05-12T06:37:00.000-07:00

Perhaps taking a cue from the Syracuse Schools Reconstruction Project CBA, the Cincinnati School Board earlier this week approved a set of community benefits goals to be met on school construction projects, including:

40% of workers at a given school site should be residents of the school district;
40% should be residents of the Cincinnati metropolitan area outside the school district;;
20% of labor and trade personnel should be minorities and women; and
provisions to encourage more apprenticeships for local workers.

Somewhat akin to an RFP, the "CBA" is expected to be signed by the Greater Cincinnati Building Trades Council and other nonunion employers that might work on school construction jobs. Community groups will also be invited to sign on.

The CBA follows revelations earlier this year that the Cincinnati Public Schools had awarded $12 million in contracts to white-owned firms improperly classified as minority contractors.

Trouble with the Columbia CBA

2010-05-10T05:26:00.000-07:00

The New York Post reported yesterday that the West Harlem Local Development Corporation--the quasi-private nonprofit set up to negotiate and implement the Columbia expansion CBA--hasn't exactly been keeping up with its responsibilities. Apparently, it has yet to come up with a mission statement, secure tax exempt status, or even set up a phone line. Nor has it created funding guidelines for the $76 million Columbia is supposed to invest into the community over the next 15 years, which means that it hasn't yet been able to disburse any of the $500,000 it's already gotten from the university. The Post makes it sound like the entire CBA is in jeopardy, but that's probably not the case, at least as long as Columbia keeps making its payments. What might jeopardize the CBA, however, is an upcoming court challenge to the state's use of eminent domain on Columbia's behalf.

CBAs and comprehensive planning

2010-05-04T06:26:00.000-07:00

You can find a recently published law review article coauthored by myself and my colleague Patricia Salkin here. (You should also visit Patricia Salkin's excellent blog, Law of the Land.) The article is titled Community Benefits Agreements and Comprehensive Planning: Balancing Community Empowerment and the Police Power, and it's appearing in the current issue of the Brooklyn Law School Journal of Law and Policy.

Here's the abstract:

Traditionally, the states have empowered local governments to develop plans and implement regulations for neighborhood and community development. When accomplished at the local or regional level, the interests and benefits of the community as a whole are to be weighed against the detriments to individuals. Much has been studied and written about the lack of meaningful public participation in the planning and land use regulatory process, suggesting that often low-income and minority communities are not fully engaged in the process, even when it may result in decisions negatively impacting their neighborhoods. Case studies have also shown that governments are sometimes so eager to stimulate local economic development that they fail to fully engage communities in the project review process, both to expedite development and to avoid confronting local opposition. This emphasis on short-term economic growth, however, may obscure a local government’s perception of the social and environmental needs of particular communities. When this occurs, formal planning processes have failed to accomplish their goals of engaging community members and guiding future growth in a manner that maximizes long-term benefits for the common good.

New approaches to planning provide one response to systemic public participation problems. The environmental justice movement, for example, has sought to ensure a fair distribution of both environmental burdens and environmental goods by requiring local governments to make meaningful public participation available to all community members. Community based planning efforts have attempted to improve the planning process by focusing on small and distinct geographic areas and by developing collaborative and inclusive planning programs. Since the late 1990s, community benefits agreements (CBAs) have offered another method to increase community input in the development planning and review process. For communities that have historically been excluded from the planning process, CBAs can be a powerful tool to ensure that neighborhood interests are addressed as an integral component of development. The result, ideally, is growth and development that is accountable to the people it affects and equitable in its distribution of benefits and burdens. However, the people it affects are often a small subset of the municipal jurisdiction and the equitable distribution sought in the CBAs is limited to the proposed project area.

This article explores how the comprehensive planning process and CBAs complement and contradict each other, and how both could be improved by innovative and more inclusive planning techniques. Part II provides a brief historical background on comprehensive planning and community development, including issues relating to community planning and public participation. Part III examines CBAs and their role in community empowerment, community development and the promotion of social justice principles, including equitable development. This part also provides examples of typical land use related elements found in existing CBAs. Using these examples, Part IV segues into a discussion regarding whether private CBAs usurp the public planning process. The section explores whether CBAs are just another type of community based plan and whether CBAs advance narrow interests at the expense of the larger community. The question of what local governments should do when presented with a CBA that is inconsistent with the local comprehensive land use plan is examined to determine whether amending the plan to incorporate the community vision as articulated through the CBA is appropriate. The article concludes in Part V by pointing out that shortcomings of the current regulatory system allow local governments, intentionally or inadvertently, to exclude robust public participation from the development and implementation of comprehensive land use plans. This provides the impetus for privately negotiated CBAs, but these agreements may not always be ideal because not all parties to a CBA will have the best interests of the neighborhood or the community as a whole at the forefront of their agendas. While many CBAs have been successful, a number of case studies also reveal pitfalls in the process. The article concludes with the belief that local governments must be more inclusive and accountable in the public planning process to better meet the true goals of the community benefits movement.

And the New York City CBA debate continues...

2010-04-29T06:31:00.000-07:00

The New York City Bar Association's report on CBAs, issued in March, recommended that CBAs not be considered as part of the planning process. According to a New York Times article summarizing reactions to the report, city comptroller John Liu thinks the suggestion to remove the agreements from the land use process is "idealistic rather than practical." Jesse Masyr, a land use attorney who was involved in the Gateway Center and Columbia CBAs, also argued that CBAs are here to stay, and suggested that better rules and regulations be put into place. N.Y.U law professor Vicki Been, one of the primary authors of the report, defended the report's conclusion by arguing that while private CBA-type agreements may be inevitable, that doesn't mean that government officials have to participate in them or give them undue weight in the planning process.

Liu has convened his own task force on CBAs and according to the NYT article, his "emphasis is on what kinds of mechanisms exist to make sure that the promised benefits are delivered". This may be because the comptroller doesn't have much ability to change the land use planning process, which is heavily dominated by the mayor in New York. Indeed, as reported by City Limits, task force member and urban planning professor Tom Angotti thinks a better solution would be comprehensive land use reform, including more funding and a larger role for community boards.

The City Limits article also reports that Liu's task force will not hold public meetings, apparently because it's a "sensitive issue" and task force members need to be "able to have candid conversations."

Okay, I can sort of respect that. But why not have at least some public meetings? This is, after all, an issue that's sensitive for a lot of people other than the 35 select members of the task force. The task force might even learn something from listening to the public. And, by the way, the task force's PR people should probably tell them that needing to have "candid conversations" pretty easily translates to wanting to keep things hidden. It seems to me that's probably not the best way to earn the public's confidence when you're trying to clean up a process that's already been faulted for secrecy, closed door negotiations, backroom politics, and collusion.

Buffalo CBA advocates get the cold shoulder

2010-04-20T05:32:00.000-07:00

The Buffalo Common Council and CBA advocates are continuing to push for a CBA for the Canal Side project, using 12 acres of city-owned land as leverage, but the quasi-public Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation wants nothing to do with negotiations. The impasse at the moment seems to be about a mandatory living wage requirement, but the CBA coalition says that the initial demands, including the wage provisions, are just a starting point.

Maybe somebody should remind ECHDC that under New York State law, it's supposed to "give primary consideration to local needs and desires and...foster local initiative and participation in connection with the planning and development of its projects." It's also supposed to "work closely, consult and cooperate with local elected officials and community leaders at the earliest practicable time." That would be section 16 of the Urban Development Corporation Act.

The law doesn't mandate a CBA or a living wage, but it suggests that refusing to meet with local groups or officials is not appropriate behavior. As the Council President said, "It's always better to talk.... Let's see how far apart they really are."

Public and city support for a Canal Side CBA in Buffalo; developer and state resistance to negotiations

2010-04-06T05:51:00.000-07:00

Despite broad coalition and city council support, the private developer and public sector partner of Buffalo's Canal Side project are still refusing to negotiate a CBA. This probably shouldn't come of much surprise. The project's anchor tenant, Bass Pro, is a well-know subsidy-chaser (or, as some would call it, a tax-dodger) and poverty-wage job supplier. And the quasi-public Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC) is a subsidiary of the New York Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), which has used its power to override local laws and its authority to use eminent domain to facilitate the Columbia University expansion and the Atlantic Yards project. Although both of those projects have CBAs, they also face significant public opposition, and ESDC's involvement has been crucial to overcome that opposition.

This week, reporter James Heaney put up a blog post on Canal Side and its CBA issues. He discusses some of the issues relating to the lack of public bidding, conflicts of interest, and the lack of a democratic process. His conclusion: ECHCD and the project's private partners might want to pursue CBA negotiations, if only to avoid protests opposing "the use of more than $150 million in public funds to create mostly low-wage, part-time jobs. Which is one of several ways reasonable people can view the project."

Previous posts on Canal Side also by Mr. Heaney can be found here, here, and here.

Columbia Spectator on the Manhattanville CBA... but what about the 197-a plan?

2010-03-31T06:37:00.000-07:00

The Columbia Spectator published an article last week about the Columbia University CBA, going over the criticisms of the CBA process outlined in the New York City Bar Association's recent report on CBAs. The article does a decent job of recapping the CBA's negotiation, but it leaves out any mention of the preexisting community-based 197-a plan that Columbia basically got the city to throw out (with a whole lot of lobbying). And that's an important consideration in the Columbia case, since it's a lot easier to portray the CBA as community-supported when you leave out the fact that the community's own plan was rejected in favor of different plans put forward by the elite and well-connected university.

Planning conflicts in Pittsburgh

2010-03-31T06:00:00.001-07:00

The 2008 Hill District CBA, which covers the new Penguins arena (the Consol Energy Center) in Pittsburgh, included a provision funding the creation of a master plan for the Hill District. The Penguins were supposed to hold off on further development plans so long as the master plan was finished by February, 2010, but the community coalition missed that deadline because of delays in hiring a consultant.

At a community meeting earlier this month, Penguins officials presented preliminary plans for 1,200 units of housing, nearly 100,000 square feet of retail space, and a 150-room hotel. The team's representatives say that their plans are consistent with development principles adopted by the Hill Planning Forum, a group made up of community stakeholders. Nevertheless, Penguins officials are reluctant to give the community a larger role in the development process, and they stated at the meeting that community representatives would not have a role in drafting RFPs (requests for proposals). The Penguins are still planning on delaying submission of their plans until after the Hill District's master plan is completed, but whether this is a sincere attempt to involve the community in the development process isn't clear. As one of the Penguins' officials explained during the meeting, the team doesn't want to involve the community in the RFP process in part because it doesn't want to "impose requirements" on developers.

New York isn't the only place with CBA problems after all

2010-03-25T09:17:00.001-07:00

San Francisco has the Hunter's Point CBA, which was called a "big victory" when it was finalized in 2008.

But now there's another CBA campaign on in the city by the bay, and it doesn't look so promising. The controversy concerns a 550-bed megahospital being proposed by Sutter Health, which will allow Sutter to reduce its acute care services at the existing St. Luke's hospital. St. Luke's is located in the Mission, which has a large Latino population, and two coalitions have formed to address issues relating to health justice and equity. As Randy Shaw explains in a BeyondChron article, "the California Nurses Association and virtually every health care advocacy group is fighting save St. Luke's Hospital and force Sutter to sign an enforceable agreement protecting the community".

Sounds like a strong campaign. Except that the healthcare workers' union, SEIU-UHW, undercut the coalition by signing its own agreement with Sutter. In the Side Letter, the union agreed to publicly and privately support the project, and it authorized Sutter to assign union employees to outreach work building support for the project.

According to Shaw, the community's reaction to SEIU-UHW's side deal has been mostly negative. The vice president of the other healthcare workers' union, NUHW, explained that "there is no way NUHW would have made such a deal with Sutter. We always felt it important to work with the community regarding this project.” SEIU-UHW, according to Shaw, has become disengaged from other healthcare advocacy groups in the city and from elected officials. Although the San Francisco Building Trades are siding with SEIU-UHW, "the Building Trades supports virtually every construction project proposed in San Francisco, and – unlike SEIU-UHW – does not claim protecting patient care and health equity as part of its mission."

NYC Comptroller Liu's CBA task force & more to come from the DuBois Bunche Center

2010-03-25T08:56:00.000-07:00

Last week, New York City Comptroller John Liu announced the formation of his task force on Public Benefit Agreements. (Why he chose the "PBA" nomenclature is unclear.) According to Liu's website, "The Task Force will develop recommendations on best practices and draft a framework for a more effective and equitable process to guide public subsidized economic development projects in the City of New York, including accountability and enforcement mechanisms that would apply when tax dollars, rezonings, and other public resources are used to facilitate private development."

The task force has more than 30 members, and Eliot Brown at the New York Observer says that it has "lefty bent." Norman Oder at the Atlantic Yards Report breaks down the membership "through an AY lens" and points out that three of the task force members support the much criticized Atlantic Yards CBA.

One of those three task force members is Roger Green, the executive director of the DuBois-Bunche Urban Policy Center (and former New York Assembly member). The DBC announced that it will be undertaking its own study of CBAs, which will "review the origins of the various Community Benefits Agreements to determine their effectiveness in enhancing minority business and equal employment opportunities."

What should be done about these messy CBAs?

2010-03-18T07:38:00.000-07:00

CBAs have been a big issue in New York lately, ever since New York City Comptroller John Liu announced his intent to reform the process a few weeks ago. Just this week, the New York City Bar Association issued a report that's very critical of CBAs, calling for the agreements to be excluded from the land use approval process.

Amid all of this CBA to-do, it can be easy to lose sight of the ultimate goals of the community benefits movement, viz., making development more responsive to community needs, ensuring that the benefits and burdens of development are more equitably distributed, requiring more transparency and responsibility in the distribution of subsidies, encouraging affordable housing construction, ensuring the creation of quality jobs, creating programs to help local employees find employment and progress in their fields, protecting small and local businesses that strengthen local economies, etc.

CBAs are just one way to achieve some of these goals. But they're certainly not the only way, and they're often not the best way. The problems with New York's CBAs are symptoms of deeper problems in the way that development and planning happen in New York City, and regulating CBAs won't fix these problems. What's needed is better and more transparent planning, and a different understanding of how CBAs are supposed to fit into the development approval process.

Is regulating CBAs even feasible?

CBA advocates have generally eschewed legislative CBA requirements because of the difficulty of defining "the community." To illustrate, CBA legislation was proposed (but not passed) in Allegany County, Pennsylvania, in 2008. It would have required developers to meet with community representatives, but it didn't really explain how those representatives would be chosen. A law recently passed in Washington D.C. similarly hedges on the question of who represents the community. It's not hard to imagine how competing community groups could end up in counterproductive arguments over this issue, with the excluded group(s) claiming that the developer didn't adequately consult the "community" because it didn't meet with them. Just consider the Atlantic Yards CBA, or the SugarHouse CBA. In both cases, opposition groups weren't involved in CBA talks, and in both cases (although indirectly in the case of SugarHouse) the community groups that did participate had financial reasons to do so. So was the "community" really involved?

So, you might ask, what about making the local government or some agency responsible for selecting the relevant community? Well, to begin with, as the NYC Bar Association points out, there are due process and takings problems when CBAs are mandated or considered as part of the planning process. Indeed, the planning commissions in New York City and Pittsburgh have both recognized that CBAs are not an appropriate factor to consider in the planning approval process. Nevertheless, they can be attached to public subsidies and government property disposition policies, and this will include a lot big projects.

Where subsidies or government properties (rather than development approvals) are involved, a CBA requirement raises fewer red flags, and in this context, having local government involvement might work. But you still run the risk that political forces will favor certain community representatives over others, and that could result in unfair results and obviate the potential for disadvantaged community members to band together and use a CBA to gain a seat at the table.

There are other questions. Would CBA legislation prescribe negotiating rules? The proposed Allegany County law would have required the developer to meet with community groups three times, but beyond that it called for no particular negotiation structure. Under a Connecticut law that regulates CBA-like agreements, the developer has to file a "meaningful [public] participation plan" before meeting with the local government to determine whether a CBA is necessary. Other regulations might require the developer to negotiate in good faith, maybe using negotiation rules fashioned after the National Labor Relations Act requirements for collective bargaining (although I've never seen anything like this for CBAs).

It's also worth considering that even if you regulate CBAs, there will always be the opportunity for developers and community coalitions to enter into side deals and call them something else (like maybe a Neighborhood Benefits Agreement or a Good Neighbor Agreement). While people often talk about CBAs as a new tool, the fact is that they're just bilateral contracts with social justice goals and a different name. And even if it might be inappropriate for planning boards and development agencies to consider these sorts of private agreements, negotiated outside of formal "CBA" regulations and not submitted as part of the development application, it's not like planning boards and development agencies exist in a vacuum, and the same PR that makes CBAs a useful persuasive device will make other CBA-like-agreements useful too.

What about existing land use regulations?

The New York City Bar Association has wisely discerned that the biggest problem with CBAs may not be the lack of regulation but the failure of existing land use and planning regulations to meet communities' needs.

To take New York City as an example, there are numerous changes that could make the planning process more inclusive and more responsive to neighborhood concerns. The city could provide funding to Community Boards to create 197-a neighborhood plans, and the city could enact regulations to make it more difficult for developers to receive approval for projects that are inconsistent with adopted 197-a plans. Community Boards could also be given a more significant role in the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. Currently, Community Boards get to hold a public hearing, review development applications, and then submit a recommendation to the borough president and the planning commission. That recommendation is purely advisory, however. Requiring planning commission decisions overturning a Community Board's recommendation to be passed by a supermajority, as they must when they overturn a borough president's recommendation, would help give the Community Boards more say in developments impacting their neighborhoods.

Developers could also be required to submit better information in their Land Use Review Applications, which could help everybody in the process to better understand projects' impacts. Community Impact Reports have been recommended for this purpose (see here for information on similar "Economic Impact Reviews"). These reports require the developer to provide a cost-benefit analysis and to assess employment impacts, housing impacts, neighborhood needs, and sustainability issues. Developers could also be required to provide subsidy disclosures. Of course, all of this information should be posted on the city's website and should be easily accessible offline, such as by providing copies to libraries. That being said, the application process itself should be more open and transparent, especially in the earliest stages. Community Board representatives, for example, should be invited to pre-application meetings between developers and the Department of City Planning. Even better would be regulations providing for a pre-application public hearing.

Finally, a lot of CBA provisions deal with policy issues that might be appropriate for city-wide legislation. Living wage laws, targeted hiring requirements, big box restrictions, green building requirements, and inclusionary housing ordinances all seek to address problems that are covered by a lot of CBAs. Enacting these sorts of ordinances makes the process more predictable for developers and ensures that these policies are applied to all development projects (or at least all projects covered by the legislation), and not just developments located in neighborhoods with strong community coalitions.

The importance of planning

Good planning, anyway, could help developments to provide more benefits to the communities where they're located. As Washington D.C. planner Richard Layman points out, CBAs are justified in part because projects too frequently only have a "trickle down" effect on their communities; but "part of the 'failure' is the failure to coordinate investment and improvements, and to ensure that a project fully connects to the neighborhood and/or commercial district beyond the confines of the lot lines of the development."

Comprehensive planning forces cities to consider where development benefits are needed before developers come in promising tax revenues, new jobs and affordable housing, and cheery project renderings where it's always sunny and there's never any traffic. Layman continues:

Having a structured conversation about community benefits is a necessary first step in the consideration of a wider-range of public-private partnerships organized around land use and development that is designed to yield neighborhood and/or city-wide stabilization and improvement benefits.... In order to craft agreements, first neighborhoods... must work together to develop a set of neighborhood priorities, and ensure that proffers are directed only to those items which the community agrees are important.

This sort of planning--at least in jurisdictions where land use decisions have to be consistent with a comprehensive plan--gives developers some notice as to the type of amenities they should include in an application in order to get a project approved. It also gives communities more leverage before the planning board when they oppose projects that aren't consistent with the existing plan. And when cities facilitate community-based planning, they help to provide a role for neighborhood residents and business owners, which can in some cases obviate the need for a CBA. The Melrose Commons development in the Bronx is one example. The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in Roxbury, Massachusetts, is another.

Comprehensive planning and formalized planning approval procedures can also help to ensure that development amenities are more equitably distributed. Layman says that "communities that are better organized and have more resources end up getting more (or some) benefits, while under-organized communities get little to nothing in terms of benefits from new development occurring within the neighborhood." A 1988 report by the NYC Bar Association similarly explained that "Unrelated amenities... can satisfy needs of the favored community which should not receive priority when viewed on a city-wide basis, while leaving unmet significantly more important needs elsewhere. Communities which lack construction projects are thereby short changed." The more recent NYC Bar Association report reaffirms these points:

The community negotiating the CBA may capture benefits that would have gone instead to the broader community if CBAs were not allowed. Or the community may bargain for one type of benefit, and thereby reduce the ability of elected officials in the public approval process to get a different kind of benefit that would have been more appropriate for the City as a whole.

Further, while the benefits incorporated into CBAs may address important needs, such as affordable housing, critics contend that these issues should be confronted citywide, rather than on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. A citywide approach would be more likely to channel resources into the neighborhoods that need them most, which may not be the neighborhoods that happen to be getting development....

A citywide approach to the City’s needs is likely to be more comprehensive, better planned, and better integrated with the City’s other initiatives.... Diversion of benefits from the City as a whole to the host neighborhood also may result in greater inequality among the City’s neighborhoods. Many neighborhoods within the City will not be zoned for major development or will not have the infrastructure or underused land required for such development. Those communities may share in any benefits of development that are obtained in the public approval process. If CBAs divert benefits from the City as a whole, however, those neighborhoods may see little of the benefits from the City’s growth.

The report mentions as an example the affordable housing commitment in the Atlantic Yards CBA. While the affordable housing promise is superficially very attractive, the fact is that it's conditioned on the availability of scare affordable housing bonds, and the result is that it may become a monopoly on affordable housing financing in the years to come. This kind of result isn't fair, and it's not the ultimate goal of the community benefits movement--CBAs are there to fill the gaps, but they're only a means to an end, and local governments should be working to ensure that the benefits (and burdens) of development are equitably distributed.

Another example is the supermarket fight involving the Kingsbridge Armory CBA (which was never finalized because the project wasn't approved). The CBA coalition wanted the developer to promise not to lease space to any grocery store that would compete with the supermarket across the street. The supermarket exclusion was intended to protect existing unionized jobs, but it also could have had negative effects on the larger group of residents who might shop at a new grocery store for higher quality food and a better selection of healthy foods. The supermarket exclusion might have also had unintended consequences were the existing supermarket to close; then there would be no unionized jobs and no selection of food. I'm not saying that one side or the other was right, but this is the type of issue that should resolved within the context of a comprehensive plan, and not by community coalitions that might be biased or unrepresentative of the relevant community.

Perhaps most importantly, formal planning ensures a level of democracy and accountability that you can't always ensure in the CBA process. Yes, many CBA coalitions do excellent work. But some don't. When amenities are decided on as part of the formal planning process, however, you avoid secret negotiations and ensure that everybody at least has an opportunity to participate.

What else can be done to give some integrity to the CBA process?

To start, CBAs need to be more transparent. Local governments should require all CBAs considered during the project/subsidy approval process to be publicly available, and if the developer negotiates an agreement and doesn't include it in its project application, it shouldn't get any special consideration. Even in California, where the CBA has become something of an institution, the agreements are often not easy to find. (Just go try to find a copy of the Grand Avenue or Hollywood & Highland CBAs.) Where local governments or other agencies have a role in overseeing CBAs, they should also make monitoring reports, amendments, and other CBA-related documents publicly available.

CBA regulations protecting community members and signatories could also be enacted without getting into the messy task of identifying the community. So without mandating CBA negotiations, whenever a developer submits a CBA along with its land use or subsidy application, it could be required to include certain provisions, like periodic reporting requirements, disclosure requirements, amendment procedures, and procedures for members of the public to lodge complaints regarding compliance.

Finally, if CBAs are going to be considered in the subsidy award process, state and local development agencies need to create uniform award guidelines--not just for CBAs, but also for other project aspects. Too many development agencies award subsidies on an ad hoc basis, which gives developers the upper hand. Instead, development agencies should have clear guidelines about subsidy availability that are based on the expected number of jobs and/or affordable housing units to be created, estimated tax revenue increases, sustainability and green building practices, etc. Development agencies also need to be more transparent about the subsidy application and award process (subsidy disclosures and better application requirements, as detailed above, can help in this regard), and they need to attach enforceable conditions to subsidies through the use of clawback agreements.

Buffalo Common Council supports CBA

2010-03-17T04:30:00.000-07:00

In Buffalo, N.Y., the Common Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting a CBA for the heavily subsidized Canal Side Bass Pro project. A copy of the resolution is here. It says that the CBA will include: job quality provisions, including living wage requirements; green building requirements; provision for at least one third of the housing units to be affordable; a set aside of 75% of the non-Bass Pro business space for local and independent businesses; and local and minority hiring goals.

D.C. land disposition law requires CBAs (sort of)

2010-03-10T07:35:00.000-08:00

The Washington D.C. District Land Disposition Amendment Act of 2009 states that when city property is transferred to a developer for a project requiring government assistance, the developer must submit "Any community benefits agreement between the developer and the relevant community, if any".

The law doesn't seem to require CBAs, since there might not be "any" relevant community. It raises some questions though, like can a community coalition demand a CBA when a developer doesn't want to recognize it as "the relevant community"? What if there are competing community coalitions, who decides which one (or both) is "the relevant community"?

Aside from CBAs, the law also imposes some generally applicable community benefit policies. It requires developers that purchase city land to contract with Certified Business Enterprises (local/disadvantaged businesses) for at least 35% of the project's contract dollar volume and to enter into a First Source Agreement with the city. Transparency and accountability are encouraged by requiring the mayor to prepare an economic analysis for property dispositions. The analysis must describe "The manner in which economic factors were weighted and evaluated," and it must also include a narrative explanation as to why the particular disposition method (e.g., competitive bidding, negotiated sale) was chosen.

Leila Marie Jackson Batties at the Holland & Knight law firm has prepared an article discussing the law in more detail.

Just to be clear, Mr. Carrion

2010-03-09T07:14:00.000-08:00

I am all for the White House having an Office of Urban Affairs. But the Director, Adolfo Carrion, shouldn't be boasting about his CBAs in his official bio. It explains that during his tenure as Bronx Borough President, "Almost no project passed muster without a Community Benefits Agreement." What it doesn't explain is that the Gateway Center and Yankee Stadium CBAs didn't really involve the community, making them less like real CBAs and more like backroom political deals. It doesn't mention that the Gateway Center CBA doesn't provide for specific performance as a remedy, but only liquidated damages, or that the Yankee Stadium CBA is very likely unenforceable for lack of consideration. Nor does it mention all of the shenanigans that have gone on with the Yankee Stadium CBA, like the year and half long delay in distributing funding under the CBA, the lawsuit filed by the community fund's former lawyer and administrator alleging mismanagement of the fund, the indictment of a city council member on extortion and money laundering charges related to a procurement contract connected to the CBA, or the fact that parks promised to be built on the site of the old Yankee Stadium still haven't materialized.

It's problems like these that have contributed to the poor reputation of New York City CBAs and created precedent for developers to co-opt the CBA negotiating process. The CBAs that Carrion helped to draft and finalize also figure among the catalysts for City Comptroller John Liu's recent decision to form a task force on CBA best practices and reforms. The White House simply shouldn't be representing these agreements up as an example of good urban policy, even if only impliedly.

CBAs and livable streets

2010-03-05T11:26:00.000-08:00

StreetsBlog posted an article by Noah Kazis last week about how CBAs are increasingly being used to encourage livable street designs. The Longfellow CBA, which has a variety of pedestrian and transit benefits, is cited as an example, as is the residential parking permit program included in the Staples Center CBA. And even if the New York City CBAs have so far been mostly a wash, Kazis says (in part, quoting me), he points out that CBAs are here to stay, and "Where the public makes livable streets a priority, CBAs can be useful tools."

Did you say "slush fund"?

2010-02-11T06:07:00.000-08:00

City Council member Larry Seabrook was indicted earlier this week for money laundering, extortion, and fraud, and the indictment revealed that he got a subcontract for Yankee Stadium awarded to a Bronx boiler manufacturer not on the original bidder list. (The New York Times called the manufacturer a "close associate" of his). Under pressure to work with local businesses, the manufacturer was awarded the job even though its bid was $13,000 higher than the low bid. Allegedly, Seabrook then got the manufacturer to pay him $50,000--with most of the payments going to shady community organizations that he controlled. Seabrook, who never disclosed his relationship to those community groups, also used them to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in City Council discretionary funds to himself and his family.

City Comptroller John Liu is now pressing for changes to the development approval process. Liu called the New York City CBAs an "embarrassment," and said that standards need to be created to regulate these deals:

From Atlantic Yards to Yankee Stadium to the Columbia University expansion, the public has seen a string of broken promises to communities and questionable involvement by some government officials. Furthermore, an additional layer of unpredictability confronts developers when they engage in private negotiations over benefits associated with their projects. In fact, studies have singled out New York City's community benefit agreements as examples of what not to do.

He's setting up a task force to propose best practices, and he's also going to look at the standards for Industrial Development Agencies, which, in New York, exist mainly to channel subsidies to developers. As Liu explains, individual projects are often worthwhile and deserving of public funds, but a clear process is needed to define priorities for the distribution of scarce subsidies.

The Atlantic Yards Report points out the Seabrook scandal raises questions about the Atlantic Yards CBA:

Most of the signatories of the AY Community Benefits Agreement did not exist before the project arose, and all are funded by the developer, Forest City Ratner's MaryAnne Gilmartin finally acknowledged last July. . . .

One of the CBA signatories, ACORN, got a $1.5 million loan/bailout from the developer. Another, the "dubious nonprofit" Brooklyn Endeavor Experience, has spent most of its funding on pest management at its building, First Atlantic Terminal, even though "such tasks are not really part of BEE's mandate". Meanwhile, Darryl Greene, the subject of an intense controversy regarding a deal for a video casino, also has ties to the CBA. "An RFP for an Independent Compliance Monitor was issued by Greene's Darman Group in March 2007, nearly three years ago, but no such position was ever announced."

New York City has had trouble with development amenities for a long time, so the problems with the Atlantic Yards, Yankee Stadium, and Columbia CBAs are in some ways unsurprising. A 1988 report from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York recommended doing away with CBA-type deals:

While at first blush it appears useful to require developers to meet community needs by providing amenities of various sorts in return for project approvals, in a city chronically short of funds for public purposes, the practice of requiring them to build amenities unrelated to needs created by their project has undesirable consequences for government and should be discontinued.

Requirements to provide amenities unrelated to project needs at bottom constitute taxes, which are not levied evenhandedly on the basis of neutral principles but are required from developers on a case by case basis. These ad hoc requirements cast government in an unjust and therefor untenable role.

Such a practice also tends to undercut the decision making process. Government decision makers can be induced to approve projects in order to obtain amenities unrelated to the project's needs, rather than from an examination of projects solely on their merits. The use of such amenities thus tends to have a distorting effect of decision making.

They also distort the city's priorities and capital planning. While such amenities unrelated to project needs seem attractive to meet such needs are those for senior citizen housing, parks and libraries in some communities, these may or may not be the city's greatest priorities. Priorities should be worked out carefully on a city-wide basis, not ad hoc on a community basis. Capital planning should also not be ad hoc.

Short term considerations should not overwhelm sound principles, particularly in New York City, which has spent years since the fiscal crisis in eliminating past practices that represented an accumulation of such gimmicks.

The requirement of building unrelated amenities also can make the city less attractive for developers. They thus can interfere with long term objectives of promoting rational development in the city.

While developers perhaps can adjust, the practice threatens to corrode the integrity of city government and its zoning and land use laws. That price is too high for any of the advantages claimed.

Good luck Mr. Liu.

Work begins on the Hill District master plan

2010-01-26T05:54:00.001-08:00

One of the key provisions of the Penguins arena/One Hill CBA was funding for a community master plan. The plan was supposed to be finished by now, but was delayed because of funding issues. Now planning consultants have been hired and the process is finally starting. That raises the question of whether the Penguins will hold off on submitting additional development plans for the old Mellon arena until the Hill District plan is finished. The CBA only required the Penguins to wait until February, 2010, but Penguins representatives have said that they want to work with the community.

The master plan will be guided a set of principles developed by the Hill District Consensus Group.

Lower East Side Basketball City CBA?

2010-01-22T06:32:00.001-08:00

There has been talk for the past few weeks of a CBA for Basketball City, a recreational facility planned for Pier 36 on the New York City's East River. Based on a 1994 legal agreement requiring Pier 36 to be "permanently dedicated for use... as a community recreation facility," the developer previously agreed to make the facility available to low income residents (more info on that legal agreement here). But that promise wasn't included in the city's lease to Basketball City, leading Community Board 3 to seek a binding CBA.

The proposed community benefits agreement requires Basketball City to charge reduced fees for CB3 residents, and even smaller fees for low income and public housing residents. Free court time would be offered to nonprofits and schools, and the developer would be expected to make a good faith effort to provide living wage jobs.

Bruce Radler, president of Basketball City, says that he can't formalize a CBA because the project hasn't started. He also emphasizes that "Basketball City is committed to giving back to the community."

One question that nobody seems to have asked yet, is whether CB3 should even be involved with this CBA. Remember, back in 2007, the city planning commission recommended that CB9 create a private local development corporation to negotiate a CBA with Columbia University, instead of bargaining directly. Having the community board involved, the planning commission said, "would raise significant issues regarding sound land use planning and create either the appearance or reality that such agreements are not voluntary in nature."

In fact, there's already a community organization that's been developing ideas for the Lower East Side waterfront. The O.U.R. Waterfront Coalition produced "A People's Plan for the East River Waterfront" through a community visioning process involving three planning sessions with 150 participants, a town hall meeting with 80 participants, and an 800-person survey. They've also commissioned financial analyses and business plans, and they've reviewed existing NYC Economic Development Corporation contracts. (See also here for information on the Waterfront Alliance.) The Waterfront Coalition had been negotiating directly with Bruce Radler for community benefits, but it agreed last week to work through the CB3 framework instead of negotiating separately.

Gotham Gazette: "Will Derailing a Bad Project Lead to a Good One?"

2010-01-22T06:21:00.000-08:00

Today's Gotham Gazette includes an excellent article by Joan Byron recapping the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance's campaign for responsible and accountable development in the Northwest Bronx. When Related Cos. proposed to redevelop the armory as a shopping center, KARA insisted on a CBA with a living wage requirement, and when Related refused to guarantee living wage jobs, KARA succeeded in convincing the city council to reject the project.

And so, Byron asks, will defeating the shopping mall proposal lead to a better development plan?

KARA is ready to go back to the drawing board, with an even clearer understanding of what the Bronx stands to lose, and to gain. Realizing the damage that a mega-mall would inevitably inflict, KARA and its allies are seeking a community-led vision that will maximize local benefits without destroying the neighborhood.
They won’t have to look far for a precedent. Another armory opened its doors to its host community this month, gracefully accommodating a women’s shelter, community space and a YMCA whose gym will also serve local kids during the school day. The redevelopment of Brooklyn’s Park Slope Armory took years to move from vision to reality, but KARA members are already asking "why not here?"

Minority and local hiring numbers for the Consol Center (Penguins Arena) CBA

2010-01-21T05:48:00.000-08:00

The Penguins Arena One Hill CBA doesn't contain specific minority and local hiring targets, but it does include a lot of provisions intended to foster minority and local involvement in the project. (See here for more info on the One Hill Coalition.) According to numbers released last week, "African-Americans make up about 3 percent of those employed on the Consol Energy Arena development project. Of that number, 1 percent live in the Hill District. Women also make up about 1 percent."

Carl Redwood, co-chair of the Hill Consensus Group, is disappointed in the numbers, but is focusing on achieving higher minority hiring rates for permanent jobs.

Agreement finalized under Connecticut CBA law

2010-01-21T05:34:00.000-08:00

Connecticut's 2008 Community Environmental Benefits Agreement law combines elements of more typical CBAs with environmental justice principles. The law was put to use last November by environmental groups and New Haven officials to mitigate the impacts of a power plant expansion project. The agreement aims to ensure that emissions from the new generators will not increase overall air pollution, and it also provides $500,000 to the city to fund environmental projects.

SugarHouse CBA cash to be distributed

2010-01-18T07:52:00.000-08:00

The SugarHouse CBA requires the casino to pay $175,000 a year to a nonprofit Special Services District, and the first installment of that money will soon be distributed to community groups. (The amount of annual funding varies according to a schedule set out in the CBA.)

On Wednesday, the SSD board will hear presentations from five community groups at a meeting open to the public. Some of the $175,000 may be held in the account and distributed later in the year.

Information about the public meeting can be found here. Grant application forms can be obtained by emailing penntreatyssd@gmail.com.

Update Jan. 26, 2010: For information on the board's disbursements, see here.

Brian Lehrer and Seth Pinsky discuss CBAs and economic development in New York City

2010-01-12T06:19:00.000-08:00

Seth Pinsky, president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, spoke on the Brian Lehrer show on Monday. Responding to a question about Mayor Bloomberg's recent criticisms of CBAs, Pinsky said that "it's important to distinguish between garnering community benefits through the legally prescribed process and community benefit agreements. The objection that the mayor has is that communities, and who these community members are, have often tried to make agreements separate from the political process to benefit only those communities in ways that are completely unenforceable by the city and also in ways that cost the city and cost city taxpayers substantial amounts of money."

I would point out that Bloomberg endorsed the Atlantic Yards CBA, even though there was no city review of the project at all, and he provided substantial funding to help Columbia negotiate a CBA through the West Harlem Local Development Corporation. So to a certain extent, if these CBAs are costing city taxpayers and operating outside the city planning process, it can be attributed to the administration's previous policy stance. Moreover, the New York City CBAs, for the most part, are not "completely unenforceable." There may be difficulty in enforcing them, but they're still valid contracts. (On that note, the Yankee Stadium CBA, which has the most legal problems, will soon be going to court.)

Pinsky continued by emphasizing the importance of a more formal process: "What the mayor feels is the appropriate way to ensure that communities in the city as a whole benefit, is to use the political process that we have, the Uniform Land Use Review Process, through which the community board, the borough president, as well as the city council are able to ensure that the communities get the benefits that they need."

Kingsbridge Armory plans rejected, 45-1

2009-12-15T05:06:00.000-08:00

The New York City Council yesterday rejected the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plans by a vote of 45 to 1, with one abstention. The vote turned primarily on developer Related's refusal to impose a living wage requirement on retail tenants, a stance that prevented finalization of a CBA between Related and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance.

The vote was not altogether surprising, as the Bronx delegation to the city council has been actively pushing for the living wage requirement, but it nevertheless comes as a defeat to the Bloomberg administration, which saw the project as a boon to the borough. The rejection comes just about a week after an appellate court threw a wrench into Columbia's plans to build a new campus in West Harlem by holding that the project could not use eminent domain.

Under the New York City Charter section 197-d (available here), Bloomberg has the chance to file a written disapproval of the action, which can only be overturned by a two thirds majority of the city council. Council speaker Christine Quinn has stated that she has the votes to overturn any mayoral veto. If the rejection is sustained, Related will have 30 days to file a complaint for judicial review.

The Kingsbridge impasse continues

2009-12-11T05:51:00.000-08:00

The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance is strongly opposing a compromise deal that would have supplemented wages with city money. "This is a bad deal for the Bronx and all New Yorkers and we are calling on the Council to vote it down," said Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter of KARA. "The so-called living wage fund that the Administration is proposing is nothing but a subsidized poverty fund."

Will there be a vote on the Kingsbridge Armory development today?

2009-12-09T05:49:00.000-08:00

The New York City Council is scheduled to vote on the Kingsbridge Armory project today, but negotiations on the CBA and its controversial living wage requirement are ongoing. This has led members of the Bronx delegation to seek a postponement of the vote, possibly until Monday.

It seems that the Bronx delegation has proposed to subsidize living wage jobs, initially with the $5 million purchase price for the armory (which itself is an incredible subsidy to the developer), and thereafter through a 5% surcharge on the developer's profits. This way, living wages could be mandated on all retail tenants, but the costs would fall on the city and the developer, negating the developer's argument that the wage requirement would make it difficult to attract tenants.

Read the fine print

2009-12-07T06:10:00.000-08:00

The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) just issued a decision finding that a CBA-like agreement could not be enforced against the project's owner because, by its terms, the agreement had expired. (The lower court opinion is available here.)

The contract expressed quite clearly that it would expire after 10 years, but the corporation that was formed to implement the agreement challenged it anyway. One of the corporation's arguments was that it couldn't have intended such a short duration because the project couldn't have been completed within 10 years. The court didn't buy this, admonishing the corporation that it could have written a longer term into the agreement had it so desired.

While this case doesn't say anything about the general validity of CBAs, it does underscore the importance of paying attention to durational terms and other contract details. Most CBAs specify a term of 30 to 40 years, although the Gateway Center CBA has a duration of less than 10 years and the SugarHouse CBA will remain in effect indefinitely.

Opposition to government-designated CBA coalition in Santa Rosa

2009-12-01T07:27:00.000-08:00

The Accountable Development Coalition (ADC), which negotiated the recent Sonoma Mountain Village CBA, is coming under more fire. It seems that the SMART rail district, a quasi-public entity, is requiring developers of the New Railroad Square project to negotiate a CBA, specifically with the ADC. Attention has also been brought to the fact that the Sonoma Mountain Village CBA provides funding for the ADC: $5,000 upfront and $6,000 per year after that.

This has some people upset. As an editorial in the Press Democrat explained: "The coalition represents many important interests, but we don't believe it speaks for the entire community and, as a private organization that potentially could stand to benefit financially from such an agreement, it should not be allowed to dictate terms on a public project like this."

Regarding the issue of who speaks for the community, ADC critics have a good point. No coalition is ever going to be able to represent the whole community, and even if this were possible, the government probably shouldn't be involved in deciding which coalitions get to make CBAs.

Fortunately, the developers aren't being limited to negotiating with the ADC, and they've reached out to other community groups interested in being involved in the CBA. Kudos to them. The ADC would do well to open itself up as well.

Regarding the payment issue, CBA coalitions are regularly advised not to accept direct funding from developers. John Goldstein of the Partnership for Working Families has explained as much:

As a matter of principle, groups in our network don’t take money from developers. We want to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.... We have advocated in CBAs that developers give to the communities they’re developing in.

So the ADC may want to revise its policies somewhat. But critics should also acknowledge that the ADC is a mostly volunteer organization and that $6,000 a year isn't all that much. In other words, this doesn't seem like the type of case where coalition groups are getting bought off. The Atlantic Yards project, in contrast, involves much larger grants to all of the organizations that signed the CBA. (See the Atlantic Yards Report for more on that.)

Finally, there has been more criticism that the ADC has too much political influence and that it will scare developers away from non-union contractors. This is a straw man argument. If non-union contractors are going to suffer because of precedents set by the Sonoma Mountain Village CBA, the problem is that the CBA provisions are appealing to developers and lawmakers, not that the ADC has somehow improperly influenced government decision makers.

More push back against CBAs in Sonoma County

2009-11-22T09:27:00.000-08:00

Apparently, New Yorkers aren't the only people to be skeptical about CBAs. Bucking the California trend, the CBA for Sonoma Mountain Village has not been well received.

Last month, CBAs were accused of creating an anti-business climate. An op-ed this week calls them anti-competitive "special interest giveaways," and claims that coalitions use "power politics" to prevent non-union contractors from winning bids. The article's author, John Corry, is on the board of the Associated Building and Contractors Golden Gate Chapter.

The way it works, Mr. Corry says, is that supposed "community" groups force developers to enter into project labor agreements (PLAs), which require union labor. Developers weigh the added costs of union labor against the likely costs of community groups' threatened litigation, and often give in. One commenter helpfully calls this "greenmail."* This manipulative behavior doesn't just cost the developer more, it also forces non-union contractors out of the bidding process.

Mr. Corry makes some good points: a CBA doesn't represent the community just because it says it does; CBAs often use "power politics;" and they can favor special interests.

But Mr. Corry's article is tall on criticism and short on context.

CBAs, by their nature, favor special interests, but this is not necessarily bad. The development process has long been dominated by different and more powerful interest groups: tycoons, monopolists, propertied gentry, chambers of commerce, building trades associations, national development companies, etc. Unions can be put on this list too, but that doesn't reflect on their inherent societal value. Mr. Corry also fails to recognize that CBA coalitions represent more than union viewpoints. Commonly, coalitions bring together neighborhood groups, environmentalists, civil rights supporters, faith-based organizations, urbanists, affordable housing advocates, community development groups, living wage supporters, etc. CBAs give these historically disempowered groups a way to engage successfully in interest group politics, and the diversity of viewpoints that they bring to the table can ideally strengthen the democratic nature of the planning process.

Similarly, the fact that CBA coalitions use leverage, or power politics, to achieve their goals is not necessarily manipulative; developers, after all, certainly use political influence to their own advantage as well.

Mr. Corry's complaints that PLAs and CBAs end up costing taxpayers more is arguable. I'm not one to make absolute statements about this type of economic issue, but I will point out that many government entities, including New York and the White House, have determined that PLAs can be an effective method for lowering construction costs and decreasing the likelihood of labor disturbances. Moreover, PLAs can help to ensure that workers receive living wages and other labor benefits, even if they are not part of a union. (PLAs, contrary to Mr. Corry's statements, do not always foreclose non-union contractors and non-union employees from working on projects. See here for more details.) Regardless, PLAs are typically negotiated separately from CBAs, and even when they are included, they are but one negotiation element among many others.

Finally, Mr. Corry fails to acknowledge the breadth of qualitative and quantitative positive impacts that CBAs can have. It may be true that some CBAs will be astroturf, or unenforceable, or overly expensive, or extortion, but Mr. Corry's generalizations are too simplistic to give us any help in avoiding such outcomes.

* "Greenmail" it seems, is already a term for a type of corporate takeover strategy. (Wikipedia.) A quick google search will get you only a few results using greenmail to mean environmental blackmail. (National Right to Work Committee; NYT (quoting Mr. Corry's organization); The Register.)

New lawsuit questions the Atlantic Yards CBA

2009-11-20T06:22:00.000-08:00

A lawsuit filed against Atlantic Yards this week, while not directly challenging the CBA, calls the agreement's integrity into question. In particular, the petition alleges that Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the project's quasi-public sponsor, and Forest City Ratner (FCR), the developer, ignored calls from the community for more public input and participation:

53. Throughout the review process, the public . . . was provided with only the most limited opportunity to participate in the review of the Project, even though the massive development would admittedly change significantly the character of the area and impose on adjacent neighborhoods very significant environmental impacts. This was due significantly to the use of ESDC as the titular sponsor of the Project; under its legislative mandate, all that was required in terms of public involvement was a legislative public hearing on the GPP [general project plan] and the DEIS [draft environmental impact statement]. And neither ESDC nor FCRC extended themselves beyond the explicit mandate. Indeed, in voting to disapprove the Project, the local community board based its decision on, among other things, “a failure to involve the community board and the community in a meaningful way; misleading and overstating the involvement of the public in the process.”

54. Following ESDC’s 2006 approval of the Project, concerned civic groups and community organizations began calling for more community involvement, increased transparency of decision-making and reform of project governance. This led in August 2006 to the formation of a group of Brooklyn and citywide civic associations and affordable housing groups, including the petitioners, sponsoring an initiative known as BrooklynSpeaks, which in turn in August 2007 released a proposal for a revised governance structure that would allow for more openness and more meaningful community participation in decisions regarding the shaping of the Project. This proposal was subsequently endorsed by the state and city elected officials from the area and in the spring of 2008, ESDC offered to form a community advisory council. However, it refused to identify any role for the council in future decision-making, and the offer came to naught as local elected officials were unwilling to appoint representatives on these terms. Subsequent efforts by petitioners and others to open up the ESDC process also proved unsuccessful.

The affidavit filed with the petition more explicitly criticizes the CBA, as pointed out over at the Atlantic Yards Report. It describes how the developer held a meeting for the purpose of creating BUILD, an organization that would later help support the CBA. It also says that community groups asked the developer to reopen the CBA, as the agreement failed to cover many neighborhood impacts. Although Forest City Ratner suggested that it might enter into a "neighborhood benefits agreement," it never followed through.

Lance Freeman, an urban planning professor at Columbia, has been more explicit about the dubious nature of the Atlantic Yards CBA. In 2007, he wrote:

At first glance, CBAs might appear to be welcome tool for fostering a more inclusionary planning process. In an attempt to garner support for the mega-project Forrest City Ratner entered into the CBA with several community based organizations the most prominent of which are ACORN and BUILD. . . .

While the CBA does at least give some of the most disenfranchised residents an opportunity to reap some benefits from the project, this is an undemocratic way to insure community input into a planning process. The signatories to the CBA may indeed represent a disenfranchised segment of the community. They may be organic members of the community. But they may not. The point is there is no mechanism to insure that the “community” in a CBA is representative of the community. If the signatories to the CBA were simply viewed as another interest group, that might be ok. But the CBA is being presented as illustrative of the development’s community input. Public officials are posing for pictures with the developer and signatories to the CBA, giving the impression that the community had significant input into the planning Atlantic Yards. This is not necessarily the case.

In fact, New York City has a planning process to insure community input, the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The Atlantic Yards skirted the ULURP requirements because as a state entity the MTA is not subject to local land use regulations. The CBA, however, cannot be viewed as a substitute for a true planning process that includes community input. If a developer is proposing a project that will unduly burden the community, exacting benefits in exchange for tolerating these burdens is fine idea. Ideally, this would be done as part of a democratic planning process. When negotiated by private organizations, however, this is symptomatic of a flawed planning process. When CBAs are used in place of an inclusive planning process they run the risk of legitimating the very process they are supposed to counteract, planning and development that disenfranchises.

Mixed news from Pittsburgh

2009-11-19T06:06:00.000-08:00

The good news in Pittsburgh is that construction has begun on a hotel that will complement the new Penguins arena, and because of the CBA's local hiring provisions, Hill District residents will have an advantage in getting the some 200 temporary and 100 permanent jobs.

The city council also introduced prevailing wage legislation this week. If passed, the wage requirement will apply to city contractors and some private developments receiving city subsidies. The proposal is facing typical criticisms that it's anti-business, and getting typical support from labor, environmental and faith-based groups that want to see an end to poverty wage jobs.

In less encouraging news, the grocery store deal put together with the help of $2 million from the Penguins CBA has fallen apart, apparently because of the store owner's health problems. While Pittsburgh United and city officials are optimistic that they will find another grocer, Hill District residents, who haven't had a grocery store in decades, may find themselves waiting that much longer.

More support for living wages at the Kingsbridge Armory

2009-11-18T12:15:00.000-08:00

If yesterday's city council meeting foreshadows the city's ultimate decision on the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plans, the developer may be in for a disappointment. According to one account, "virtually the entire Zoning and Franchising Subcommittee, (which will be the only Council committee to hold a hearing on the project) grilled company representatives on the living wage issue." Another source called it "a major road block."

The developer, Related Cos., and the Bloomberg administration have been fighting against the living wage requirement for months, but the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, with strong support from Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, seem to have succeeded in persuading city council members not to let the project go forward without a CBA requiring a living wage. At the meeting, city council members contended that not including the wage provision would make the heavily subsidized project into "an economic exploitation project" and would "keep the neighborhood poor." Other council members expressed skepticism at claims that the project wouldn't be commercially feasible with higher wage standards. Diaz declared that "these jobs must be created in the right way. The old model, that any job is better than no job, is no longer acceptable."

The city council put off its decision in order to have more time to question city officials about the project. A public hearing will be held on Nov. 23, and a vote on the project will be made by Dec. 9.

Support growing for the Kingsbridge CBA living wage requirement

2009-11-13T05:57:00.000-08:00

The city council is set to vote in December on the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment proposal, and support seems to be growing for a living wage. In CBA talks between the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance and the Related Cos., the living wage issue has led to an impasse, but enough pressure from city council members might persuade the developer to agree to the living wage requirement or some sort of compromise.

In addition to support from the Bronx city council delegation--and the rest of the city council often votes in accordance with the area's council representatives-- Queens council member and comptroller-elect John Liu has come out in favor of the living wage requirement, emphasizing the inadequacy of low wage jobs and suggesting that Related has no grounds for compliant given the amount of public subsidy it has received. Brooklyn council member Charles Barron has also said that he supports the CBA and the living wage provision, although he recognizes that this is an improper basis upon which to base his vote on the land use application. (This point was explained by Amanda Burden, chair of the city planning commission, a few weeks ago.)

Students selected for Syracuse CBA job shadowing program

2009-11-07T13:26:00.000-08:00

The Alliance of Communities Transforming Syracuse (ACTS) and Syracuse Alliance for a New Economy (SANE) have selected the first group of students to participate in the job shadowing CBA that was negotiated earlier this year. The students will shadow construction workers as part of a $1 billion school renovation project, giving them an opportunity to gain skills and gauge potential career paths.

Buffalo's CBA Coalition gets some support from electeds

2009-11-05T07:00:00.000-08:00

Buffalo common council members Michael J. LoCurto and Joseph Golombek Jr. have thrown in their support for a Canal Side CBA. As reported in the Buffalo News:

Committee Chairman Michael J. LoCurto of the Delaware District said he supports such an agreement and will broach the issue with officials from the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corp. when he meets with them next week. LoCurto said he often fears that Buffalo is so "desperate" to create jobs, it doesn't always pay enough attention to the types of jobs that are created.

North Council Member Joseph Golombek Jr., one of the Council's most vocal opponents of the Bass Pro project, said he's taking a close look at the guidelines proposed by the Coalition for Economic Justice.

Buffalo Partnership for Public Good calls for CBA

2009-10-22T06:30:00.000-07:00

The Partnership for Public Good (PPG), which counts more than 50 partner organizations, is calling on Empire State Development Corporation and its subsidiary, Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC), to incorporate CBA requirements into its Canal Side project plans.

Canal Side is a 20 acre, $300 million mixed use development that's intended to revitalize Buffalo's waterfront. ECHDC, a quasi-public entity, will almost certainly award subsidies to Bass Pro and other private corporations that take part in the development. PPG wants to see community benefits attached to these subsidies, "to ensure that the massive public investment in the project produces authentic public goods." The partnership's priorities include living wage jobs, sustainable design and operations, support for local businesses, and affordable housing.

Reactions to the Sonoma Mountain Village CBA

2009-10-21T07:18:00.000-07:00

The Sonoma Mountain Village CBA, announced last week, has already garnered some negative reactions. Lisa Schaffner, the mayor of Healdsburg, California, and the executive director of the Sonoma County Alliance, a public interest group and political action committee, is one of the agreement's critics. She believes that CBAs should only be negotiated for projects receiving public subsidies, and that the CBA for the privately financed Sonoma Mountain Village sets a precedent that could harm the area's business and development climate.

On the other hand, the developer and CBA coalition members see the agreement as contributing to the project's sustainability goals. The developer, Codding Enterprises, has pointed out it's "not an average kind of developer," and that "there is no one-size-fits-all way of looking at development." I would add that the chances of the CBA becoming a precedent for all privately financed developments is limited, given that CBAs are voluntary agreements. If a developer chooses to emulate Sonoma Mountain Village and pursue a triple bottom line, or if a developer wants to obtain community support or quell community opposition, a CBA may be a good fit. But entering into a CBA is not a mandatory part of the land use approval process, and experience with CBAs has demonstrated that developers often resist negotiations.

Moreover, I would ask whether it really matters if a project receives subsidies. Sure, the receipt of public funds strengthens the case for a CBA, but the impacts of the project on the community will be the same regardless of how it's financed. And I question whether Sonoma Mountain Village is completely financed by private sources; most billion dollar projects receive some form of subsidy, whether it takes the form of infrastructure, tax abatements, environmental remediation, below market property sales, affordable housing incentives, or outright cash grants.

And setting a precedent for CBAs won't necessarily scare developers off. CBAs offer a lot of benefits to developers: they help to achieve positive community relationships; they ward off costly litigation and development delays; they can help a developer to meet sustainability and social equity goals; and they're great for public relations.

But I would agree that CBAs set precedents for community coalitions, which can use the clout of past victories to attract new members, gain public and political support, and increase their leverage in future CBA negotiations. The Accountable Development Coalition, which neogiated the Sonoma Mountain Village CBA, has done just that. It's currently in talks with the developer of the New Railroad Square Project.

Kingsbridge Armory plans get approval from the planning commission; still no CBA

2009-10-20T06:01:00.000-07:00

In New York, the city planning commission voted 8-4 yesterday to approve the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plans, despite Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz's recommendation to reject the proposal unless the developer entered into a CBA. Amanda Burden, chair of the CPC, explained candidly that the CBA issue was not an appropriate one for the commission to consider: “For this application, as we have consistently held with other applications in the past, the issue of a Community Benefit Agreement including commitment to living wages should not weigh in our consideration of the merits of the land-use application for rezoning, disposition of City-owned property, and changes to the City Map.” The city council now must make a final decision on the project within 50 days.

The SugarHouse CBA

2009-10-19T09:42:00.001-07:00

** This post was substantially updated on Jan. 18, 2010. Contact me here to obtain the archived original post. **

Plans for building new casinos in Pennsylvania have caused quite a stir in recent years (see here for information about the state's Gaming Control Board and here for opposition to the state's gambling policies).

The SugarHouse Casino project

SugarHouse was one of the casinos granted a license in late 2006, after gambling was legalized in the state in 2004. It now has plans to build a casino/entertainment complex on the waterfront in Philadelphia. Much of the opposition to the plans stems from anti-gambling sentiments, but other concerns have been raised. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, for example, wants a more thorough review of the area, which is believed to include the site of a British fort from the Revolutionary War. And the Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, has refused to pay the estimated $14 million in annual policing costs for SugarHouse and Foxwoods, another casino planned for Philadelphia.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court pretty much approved the SugarHouse project in December 2007, when it held that the City Council's failure to act on its zoning and land use requests amounted to "deliberate inaction." (A similar decision was later issued regarding the other casino proposed for Philadelphia, Foxwoods.) The court ordered the city to designate the site as a commercial entertainment district and to give final approval to the project's development plan. (See this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer for a good summary, or read the whole opinion here.) In January 2008, Mayor Nutter attempted to revoke one of SugarHouse's licenses, claiming that the previous administration had rushed the process to get it approved before Mayor Nutter took office. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the city's claims on standing grounds in June, 2009.

Community outreach

While the city was trying to get more control over the casino permitting process, SugarHouse began to campaign for public support. It committed to fund emergency services, use green building techniques, make payments to the city of $67 million over ten years, make sewer improvements, develop a comprehensive transportation plan and an economic opportunity plan (to increase minority and women participation in the casino's construction and operation) and to construct a publicly-accessible waterfront promenade as part of the project.

Despite these promises, a lot of people have negative beliefs about the impacts of casinos, including, in Philadelphia, the community group Casino-Free Philadelphia. As a way of getting additional public support, SugarHouse pledged to enter into a CBA.

Negotiations were held primarily with two community groups, FACT (Fishtown Action) and New Kensington Community Development Corporation. FACT was labeled as astroturf and "merely a front for SugarHouse", but it's unclear how much of the opposition to the CBA was really motivated by anti-gambling sentiments (rather than concerns about development impacts).

The Special Services District

The SugarHouse CBA is unique in being structured around a nonprofit Special Services District, although the SSD is somewhat similar the LDC that negotiated the Columbia University CBA. The SSD covers Fishtown, Northern Liberties, Old Richmond, and South Kensington, and its mission, as stated in the articles of incorporation, is “to mitigate the impact of Sugar House Casino functions and activities; to address other issues which affect the quality of life within the District; and to engage in any other activities which may lessen community tensions, combat community deterioration and improve the community as a place to live and work....” The District is controlled by seven voting members on its board of directors, all of whom serve without compensation. Voting members may not hold other public offices. These board members are elected by residents of the covered neighborhoods, save for the inaugural board. (The inaugural board members are to be appointed by two of the community groups that were involved in negotiations.) However, there’s also a nonvoting advisory board, made up of local officials.

Information about the SSD board members can be found here.

Interestingly, the Sugar House CBA has an indefinite term. The agreement is also light on consideration. Although the District agreed not to use any funding received by SugarHouse for litigation against the casino, the CBA specifically permits any District member to oppose the project in her individual capacity.

Annual funding

Under the CBA, SugarHouse agreed to provide substantial annual funding to the SSD: $175,000 annually between the project’s approval and opening, and $1 million annually after opening, to be renegotiated after 15 years. The money will be distributed for community programs, but the agreement doesn't include any clear guidelines as to how the money should be spent. The lack of guidelines could be interpreted as nontransparency, but it could also be seen as a way to maintain flexibility in funding decisions.

Other CBA provisions

SugarHouse will establish a public complaint hotline for residents of the immediate neighborhood;
Union labor will be used for construction of Phase I;
SugarHouse agrees to a policy of union neutrality;
Local union members will be able to sign up for preferential consideration by the construction manager; subcontractors (who will make most of the hires) will not be required to give a preference to local workers, but they will be encouraged to do so;
SugarHouse will hold at least one job fair prior to opening to inform local residents of permanent job opportunities and eligibility requirements, and it will make good faith efforts to hire neighborhood residents;
SugarHouse will create an internship program for neighborhood students with at least two available positions; SugarHouse will also offer a job training program for non-college neighborhood residents, with at least two available positions;
SugarHouse will offer job counseling services to neighborhood residents for a year prior to opening;
SugarHouse will give employees special training relating to problem gambling and alcoholism (employees will be trained how to recognize and deal with compulsive gamblers); SugarHouse will also provide brochures on problem gambling and posters to the District for distribution in the community;
SugarHouse will use good faith efforts to hire local contractors, vendors, and suppliers;
SugarHouse will use good faith efforts to ensure that riverfront access is not limited for more than 6 hours per week due to private functions (e.g., weddings, concerts);
SugarHouse will distribute “reward” points that will be redeemable at local businesses, in order to stimulate spinoff economic activity;
Meeting space for the SSD will be provided after construction of Phase II;
SugarHouse will provide free parking to minimize its employees’ and patrons’ use of neighborhood parking spaces;
SugarHouse will give the SSD $5,000 to use for free car washes during construction;
SugarHouse will provide security on-site, for the public waterfront, and possibly outside the project if deemed necessary;
SugarHouse will provide its own emergency medical services.

Links

The SugarHouse CBA and SSD incorporation papers
Project documents (e.g., development agreement, EIS, presentations)

CBA to cover residential development in Rohnert Park, Cal.

2009-10-16T06:59:00.000-07:00

It was reported this week that Sonoma Mountain Village, a mixed use residential development proposed for a 200-acre former industrial site, will be covered by a CBA. The agreement was negotiated by the Sonoma County Accountable Development Coalition, which includes labor, housing and environmental groups.

Sonoma Mountain Village, which will have nearly 2,000 homes and cost $1 billion, hopes to be a sustainable project. In addition to following the city's green building ordinance, the project is the first in north America to be endorsed by One Planet Communities. Brad Baker, president and CEO of developer Codding Enterprises, suggested that the CBA fits into the company's sustainability mission. “When we originally came up with the concept of Sonoma Mountain Village," he said, "we wanted it to be something special and unique and be a mixed-use project and be green and sustainable.... By entering into these agreements, we are not just talking about it — we are doing it.” As another Codding Enterprises representative put it, "It all touches on social equity."

The CBA includes a number of important benefits, including a commitment to pay living wages, a promise of union neutrality, and a 15% inclusionary housing requirement. Other requirements related to transportation, environmental reviews, land use, water use, and open space preservation are included in the CBA.

$7.75 million CBA for Bloodvein First Nation in Manitoba, Can.

2009-10-16T06:16:00.000-07:00

A memorandum of understanding was signed this week between the East Side Road Authority and Bloodvien First Nation, located along Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada, establishing the community benefits that will accompany construction of an all-season road. The agreement is based on another CBA that was reached in June between the road authority and Berens River First Nation. Among the benefits included in the CBA: the authority will establish a construction training program; construction jobs will go to members of the First Nation community; and Bloodvein First Nation will be permitted to use all harvested material for community purposes. The value of the benefits package has been estimated to be $7.75 million (Canadian, I assume).

Illinois Congresswoman joins calls for a CBA for the Postville, Iowa, slaughterhouse

2009-10-15T08:52:00.000-07:00

The Postville Community Benefits Alliance, which is seeking to negotiate a CBA with the owners of a kosher slaughterhouse, is gaining some out of state support. In addition to several national Jewish organizations, an Illinois Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky (D), wrote a letter in favor of the Iowa-based campaign.

Chicago lost its Olympic bid... so there won't be a Chicago Olympics CBA

2009-10-02T14:12:00.000-07:00

The International Olympic Committee today chose Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 games, beating out Madrid and Chicago. As a result, supporters of a Chicago Olympics CBA won't have a development to negotiate over.

Crain's bashes CBAs

2009-09-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

Crain's New York Business published an article last year calling CBAs "extortion" and "zoning for sale." These criticisms were repeated last week in an article written by the same author, Alair Townsend, this time bashing the Kingsbridge Armory CBA campaign.

Townsend points out that the Bronx has a higher unemployment rate than other parts of New York, and she faults the borough president and CBA supporters for opposing a project that would create hundreds of jobs. But the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance is not opposing development, and it's certainly not opposing new jobs; the coalition, rather, is opposing low road development and dead-end, poverty wage jobs.

Townsend also contends that the city council can't force the developer to pay a living wage or require union neutrality. Such conditions on project approval might be found to be unconstitutional exactions (see here for background), but Townsend oversimplifies the issues. Most importantly, the wages and unionization issues are not the only concerns that have been raised about the project. The borough president cited concerns about the project's impacts on traffic and existing retail establishments, among other things, and similar issues were also discussed in the draft environmental impact statement. It's completely permissible for the city to take these issues into account when deciding whether or not to approve the project. (See sections 2-04 to 2-06 of the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure Rules for more on this.)

Supporting a CBA for the armory redevelopment is not "pay to play," as Townsend suggests. The CBA campaign in this case has a wide base of community support, and local politicians would be remiss if they didn't consider the community's needs during the planning review process.

Some Kingsbridge Armory links

2009-09-17T06:00:00.001-07:00

For anybody interested in the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment and possible CBA, it's worth a few minutes to take a look at Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.'s recommendation to the planning commission. Regarding the CBA, Diaz states:

The developer has not agreed to a socially equitable Community Benefits Agreement. I cannot understand why the developer would not act in good faith with The Bronx and the City as a whole, by not considering the needs of the community. The provisions in the proposed Community Benefits Agreement are both fair and negotiable. Among the most important disagreements with the developer is their refusal to assure living wage provisions, defined by Local Law 38 adopted in 2002, as $10 per hour with health benefits. [The Economic Development Corporation] made it clear in the site RFP that it would favorably view development plans that maximize the number of jobs meeting the City’s living wage and health benefit standards. All the community wishes to do is to be a participant in what could be its greatest socioeconomic investment for generations to come.

It may be hyperbole to suggest that the developer has not "consider[ed] the needs of the community," but Diaz also explains that his office received "significant correspondence" from residents concerned about the need for a CBA. And as he cogently points out, the goal of the planning review process should be "to assure that development of City-owned property and use of government subsidies benefit surrounding communities on whose patronage the financial feasibility of this project will depend."

Diaz gave a number of other reasons for rejecting the proposal:

no market study was conducted to determine whether the proposed retail uses will be viable, or to determine what their impacts on existing retail establishments will be. "This is critical in terms of determining the best uses for the community and the impact on the surrounding area."
there is no need for a new grocery store as there are other super markets within a half mile of the project site
there has been no assurance that the redevelopment will include the siting of at least one school; nor has the developer agreed to include other education facilities (e.g., space for Lehman College or performance space)
"No identification as to how the City plans to use the $5 million acquisition price or annual taxes, which I feel should go towards the development and maintenance of the community facility, and not to the General Fund."
there is no assurance that the project's interior designs will be consistent with the armory's Romanesque architecture
several transit, traffic and parking issues have not been adequately addressed

Here are some additional links to the project's planning documents:

Chicago Wal-Mart CBA campaign

2009-09-14T07:24:00.000-07:00

Chicago and Wal-Mart have a checkered history. Back in 2006, the city council passed a widely supported ordinance that would have required big box stores to pay a living wage, but Mayor Daley vetoed it. The battle over the ordinance stirred up a lot of tensions--racial, socioeconomic and otherwise.

Now, a coalition of community and religious groups, Good Jobs Chicago, has formed and is seeking a community benefits agreement from the city guaranteeing living wages, affordable health care and unionization rights in any new Wal-Mart development. As a coalition representative stated: "It's the role of government to ensure its citizens that you should not have to work a 40-hour week and still be living in poverty and then have to rely on the government for food stamps and Medicaid".

It seems like they're looking for legislation, not a CBA.

Postville Slaughterhouse CBA campaign

2009-09-14T07:03:00.000-07:00

Community members and supportive organizations (including not-so-local ones) have formed the Postville Community Benefits Alliance to negotiate a CBA with the new owner of a kosher meat packing plant. Postville, a small Iowa town, is heavily impacted by the plant's operations, and community members want a method to initiate dialogue with the company. The company, however, wants nothing to do with a binding agreement. The entire situation is complicated by the checkered history of the previous plant owner, which went into bankruptcy after an immigration raid last year.

Washington D.C. CBA helps launch affordable housing

2009-09-04T06:27:00.000-07:00

An article in Thursday's Washington Business Journal notes that developers have broken ground on a 26-unit affordable housing project, which is being financed in part by investors in a nearby commercial development. The commercial component required a zoning change, and the developer put $700,000 into a community benefits agreement fund in order to get those approvals.

Minneapolis wifi CBA implementation

2009-09-01T05:29:00.000-07:00

Peter Fleck, a member of the Minneapolis Digital Inclusion Fund Advisory Committee, posted some info yesterday about the implementation of the Minneapolis Wireless CBA. Among his findings:

The wireless provider complied with the initial $500,000 funding requirement. The Committee has so far disbursed about $400,000.
Although required to put 5% of its pretax earnings into the community fund, the wireless provider has not yet done so.
The wireless provider has established a "walled garden," which means basically that anybody who can get a wifi signal can gain access to the city's website and some neighborhood websites.
So far, 51 out of 100 free accounts have been awarded to community technology centers.
The wireless provider has not helped the Committee with fundraising, as it's obligated to do.
Nor has the wireless provider held biannual community meetings.

The Committee has a meeting Wednesday, and Mr. Fleck hopes that some of these issues can be addressed.

The Neighborhood Retail Alliance on Kingsbridge and a living wage

2009-08-28T06:19:00.000-07:00

Over at The Neighborhood Retail Alliance, there's some discussion about the Kingsbridge Armory project and the coalition's demand for a living wage. They point out that this is not just about ensuring that local residents can get good jobs and benefit from the development; it's also about safeguarding the local economy and ensuring that taxpayer dollars aren't used to subsidize big business:

That being said, the demand for a living wage remains as a compelling component of any subsidized retail development. In our view, it is always problematic to use tax payer dollars to incentivize new retail projects; since the end result is usually the shifting of retail sales from existing mom and pop stores to national chains, And, as Stacy Mitchel's seminal work in this area underscores, this kind of policy results in a net loss to the locality.

Put simply, local dollars re-circulate at a much more productive rate that those of national chains headquartered elsewhere. Therefore, if we are going to subsidize chain stores that cannibalize existing neighborhood retailers, the least we can insist on is that these entering retail outlets pay the locals at a proper living wage. Anything less is simply cheating both the neighborhoods and the tax payers in general.

Appelbaum gets it right: "I don't buy that assumption," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. "It's not a matter of whether it's going to be profitable, but the size of the profit they will make." Living wage advocates point to the $40 million in city taxpayer money subsidizing the armory project in the form of tax breaks and city-funded repairs. "If they are taking from government," said Appelbaum, "they have to give back to the community."

For more on Stacy Mitchell's research supporting local business, visit the New Rules.

Some New York City news

2009-08-25T05:29:00.000-07:00

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. last week received an extension [see correction below] for submitting his recommendation concerning the approval of the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment so that he can give Related Cos. time to accept a draft CBA. The proposed agreement was drafted by the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, Diaz, Community Board 7, and local elected officials.

Update and correction 08-27-09: The news that Diaz was granted an extension was not completely accurate. While he does have a de facto extension, Diaz is apparently "being considered non-compliant for not making a recommendation by the land review process' built-in Tuesday, August 25 deadline." Although the influence of community boards and borough presidents during the ULURP process is sometimes described as practically nonexistant (see here, calling ULURP a "horse and pony show"), Diaz is confident that the planning commission will take his opinion into account if no CBA is signed by the real deadline, September, 9. The Bronx News Network has also learned that the CBA includes a living wage requirement, which may throw a wrench in the CBA's gears, as Related Cos. has stated flat out that it will not agree to increased wages

In the first democratic party debates for New York City Comptroller, the candidates weighed in on the Yankee Stadium CBA-like agreement. Melinda Katz raised concerns about the enforceability of CBAs and suggested that the city should develop a standardized method for reviewing stadium developments. David Weprin declared that he would use the Comptroller's audit powers to hold the Yankees and the New York City Economic Development Corp. to the commitments made in the CBA. John Liu also promised to review the Yankee Stadium CBA "intensively," and David Yassky explained that he would pursue fewer large scale developments and seek to use the city's economic development programs to provide the types of amenities that communities in each of the five boroughs need, such as parks and schools.

The Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market CBA

2009-08-14T13:14:00.000-07:00

** This is an updated (and improved) posting. Contact me here to obtain archived posts. **

Project Overview

The 2006 CBA concerning the Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market involves the redevelopment of a market center originally built in the 1920s. Throughout its history, the market housed a variety of small local vendors, and in the 1990s it became known for its ethnic food products. But in its older years, the “market became mired in endless litigation with city attorneys pushing the landlord for repairs.” To some, the area had become blighted.

A shot of the old Terminal Market, included in Charles V. Bagli, Developer Buys Faded Market in the Bronx, N.Y. Times, Apr. 3, 2004.

The Related Companies acquired a lease for the property in 2004 and shortly thereafter began discussions about redeveloping the property with the New York City Economic Development Corporation and the Bronx Overall Development Corporation. The Related Cos. received approval for its Gateway Center mall development project on February 1, 2006, with almost unanimous support from the city council. Covering both the market site and the adjacent Bronx House of Detention site, the new Gateway Center will have about 1 million square feet of retail space, with one of the original buildings being preserved and rehabilitated. The second phase of the project will include a new hotel, and the development will eventually be complemented by a public waterfront park. Supporters of the project see a bright future:

By all accounts, the redevelopment of the Bronx Terminal Market should contribute to the resurgence of the Bronx and the revitalization of the immediate neighborhood. The Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market should be a powerful magnet that should encourage other businesses to invest and should also provide a modern, attractive, environmentally-friendly design that should beautify the area.

The Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market CBA

A CBA for the project was signed on February 1, 2006 (unsearchable final copy, searchable execution copy). Adolfo Carrion, the Bronx Borough President at the time, was instrumental in completing the agreement. (Mr. Carrion is now the Director of the White House Office of Urban Affairs Policy.) The CBA includes a variety of benefits:

Business Development

10% contracting goal for MBE/WBE firms (p. 27)
25% contracting goal for Bronx-based professional businesses (p. 27)
35% goal for post-construction purchasing and service contracts for Bronx-based professional businesses (p. 27)
goal to maximize construction purchases from Bronx-based suppliers (p. 26)
technical and financial mentoring for Bronx-based and MBE/WBE businesses, including outreach, monthly “Meet the Construction Manager” meetings, and “workshops to assist and educate businesses in preparing loan applications, understanding underwriting criteria and training in basic financial management” (pp. 27-28)
18,000 square feet of retail space set aside for existing small and local businesses (p. 29)

Local Hiring & Job Training

25% local hiring goal for positions controlled by Related Cos. (p. 20)
a local hiring program open (but not required) for project contractors and tenants (pp. 14-15)
on-site space for the "Fast Track Unit," which was set up to provide recruitment and prescreening services (p. 16)
a commitment to commercially reasonable efforts to use union labor (p. 23)
a training and preapprenticeship program for construction jobs, providing recruitment, training (classroom and hands-on), case management, job placements, and stipends and support services for local residents in the program (childcare planning, help with transportation, legal counseling) (pp. 25-26)
a commitment to maximize the number of living wage jobs provided by Related Cos., and to educate contractors and tenants about the benefits of providing living wages (p. 30)

Environmental Provisions

goal for all of the new buildings and major renovations to be eligible for LEED Silver certification (p. 31)
particulate emission monitoring, with the aid of the New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection (p. 33)
waste management implemented in accordance with LEED guidelines (p. 33)
rodent control (p. 33)
dust management (pp. 33-34)

Other Provisions

an agreement not to lease space to a Wal-Mart (p. 34)
pedestrian scale design features (street trees, lighting, wide sidewalks, etc.) (pp. 32-33, 35)
a requirement that any lease to a "warehouse shopping club" be conditioned on its agreement to accept food stamps (p.34)
funding to provide 2,000 half price memberships to any "warehouse shopping club" for low income families for 5 years (p. 34)
3,500 square feet set aside for childcare services, to be leased at 35% below market rent (p. 35)
space for Community Board 4's district office and meeting area (p. 36)
$3 million for the business development, local hiring and job training programs (pp. 28-29)

A project rendering showing wide sidewalks, street trees (although transparent), and other pedestrian amenities.

Reaction to the CBA

The Gateway Center CBA has been faulted on a number of grounds.

Most importantly, the negotiation process did not truly involve any grassroots community organizations. Although eighteen groups representing various interests were selected by the Borough President to participate in a CBA "taskforce," they were given only about a month to prepare a draft CBA and were not given any assistance in the process. Evidently, this resulted in many of the community groups having little influence in the actual negotiations. When the organizations received copies of the completed CBA, only three of them signed the agreement, while at least seven refused to do so. The Neighborhood Retail Alliance explained a number of other problems with the negotiation process:

Normally CBAs are negotiated prior to the land use review process so that community coalitions can have leverage over developers. The opposite occurred with the Gateway CBA. Brainstorming for the document only began in November after City Planning Certification, Community Board approval, and the Borough President’s “Yes” vote. The agreement was finalized two days prior to the City Council’s approval.
....
Unknown to the participants, representatives from Related were in the room while the taskforce brainstormed

The taskforce never negotiated directly with Related. Final negotiations occurred between Bronx elected officials and the developer. For this reason the final CBA is a very watered down version of what the community asked for.

Most of the City Council never had the chance to read the CBA. The final copy was sent to the Council the morning of the project’s approval.

A second problem is that the developer will only be fined $60,000 for violating the CBA, with a cap of $600,000 on the amount of fines that can ever be assessed. Aside from the weakness of this penalty provision, CBA proponents have generally recommended that contracts provide for specific enforcement, rather than money damages. As explained by Julian Gross of Good Jobs First (now at the Community Benefits Law Center) in Community Benefits Agreements: Making Development Projects Accountable:

Community groups entering into CBAs can and should have the ability to enforce CBAs against the developer in court. While most contracts have some provisions for recovery of money damages against a party violating the agreement, community groups will generally be more concerned with ensuring that promised benefits are in fact provided. Community groups should therefore ensure that CBAs recognize the right to ask for a court order requiring the developer to honor commitments contained in the CBA.

Other criticisms have been voiced because the amount of retail space reserved for local retailers makes up only a minimal portion of the mall’s square footage (18,000 square feet out of 1 million in the entire development, or about 2%), and because the contracting, hiring and living wage goals are only enforceable as to the positions controlled by Related Cos. The developer's contractors and the Gateway Center's eventual tenants will not be bound by any provisions in the CBA. Moreover, the CBA expires in 2015 (CBA, p. 36), and there is no guarantee that another CBA will be negotiated in relation to the project's second phase.

Implementation

The Gateway Center is scheduled to open in late 2009, but parts of the CBA have already been implemented.

The City University of New York reported in 2007 that it had received $175,000 from the developer to provide pre-apprenticeship training to Bronx residents.

The first store at the Gateway Center, a Home Depot, opened in May, 2009. Of the 200 jobs, 75% were awarded to Bronx residents. Almost 40% of the project's contracts went to Bronx-based businesses, and more than 10% went to MBE/WBE firms, so Related Cos. met and exceeded the aspirational goals contained in the CBA. Mayor Bloomberg announced that 90% of the project space was leased, with tenants including BJ's, Best Buy, Target, Bed Bath and Beyond, Marshall's, Raymour & Flanagan, Staples and Toys 'R Us. "The Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market will make the Bronx a more attractive environment for businesses that will have a positive impact on the borough", Bloomberg said.

No Wal-Marts allowed. Photo credit interloafer, who notes that it was taken on March 21, 2009.

In July, 2009, the Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation was accused of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CBA fund set up by Related Cos. A suit has been filed against the agency by the CBA administrator, but the agency denies any wrongdoing and claims that the lawsuit is completely frivolous. [Updated Sep. 2, 2009] Ruben Diaz, the current Bronx Borough President, called for an investigation and full accounting. In September, 2009, he declared that the BOEDC had properly handled the funds, despite the failure to formally account for about $1.6 million. Most of that money apparently went toward payroll expenses for the employees running the Fast Track program.

Better news came in August, 2009, when the Gateway Center's BJ's Wholesale Club announced that it would hold a lottery to distribute the 2,000 reduced price memberships called for in the CBA. The discounted annual memberships are only available for low income Bronx residents, and winners of the lottery will be able to buy them for $20 instead of $45. The lottery application and guidelines are available here.

The Gateway Center has also posted useful information about promised CBA benefits on its website, including ads seeking a childcare provider to rent space at below market rates and information about financial programs available to local firms. Typically, job openings are also posted.

Links & News

Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market Community Benefits Agreement
Official site of the Gateway Center
New York City Economic Development Corporation Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market website
PlanNYC project website
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market
Joe Lamport, Market plans clear first hurdle, Highbridge Horizon, Sep. 2005 (describing the development approval process)
Charles V. Bagli, Developer Buys Faded Market in the Bronx, N.Y. Times, Apr. 3, 2004
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Bronx Terminal Market / EDC Disgrace, Jul. 12, 2005
Charles V. Bagli & Robin Shulman, Transforming Bronx Terminal Market, but at a Steep Price, N.Y. Times, Oct. 24, 2005
Official Press Release, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Applauds City Council on Approving Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market, Feb. 1, 2006
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance, CBA Nonsense, Feb. 8, 2006
International Facility Management Association, Gateway Center at the Bronx Terminal Market Approved by City Council (undated) (describing the CBA and stating that the development will "contribute to the resurgence of the Bronx by generating approximately $21 million in annual tax revenue...")
Heather Haddon, Terminal Market Deal Criticized, Norwood News, Feb. 23, 2006 (criticizing the CBA negotiation process)
CUNY Newswire, BCC PROJECT H.I.R.E. Receives $175,000 For Gateway Mall Building Trades Training Program, May 21, 2007
Real Estate Weekly, Cash boost for Bronx trades training program, May 30, 2007
Jason Sheftell, South Bronx Communities benefit from public, private funds, N.Y. Daily News, Nov. 29, 2007
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Related and Community Benefits, June 25, 2008
Mega Mall To Come To The South Bronx, NY1 News, Aug. 12, 2008 (with video)
Anna Phillips and Sara Vogel, NYC Grows, Communities Divide, Columbia Spectator, Nov. 30, 2008 (discussing the history and controversy surrounding the Terminal Market redevelopment)
Curbed New York, Wheel of Misfortune: Major Bronx & Brooklyn Parks Edition, Jan. 28, 2009 (reporting (without citation) that "One park at the Bronx Terminal Market is, uh, $79 million over budget at this point.")
Good Jobs New York, Subsidies going to the Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market (undated) (quoting $133.93 million as the total amount of New York City subsidies going toward the project)
Official Press Release, Mayor Bloomberg Joins the Home Depot and Related Companies to Open First Store in $500 Million Gateway Center at Bronx Terminal Market and Welcome First 200 Employees, Apr. 23, 2009
Daniel Beekman, H' Depot Opens at Gateway, N.Y. Post, May 1, 2009
Terry Pristin, Squeezing Big-Box Retailing Into Small City Spaces, N.Y. Times, June 11, 2008
James Kelly, Conway Stores takes space at Related's Gateway Center, The Real Deal, June 24, 2009
Alex Ulam, Mall City, Architect's Newspaper, July 9, 2009
Bill Egbert, Bronx borough president Ruben Diaz Jr. seeks probe in mishandling of Gateway Center Mall funds, N.Y. Daily News, Jul. 15, 2009
Retail Traffic, Related's Bronx Gateway to Alter New York's Retail Landscape, Aug. 11, 2009 (with video)

St. Louis CBA campaign takes shape

2009-07-20T05:39:00.000-07:00

People living in and around the "massive" NorthSide redevelopment site in St. Louis have begun a CBA campaign, seeking to have the developer's promises put into writing and to obtain important development amenities. More than 9,000 people live in the redevelopment area, and neighborhood activists say that they should "get more of a say in the $8 billion, 15-year project".

Paul McKee and McEagle Properties, LLC, the NorthSide developers, have not yet begun to negotiate with the North Side Community Benefits Alliance. Although McKee has met with small neighborhood groups to hear their concerns, he believes that "bringing an outside third party to the table would complicate matters.... There can't be two different conversations going on at the same time.... You have to be respectful of the aldermen and the political process."

The alderman who represents most of the area, April Ford-Griffin, said that the city will want to know that the developer understands the community's concerns. However, she explained that the aldermen can't put too many specifics in the project plan, since much of the development will be determined by the market.

The North Side Community Benefits Alliance lists its priorities on its website, although it has yet to draw up a formal list of desired community benefits:

Community Development

Community-Centered Planning and Development: We want public meetings where the developer comes to us, listens to us, and creates a plan that includes our input. Citizens must be part of the decision-making process from conception through completion.

Prioritize Affordable Residential Development: We expect that the City of St. Louis will pass inclusionary zoning ordinances, with a set percentage of affordable new construction or rehabbed homes and multi-family housing, including setting aside foreclosed homes as affordable housing opportunities.

Protection from Eminent Domain Abuse: We expect there to be no eminent domain of occupied housing, whether owned or rented, or of operating businesses or institutions or their holdings. Any occupied building that becomes vacant will be considered occupied for 18 months for the purposes of eminent domain.

Neighborhood Development Advisory Boards: We propose the creation of Neighborhood Development Advisory Boards to act as liaison to the St. Louis Preservation Board, so that the Preservation Board understands and acts on the community standards of each affected neighborhood.

Neighborhood Control of Preservation and Demolition: We propose an immediate moratorium on demolition north of Delmar, and meaningful neighborhood control of preservation and demolition.

Predevelopment Neighborhood Maintenance Fund: We expect that if the city funds or finances a "transformational" development project, it should also establish a Predevelopment Neighborhood Maintenance Fund to protect existing property values in the development footprint and ensure that current residents are not dislocated as the result of negligent property maintenance during the transformation process.

Protections of Housing Conservation Program: We call on the city to rectify the Housing Conservation District ordinance so that our beloved North Side neighborhoods are no longer redlined from city services such as proactive lead abatement, effective problem property policies, building division code enforcement, and pre-occupancy health and safety inspections for all properties.

Assistance to Stay or Relocate: We understand that even the most careful development can bring rising costs to current property owners and renters who wish to stay. We expect that any tax abatements offered to developers will also be offered to current property owners and that rent ceilings will be established for current renters.

Ecomonic Development

Affordable Commercial/Retail Development: We expect that the City of St. Louis will pass inclusionary zoning ordinances, with a set percentage of affordable commercial and retail spaces to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that will make our neighborhoods successful long-term.

First Source Employment Guarantee: We expect that local residents will have access to the new jobs created within the redevelopment area.

Local Needs Guarantee: We expect a city mandate that any developer proposing to transition our communities will attract and/or create businesses that address local needs.

Street Grid and Transit-oriented Development: We believe that maintaining and restoring our walkable urban street grid is essential to residential and commercial development. Public transit routes should also be considered as a fundamental part of any urban plan.

Equitable Investment of Public Funds: Before local, state and federal funds are allocated to private development projects, we advocate for a citywide impact analysis to ensure we don't continue, as a region, to simply enrich the more politically powerful areas of our community at the expense of the less powerful areas. We expect transparency, accountability, and equitable development from companies and non-profit organizations receiving taxpayer funding or financing.

Equitable Distribution of CDBG Funds: We expect that the use of Community Development Block Grant funds in North St. Louis will meet the "Four Tests" to show a measurable benefit to low- to moderate- income (LMI) residents: 1) housing benefit, where at least 51 percent of the created housing is affordable and occupied after construction by LMI residents; 2) job creation or retention, where 51 percent of the jobs are filled or available to LMI residents; 3) the limited clientele test, where a service benefits a specific group that is 51 percent LMI; or 4) the area benefit test, where general improvements in a primarily residential area are clearly designed to primarily meet the needs of 51 percent of area LMI residents.

Pictures and information about the history and architecture of the North Side (which is home to many rundown but beautiful historical buildings) can be found at the Built St. Louis site.
.

Protesters seeking CBA arrested in Pittsburgh

2009-07-17T07:41:00.000-07:00

At a Northside United protest yesterday, four people were arrested. Northside United has been seeking community benefits in relation to a proposed hotel project for two years, without much progress.

Community seeks a CBA to cover Cincinnati's school construction project

2009-07-02T05:42:00.000-07:00

In Cincinnati, local groups (including unions and the Baptist Ministers' Conference) are pushing for a living wage requirement, higher minority hiring goals, and local hiring requirements for the city's $1 billion school district wide construction project. See here. Although about half of the construction has been finished, community members would still like to see these issues addressed in future procurements, possibly in the form of a CBA.

Supporters of the restrictions claim that it will result in higher quality construction and benefits to the local community, but critics claim that it will cost an extra $15 to $20 million--enough by itself to build a new school. The school board will vote on the issue in August.

Pittsburgh's North Side United gives a bus tour, presses for CBA

2009-06-27T06:50:00.000-07:00

North Side United and other Pittsburgh community groups held a bus tour of the North Side on Thursday, pointing out the needs of the community and the possibilities of a CBA for the development of the land between Heinz Field and PNC Park. The developer, Continental Real Estate, has to this point refused to negotiate any sort of CBA, and its master plan for the site was approved about two weeks ago without any presssure from the city to negotiate with the community.

A CBA for Syracuse

2009-06-15T05:47:00.000-07:00

A recently finalized CBA in Syracuse sets up a job shadowing program for high school junior and seniors. The agreement was reached between the Syracuse Alliance for a New Economy (SANE) and the Syracuse school board, and it covers the Syracuse Schools Reconstruction Project.

Pittsburgh Planning Commission approves North Shore plan, no CBA

2009-06-11T05:43:00.000-07:00

The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission yesterday approved an update to the North Shore Master Plan, without pressuring the developer the negotiate a CBA. The vote relied on advice from the city's legal department, which determined that "[w]hile [CBAs] could provide benefits to the community, they are simply not a part of what the Planning Commission may consider when reviewing master-development plans and project-development plans."

Northside United, which believes that the developer is not responsive to the community's needs, plans to appeal the decision to the City Council. It has also scheduled a bus tour of the area, to show the impacts of development on the community and rouse media attention.

More on the Columbia expansion

2009-05-22T11:01:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, Columbia received final approval for its general project plan from the New York State Public Authorities Control Board.

On Thursday, however, oral arguments were heard in a case challenging Columbia's use of eminent domain for the project. Two of the judges seemed skeptical about whether the taking would be a valid one, bringing up issues relating to the propriety of the blight study, the constitutionality of New York's eminent domain laws, and whether a private university should be considered a public purpose. A decision is expected this summer, but appeals could hold up the project for some time.

Columbia expansion CBA: signed and now available

2009-05-19T06:05:00.000-07:00

The Columbia Spectator got a hold of a copy of the Columbia expansion CBA. Check it out here.

Emeryville, Ca., residents call for more community-oriented development

2009-04-30T05:39:00.000-07:00

Residents in Emeryville, California, have formed the RULE Coalition (Residents United for a Livable Emeryville) to seek a CBA for the Bay Street Site B development proposal. (RULE is working with EBASE, which has a track record on CBAs). Planned for the site are a 23-story condo building and high end retail space. It's also getting a $47 million subsidy.

A recent survey of about 400 residents conducted by RULE and EBASE shows that residents aren't happy with the proposed development. They would like better jobs, more affordable housing and community space, better accessibility for bikes and pedestrians, more youth services, and protections for small businesses.

The survey also found disapproval of the city's priorities, with a sizable portion of respondents saying that the city did not respond to community needs. Most people also opposed or had mixed feelings about the Bay Street B project. The reasons that they cited included the project's unnecessary public subsidies, the likelihood of increased traffic, the unaffordable level of the project's housing, a general overabundance of hotels and expensive retail, and parking issues.

As EBASE explains, "Bay Street Site B presents a significant opportunity for the City to create more win-win solutions for the community, the City, and the developer, and set a precedent for future developments to come."

SugarHouse plans get scaled back, leaving a "box in a parking lot"

2009-04-28T08:21:00.000-07:00

Some Philadelphians are unhappy with SugarHouse's newest "interim" design plans, which no longer include a hotel tower, marina, condos, or riverwalk. Now it's just a casino, a garage, and a parking lot. (Some Philadelphians may like the new plans better though, since the casino itself is scaled-back too.) The Philadelphia Inquirer's architecture critic has more here.

Some of the design scale-backs may conflict with the draft CBA (although it was never clear just how astroturf the agreement was to begin with). The CBA, for example, requires SugarHouse to provide public access to the waterfront. Without a board walk, it's unclear how it will satisfy this provision.

Buffalo organization advocates for a CBA

2009-04-28T05:45:00.000-07:00

The Buffalo-based Partnership for the Public Good is calling for a CBA to be negotiated for the Erie Canal Harbor development, which is currently undergoing environmental review. The Partnership recently released a report on the project, and it's calling for green design, provisions for local businesses, living wage jobs, and public access to the waterfront.

Some links

2009-04-25T16:45:00.000-07:00

The news out of Seattle is that the Dearborn Street project has been canceled due to the economy. This means that the CBA won't go through either, but Puget Sound Sage affirms that "the CBA represents a groundbreaking model for making development accountable to community stakeholders."

On the east coast, there's also been a lot of talk about the new Yankee Stadium, including questions about the jobs being created, the replacement parks that are supposed to built, the economic prospects for all the new high-priced seats, and the odd "home run wind." Check out the Good Jobs First Clawback Blog for more.

Pseudo-CBA (or proto-CBA?) enforced by New York appellate court

2009-04-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

Donald Trump's 1993 CBA-like contract relating to the New York City Riverside South project was the subject of a 2008 New York Appellate Division opinion. The court held that the contract's terms were expired. See more at Law of the Land.

Minneapolis wifi CBA being implemented; city giving away free internet accounts

2009-04-07T08:52:00.000-07:00

Minneapolis has announced that it's looking for 100 nonprofits to give free internet access to. "The Wireless Community accounts are intended to give free wireless services to agencies that provide public computer access, technology literacy training, and/or technology support for underserved communities." About $15,000 in free service vouchers will be distributed along with the 100 accounts.

Community benefits for the maybe-Chicago Olympics

2009-03-26T08:05:00.000-07:00

Chicago is one of the cities vying for the 2016 Olympics (see Chicago2016), and community organizers have been using the leverage of a May 2 visit from the International Olympics Committee (IOC) to get the city to agree to some community benefits--or else have to explain "demonstrations in the streets" to the IOC. (Community organizers aren't the only ones using the high profile visit to try to get the city to notice them; members of the police union are also thinking about picketing to draw attention their contract problems.)

On January 13, an ordinance was proposed that would craft a "Legacy Plan" for possible Olympics facilities. The ordinance was supported by Toni Preckwinkle, among a number of other aldermen, and would require:

that 30% of the housing at the Olympic Village to be affordable;
that displaced residents, including tenants and owners, receive adequate compensation and that the city help to relocate homeless shelters and "make sure that no actions are taken whose purpose is to remove, displace or hide homeless people";
that 50% of the value of contracts associated with the 2016 bid be awarded to minority/women owned businesses and that the city "utilize a competitive and transparent procurement process";
that the city "will have subsidy accountability in the event of public funding for the
Olympics", meaning that publicly accessible quarterly reports will assess the amount of federal, state, county and city subsidies going into the project;
that "[a]ny project or business receiving public financial assistance or constructed on public land shall implement hiring criteria that gives preference to and has specific goals for hiring locally for construction and permanent (retail, service, etc.) jobs that extend beyond the Olympics. If public subsidies enhance the Oiympic bid or are utilized throughout the Olympics preparation and operation, the City of Chicago will convene a community oversight committee to monitor progress towards meeting community economic goals."
that the city will develop a job training program to prepare "discouraged, unemployed, underemployed, and hard-to-employ workers" for olympics jobs;
that the city will enter into a PLA (project labor agreement) with relevant unions and require as part of the agreement that apprentices will perform 10% of total construction hours;
that any business renting space in the Olympic Village must pay a living wage and provide health coverage in order to be eligible for city tax incentives, loans and grants; and
that the city will use the opportunity presented by the Olympics to make significant transit improvements and to promote dense, mixed use development near transit.

(See here for more background on the drafting of the CBA.)

The city council's finance committee is scheduled to hold a meeting on the ordinance on March 27, but the news today is that a tentative deal has already been reached. More on this soon.

(Update)

The Chicago 2016 planning committee signed an MOU outlining its commitment to an economic and community framework today. According to the Chicago 2016 press release, "[t]he signed memorandum focuses on establishing programs designed to increase participation and diversity within the industries of contracting and procurement, construction, workforce development, affordable housing and community enhancements. In particular, the agreement centers on fostering benefits within neighborhoods and communities in and around venue sites, as well as with minorities, women, persons with disabilities and veterans."

Some of the provisions included in the MOU, as described in the press release:

- a diversity program with a goal to meet or exceed participation levels attained by previous U.S. cities that hosted the Games. It provides a minimum floor of targeted procurement and hiring objectives – 25 percent for businesses owned by minorities and persons with disabilities, and 5 percent for women-owned firms.

- a procurement scorecard giving preference to vendors who are or who partner with firms owned by minorities, women and people with disabilities; businesses located within the region; and those who hire employees from such groups and within neighborhoods situated near venue sites.

- while the city currently requires a minimum of 20 percent affordable housing units within the Olympic Village site, a target of 30 percent will be the objective, with the understanding that development of any units above 20 percent pending pro rata incremental subsidies from outside public and/or private funds.

- promotion of a “living wage” and sustainable jobs through the creation of workforce development and training programs, including skills assessment, the development and publication of apprenticeship opportunities and the provision of access to industry-specific training programs.

- a goal that minority/ low or moderate income apprentices who have matriculated from the Chicago Public Schools or the City Colleges of Chicago account for 10 percent of the construction hours on 2016 Games projects .

- promotion of accessibility in local and small businesses.

- the restoration or enhancement of Olympic and Paralympic venue sites situated in and around park and open spaces after the Games.

The Chicago 2016 MOU is supported by the Chicago Urban League, and representatives of Communities for an Equitable Olympics said that as of now, the group has no plans to protest next week during the IOC's visit.

In the Bronx, the IDA granted subsidies for the Kingsbridge Armory without a CBA

2009-03-12T07:14:00.000-07:00

Despite New York City Comptroller and IDA member Bill Thompson supporting a CBA for the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment and calling for the IDA to hold off on subsidy approvals until one was in place, yesterday the IDA approved tax exempt financing for the $323 million project. The Bronx News Network Live Blog estimates the benefits for the developer, the Related Companies, at about $17.8 million.

Thompson, backed by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, moved to postpone the IDA vote until more information was available about the number of jobs to be created and their likely salaries. He also criticized the IDA and New York City Economic Development Corporation for not supplying him with procurement documents, and he questioned the propriety of the IDA subsidizing this project at all, since it's not an industrial project and it's not located in an empire zone or an empowerment zone. Regarding the uncertainty as to what kind of jobs the project is going to create (and for whom they will be created), Thompson remarked that "a Community Benefits Agreement should be negotiated to resolve these issues before a vote and to ensure adequate community involvement in the process." See Thompson's press release here.

(Update Mar. 13) More commentary from the Bronx News Network is available here.

NYC Comptroller supports a CBA for the Kingsbridge Armory

2009-03-07T09:31:00.000-08:00

At a news conference on Thursday, New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. joined the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) in urging Related Companies to negotiate a CBA. "Related has benefited well from its relationship with the City. It is time that it give back to the residents of the Bronx. A Community Benefits Agreement will ensure that the development of Kingsbridge Armory will be good for both the people and the economy of the Bronx.”

David West says that more jobs aren't all that we need; they need to be quality jobs

2009-03-06T05:39:00.000-08:00

David West, the executive director of Puget Sound Sage, wrote in a recent Seattle Post Intelligencer editorial that "'more jobs' isn't the answer. We need more quality jobs that pay the kinds of wages and provide the kinds of benefits that sustain workers and their families -- that don't simply run them into a deeper and more humiliating working poverty." He says that stimulus funding should be used for transportation, weatherization, and green job training for low income workers, and he's also calling on local elected officials to adopt a Clean and Safe Ports Agreement and to support CBAs.

PIttsburgh mayoral candidate promises to support CBAs

2009-03-01T04:44:00.000-08:00

In an article about the effects of the recession on development in Pittsburgh, mayoral candidate Carmen Robinson, a Hill District attorney, stated that she would support CBAs for subsidized development projects.

North Side United asks the governor for community benefits

2009-02-10T11:15:00.000-08:00

In Pittsburgh, North Side United continues to seek community benefits in relation to development projects. Today, the group presented hundreds of letters from community members to the governor's office; they want to be assured that a developer that already received a big discount on some city land won't get any additional (direct) subsidies without a guarantee of community benefits.

(HT John Goldstein, PWF)

Columbia University expansion heads to court

2009-01-28T09:19:00.000-08:00

Tuck-It-Away Self Storage, owned by Nick Sprayregen, filed suit on January 21, 2009, challenging Empire State Development Corporation's right to take its property for the expansion of Columbia University's campus.

Still no word from Columbia or the West Harlem LDC about that CBA they promised to negotiate, however...

Connecticut statute defines CBAs, sort of

2009-01-22T06:55:00.000-08:00

Connecticut Public Act No. 08-94, An Act Concerning Environmental Justice Communities and the Storage of Asbestos-Containing Material, takes a stab at defining CBAs. According to the act, a "community environmental benefit agreement" is:

a written agreement entered into by a municipality and an owner or developer of real property whereby the owner or developer agrees to develop real property that is to be used for any new or expanded affecting facility and to provide financial resources for the purpose of the mitigation, in whole or in part, of impacts reasonably related to the facility, including, but not limited to, impacts on the environment, traffic, parking and noise.

Unlike Staples-Center-type CBAs, these CEBAs are not negotiated by community coalitions, and they are only required in relation to the construction of "affecting facilities"--power plants, waste incinerators, sewage treatment plants, processing centers, landfills, medical waste incinerators, and major sources of air pollution. Finally, most of the law's requirements only apply when affecting facilities are being located in an "environmental justice community," i.e. a census tract designated as distressed under state law or with at least 30% of residents at or below 200% of the poverty line. In other words, CEBAs do not seem to be the type of multi-faceted, community driven, flexible agreements that are usually considered to be CBAs. With their emphasis on environmental impacts, they are more similar to Good Neighbor Agreements.

The law functions like this: whenever a developer seeks a permit for an affecting facility in an area that qualifies as an "environmental justice community," the developer has to "file a meaningful participation plan" and meet with the local chief executive "to evaluate the need for a community environmental benefit agreement." ("Meaningful participation plans" are also defined by the law.)

CEBAs can be entered into by any municipality, owner or developer, whether or not deemed to be necessary for a particular affecting facility. According to the law, the municipality has to provide an opportunity for public participation, and the agreement can contain both on and off site mitigation activities and programs, including "[f]unding for activities such as environmental education, diesel pollution reduction, construction of biking and walking trails, staffing for parks, urban forestry, support for community gardens or any other negotiated benefit to the environment in the environmental justice community."

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has a fact sheet about the law here. Public participation guidelines are located here.

Organizers want a CBA for Chicago

2009-01-12T06:38:00.000-08:00

In Chicago, organizers want to be assured that they will be able to negotiate a CBA if the city wins the 2016 Olympics bid. Alderman Preckwinkle will introduce a bill this week calling for expanded affordable housing and minority/women contracting requirements for Olympics projects. If the ordinance isn't approved, organizers may protest during the spring when international officials are scheduled to tour the city (Chicago is competing against Tokyo, Madrid and Rio de Janeiro for the summer games).

Columbia project receives approval from ESDC

2008-12-22T06:25:00.000-08:00

Last week the New York Empire State Development Corporation approved Columbia's project plan. The approval clears the path for Columbia to invoke the state's power of eminent domain to acquire property from the two remaining business owners in the 17 acre area, although approval is still needed from the Public Authorities Control Board. One of the holdouts, Nick Sprayregen, who owns Tuck-It-Away storage, has pledged to challenge the use of eminent domain in court. He believes that Columbia unfairly created blight in the project area by buying up properties and failing to maintain them, and that it would work a further unfairness to award Columbia with the use of eminent domain for this behavior. Moreover, Sprayregen has suggested that conflicts of interest exist between Columbia and Empire State Development Corporation that cast doubt on the propriety of ESDC's project approvals. A state court ruling from this summer supports Sprayregen's claims somewhat; although that case involved a freedom of information law request, the judge made clear that there was a conflict of interest present when a private consultant, AKRF, was working on ESDC's blight study at the same time that it was helping to prepare the general project plan for Columbia.

The L.A. Times' Architecture Review Bashes the Staples Center and L.A.Live

2008-12-10T10:03:00.000-08:00

The L.A. Times' architecture critic, Christopher Hawthorne, wrote a piece last week criticizing the second phase of L.A.Live--the companion to the Staples Center that was part of the CBA--for being just one more placeless enclave within the city. "When you get right down to it," Hawthorne says, "[the buildings'] architecture is fundamentally not really architecture at all but an extensive series of armatures on which the developer and its tenants can hang logos, video screens and a sophisticated range of lighting effects."

CBAs as "shakedowns"

2008-11-14T03:18:00.000-08:00

From yesterday's New York Post, in an article about the controversial Willets Point redevelopment project:

Outgoing City Councilman Hiram Monserrate and some particularly dubious allies have succeeded in squeezing City Hall for a "community benefit" agreement requiring a vast tract of low-income housing to be included in whatever ultimately rises at Willets Point.

"Community benefit," of course, is a euphemism for "legal shakedown."

From a potential developer's perspective, it represents a pre-negotiated bribe paid to politicians and their allies for the right to attempt to create new jobs, and to bolster the city's revenue base.

But the practice is all the rage in New York these days. Similar requirements accompanied the recent Harlem rezoning deal, and "community benefit" shakedowns were integral to the new Yankee and Shea baseball-stadium projects.

The successful Willets Point developer now must agree to dedicate fully 35 percent of the undertaking to low-income tenants - up from a barely tenable 20 percent in City Hall's original proposal.
...
But Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Chris Quinn are behind it. And Monserrate and his allies are happy.

Now to find a developer.

Good luck with that.

CBA talk in Oro Valley, AZ and Newark, NJ

2008-11-04T08:50:00.000-08:00

Just a quick mention that CBAs have recently been discussed as policy tools by officials in Oro Valley, Arizona and Newark, New Jersey.

In Oro Valley, the town council agreed to support the use of CBAs at a meeting in August. The town planning and zoning director suggested that the town could maintain a list of approved mediators/facilitators for CBA negotiations, and a member of the planning and zoning commission emphasized how important it is for the community to have access to development information and to be educated about the development process.

In Newark, Deputy Mayor Stefan Pryor had some comments about community benefits at a panel about "the New Newark." As reported at the AtlanticYardsReport, Pryor emphasized the need to limit subsidies and encourage development that gives back to the community. He asked, "Will a project deliver jobs for our residents? Will a developer commit to a First Source compact where jobs will go to Newark residents first? Small [and] minority business contracting and green building sustainability are among our criteria." While not mentioning CBAs specifically, Pryor's remarks reflect an awareness that development should be accountable to all community members and equitable in its effects.

Judge dismisses suit brought by Pittsburgh United and Northside United

2008-10-28T06:45:00.000-07:00

An Allegheny County judge has dismissed an appeal brought by Pittsburgh United and Northside United against the local Stadium Authority (see here). The lawsuit aimed at preventing the authority from selling land between PNC Park and Heniz Field to a hotel developer at an allegedly undervalued price.

The dismissal was based on standing issues, as Judge Joseph M. James found that the groups were not specially injured by the land deal. But the groups disagree with the ruling and have pledged to continue to fight the land sale.

Candidates attend Syracuse ACTS meeting

2008-10-28T06:30:00.000-07:00

Syracuse ACTS, a coalition of 26 faith groups, civic organizations and unions, held a meeting on Sunday to gain momentum and support for its social justice campaigns. In addition to CBAs, ACTS is also working to make it easier for people leaving jail to get birth certificates and to get more kids signed up for New York's health insurance plan for children. More than 1,000 people and the three area candidates for the 25th congressional district attended.

Kingsbridge Armory CBA Campaign update.

2008-10-17T12:38:00.001-07:00

For a nice update on the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment CBA, check out this article from yesterday's Norwood News. The article also gives a good overview of the New York City experience with CBAs.

Shaw District update

2008-10-16T09:36:00.000-07:00

In an editorial in Sunday's Washington Post, OneDC raised concerns that affordable housing in the Shaw District might not be built. The concerns center primarily around Parcel 42, which was supposed to be affordable at 60% AMI. Now, the city claims that this level of affordability is no longer feasible. The editorial also mentioned the CBA for a related property, Parcel 33, which is intended to be the site of Radio One, a large radio station targeting primarily black, urban listeners, and other private developments. The CBA "explicitly linked developing 100 percent affordable housing at Parcel 42 to the development of Parcel 33". Yet, "[m]ore than three years later, while the Community Benefits Agreement remains unrealized, the city is moving forward to build market-rate apartments and Radio One's headquarters on Parcel 33."

Pittsburgh's Hill District gets a $3 million donation

2008-10-09T05:45:00.000-07:00

Bank of New York Mellon announced this week that it would donate $3 million to Pittsburgh's Hill District. The One Hill Community Benefits Coalition, the Hill House Association and two advisory groups made up of representatives from each, will decide what to do with the money.

Some of the money, however, may go to building a Neighborhood Partnership Program--one of the provisions in the Penguins CBA. According to One Hill, the program will "support community and economic development, education and youth services, preservation and green spaces and drug, alcohol and mental health services in the Hill District." Bank of New York Mellon will also get a significant tax credit for donating the money to the program.

For more information, see here.

Yonkers Alliance for Community Benefits

2008-09-18T05:45:00.001-07:00

In Yonkers last week, the Yonkers Alliance for Community Benefits presented a list of community needs and requests to Struever Fidelco Cappelli, the developer of a proposed $3.1 billion redevelopment project. (See here for more details about the project.) Among the requested benefits: a construction-training program; minimum contracting requirements for minority- and women-owned businesses; affordable housing; an interfaith cafe; and the establishment of funds for public art, child care and after-school programs. Read more here.

CBA Coalition commences litigation in Pittsburgh.

2008-09-08T07:54:00.001-07:00

On Friday, CBA coalition members in Pittsburgh initiated litigation to stop the development of a hotel. The suit claims that the Stadium Authority sold the land to the hotel developer at "substantially below market value" and that the sale violated the open meetings laws.

The groups have indicated that they will likely drop the litigation if the developers agree to a community benefits agreement. If that turns out to be the case, the CBA will take the form of a settlement agreement (similar to the recently finalized Dearborn Street CBA).

News coverage of the lawsuit is available from the Post-Gazette, the Tribune Review, and KDKA TV.

More on the Dearborn Street CBA.

2008-09-04T05:53:00.000-07:00

(Seattle Times)

The Seattle Times ran an article about the recently completed CBA on Tuesday. The article discusses some of the issues that the coalition faced during negotiations, including internal conflicts about how involved labor groups should have been in the coalition, and conflicts over the suitability of the project for the neighborhood.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels also released a statement on Tuesday regarding the CBA:

“I applaud the parties for coming to an agreement on the Dearborn Goodwill project. This Community Benefits Agreement is a new approach, bringing together the interests of community, housing, labor and business.
“I believe strongly that affordable housing must be an essential part of this project. I will recommend that the City Council require 400 units of housing, including at least 200 units of housing affordable to households earning below 80 percent of median income for rental units and below median income for owner-occupied units. The recommendation will also include a provision that proceeds from the street vacation be invested to benefit the surrounding neighborhoods through open space, transportation projects or other cultural and community facilities.”

Seattle's first CBA

2008-09-02T08:52:00.000-07:00

The Dearborn Street Coalition has completed a CBA, following two years of negotiations (see here for background).

Here's a press release from Puget Sound Sage:

Seattle’s first Community Benefits Agreement struck between Developer and Community Coalition

Agreement defines benefits developer will provide to the community in the 10-acre Dearborn Project on the Goodwill site

Seattle—After almost two years of negotiations, an agreement has been struck between the Dearborn Street Coalition for Livable Neighborhoods and Dearborn Street Developers LLC on a $300-million project, slated to be built on a 10-acre site at the crossroads of Seattle’s most economic and ethnically diverse communities – including Little Saigon, the Central District, the International District and North Rainier Valley.

“This project has come a long way toward ensuring that neighborhood families will benefit from the economic growth this project will bring. More workers will now earn a livable wage and live in affordable housing and the development will better meet the needs of the people who work and live here,” said David West, executive director of Puget Sound Sage, a coalition member.

“For many service workers, the lack of quality jobs and affordable housing are the two biggest challenges of living in Seattle,” said West. “This agreement addresses both problems, moving us towards economic justice for working families.

Sage was joined by neighborhood groups and Little Saigon small business leaders in negotiating key sections of the agreement. The Dearborn coalition is comprised of business, neighborhood, labor, faith, housing, environmental, ethnic and other community organizations, all deeply concerned with how growth and change shape Seattle’s neighborhoods.

“This CBA – the first in the Pacific Northwest – gives community groups like Jackson Place and others a voice in shaping their neighborhoods,” said Maura Deering, a member of the Jackson Place Community Council Board of Directors. “We are glad to have played a role in setting this type of precedent.”

Jermaine Smiley of Laborers Local 242, another coalition member, commented, “Making sure this project provides living wage jobs and benefits is benefit to the entire community, not to mention affordable housing at a time we need it the most.”

“This agreement is a step in the right direction for neighborhoods such as Little Saigon where development pressure is high. The agreement helps balance development interests and neighborhood interests,” said Quang H. Nguyen, executive director of the Washington Vietnamese American Chamber of Commerce, a coalition member.

The Dearborn project, with 600,000-square feet of retail and 500 units of housing, is located between South Dearborn and Weller streets at Rainier Ave. Among the items in this unprecedented agreement, Dearborn Street Developers LLC have agreed to:

Build 200 units of affordable housing in the project, including 50 family units;
Contribute $200,000 to mitigate traffic impacts in the Little Saigon and Jackson place neighborhoods in addition to the street improvements that the developer will pay for as traffic mitigation immediately around the project;
Follow fair labor standards by hiring construction contractors that pay prevailing wages and provide health and retirement benefits; and by ensuring that 15% of all work hours are performed by apprentices. The contractors will also participate in minority/women-owned business programs and strive to hire local residents through pre-apprentice programs;
Ensure grocery and drug stores agree to stay neutral if employees decide to unionize. Janitors, security officers and other employees of the development will be covered by the same labor standards;
Offer below-market rents on 5,000 square feet of space in the project to community nonprofits at a cost of $1 million;

· Contribute $200,000 for the design of a community center in Little Saigon, and $600,000 over 12 years to support the Little Saigon commercial district;

Use environmentally sustainable building practices;

The project still needs the approval of the Seattle City Council, which must approve a site rezone and street vacations. The developer will have to pay the city for the street vacations, and the coalition and developer will ask that the City of Seattle invest those funds in neighborhoods around the project.

Seattle Goodwill, a nonprofit organization that helps low-income and disadvantaged people prepare for and secure jobs so they may achieve self-sufficiency, has been housed at Dearborn and Rainier since 1931. Goodwill’s main building was constructed in 1946.

“This agreement is a win for the community, a win for Goodwill, and a win for the developer,” said Goodwill President and CEO Ken Colling. “We are very excited because we have been trying for more than 10 years to replace our worn-out facilities.”

Under the agreement, 200 of the 500 units of housing in the project will be affordable units. Of these units, 120 will be affordable to families making no more than 50% of the city’s median income, which is $32,550 for a two-person household. The other 80 units will be affordable to families making no more than 80% of the median income. The Seattle Housing Authority will build the affordable units.

The project will have tree-lined streets, two interior plazas and open space on the perimeter. The developer will build the project using environmentally sustainable methods, such as green roofs and permeable sidewalks.

Columbia Legal Services Seattle attorney Andrew Kashyap assisted the Dearborn Coalition in the complex work of analyzing and negotiating the Dearborn community benefit agreement.

Community benefit agreements (CBAs) have long been used by community coalitions in major cities in California to improve housing and jobs. The Dearborn agreement is the first fully enforceable agreement of its kind in the Northwest. For more information on CBAs, visit http://www.communitybenefits.org/, the website of the Partnership for Working Families.

One Hill Coalition signs CBA

2008-08-20T06:03:00.000-07:00

While the One Hill CBA was approved a while back, it was formally signed yesterday.

Check out the video on the Post-Gazette website.

From the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

Hill to get $2 million aid for grocery, more
Hill District residents will get $2 million for a grocery store, first dibs on jobs at the new Uptown arena and a chance to lay out their vision for the neighborhood under a community benefits agreement to be finalized this morning.
The contract among One Hill Neighborhood Coalition, the Penguins and government agencies means the arena will provide benefits for its most immediate neighbors, negotiators said.
"It's very positive," said Carl Redwood, One Hill's chairman. "If there's any downside, some people feel it should be more positive, but it's still positive."
Politicians, Penguins officials and community leaders are scheduled to attend a signing ceremony for the agreement at Freedom Corner in the Hill District, a neighborhood of about 17,000 people.
Negotiations took place for more than a year, beginning after the Penguins' March 2007 deal to stay in Pittsburgh. Construction on the arena between Fifth and Centre avenues began with a groundbreaking ceremony last week.
Penguins officials have said they want to correct mistakes made by public agencies a half-century ago when residential blocks were leveled to make way for Mellon Arena.
"The Penguins organization and the Mario Lemieux Foundation always have believed in giving back to our community," team President David Morehouse said. "And we believe that the new arena project will be a catalyst for growth and development in this very important section of the city -- impacting not only the Hill but also our neighbors in Uptown and Downtown."
The agreement includes:
• $1 million each from the Penguins and the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority for a Hill District grocery store. Kuhn's, a locally owned chain of eight supermarkets, has proposed a full-service grocery at Centre Avenue and Dinwiddie Street, and Save-A-Lot, based in St. Louis, has proposed a smaller discount operation at the same location.
• A First Source Employment Center that will give neighborhood residents the first chance to apply for jobs created at the arena and through redevelopment of the 28-acre Mellon Arena site. The city and Allegheny County agreed to provide $150,000 a year for at least two years to start the program. The Penguins agreed to create jobs that pay wages of $12 to $30 an hour plus benefits.
• The creation of a master planning committee that has until Feb. 19, 2010, to come up with guidelines for development of the Hill District and Uptown. The committee would include four people appointed by One Hill and five by local officials, although no decision would take effect if more than two people vote against it. The Penguins agreed not to submit development plans for the Mellon Arena site until after this process ends, although the team could build a hotel near the arena.
• The city, county and URA agreed to work with Pittsburgh YMCA to build a community center in the neighborhood.
• The Penguins agreed to pay $500,000 a year for six to 12 years for a Neighborhood Partnership Program, focused on development and social services such as treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. The county would conduct a two-year review of social services.
Separately, backers of the planned North Shore casino have agreed to invest $3 million over five years for development projects in the Hill District. Redwood said casino operators likely would control that money and it would go directly to the recipients, rather than to a neighborhood development agency.
The negotiating process itself might be the greatest lasting impact of having the agreement, said Evan Frazier, president and CEO of Hill House Association, a lead negotiator for One Hill.
"We didn't get everything in every category, but there were elements of each," Frazier said.
The agreement goes a long way toward helping the community rebuild -- in physical structure, as well as jobs and social services, said negotiator Gabe Morgan, president of the Pennsylvania State Council of Service Employees International Union.
"You can always have a conversation about what's enough," Morgan said. "They certainly got much more of a commitment to building that community and to making sure that development positively impacts the community."

Thursday's CBA news.

2008-07-31T05:45:00.000-07:00

Organizers in Pacoima finalized a CBA for a new shopping center. The CBA has a good local hiring program and also prohibits the developer from renting space to check cashing companies. The project itself will benefit the community by improving what's now a brownfield, and by bringing jobs and new retail to the city. See Kerry Cavanaugh, Mayor Saw Potential in Costco, Pacoima Pairing, The Daily News of Los Angeles, Jul. 28, 2008. For an update on the project, see this January 2009 press release from the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency.
In Richmond, the city council hasn't wasted any time getting the CBA fund committee set up--they appointed themselves.
And the Yankees Stadium Community Benefits fund, although it was delayed it getting set up, has finally given out some major grants. The New York Daily News reports that they gave out $261,000 to 15 grant recipients yesterday.

Some criticism of the Chevron CBA

2008-07-27T14:34:00.000-07:00

Gayle McLaughlin, the Mayor of Richmond, and Tom Butt, a city council member, contributed an editorial to the Contra Costa Times yesterday criticizing the recent approval of the Chevron refinery upgrades. They had this to say about the so-called CBA:

The Community Benefits Agreement was negotiated between members of the council majority and Chevron and sprung on a few other surprised City Council members minutes before the July 15 hearing.

No public input or even public comment was allowed. Although gigantic flaws in the agreement came to light under questioning by other council members, the majority shut their ears and soldiered on to adoption.

Examples of egregious provisions are as follows:
$14.6 million for "Alternative Energy Funding" is in fact a simple business venture by Chevron. Chevron will spend this amount for renewable energy projects producing electricity it intends to sell to the city, retaining greenhouse gas offsets and tax credits for itself.
$6 million for "Environmental Benefits" will not come to the city at all. The "Environmental Benefits" are in fact watered-down versions of legitimate mitigations removed by the council majority from the conditional use permit. The money would be used by Chevron to pay for things like tank domes to reduce VOCs and ground level air monitoring, which the original CUP would have required anyway.
$5 million for the Bay Trail will not come to the city either. In the majority's version, $3 million of it is Chevron's grossly overestimated value of a small piece of land for a trail easement, and $2 million is for security upgrades along the trail to benefit Chevron, not the city. There is no money for the original CUP requirement for Chevron to donate right of way and pay for construction of a Bay Trail connection to the Point San Pablo Peninsula, replacing a dangerous bike route along I-580 that resulted in one death and one serious injury two years ago.
Stripped of all its scams, the Community Benefits Agreement is worth maybe $6 million, about the same amount Chevron used to buy off the City Council in 1994, not adjusted for inflation, which would make it even worse.

Richmond has been taken to the cleaners by this secret deal which sacrifices our health, environmental justice and democratic processes for a few paltry million dollars.

More on the Columbia expansion.

2008-07-23T05:43:00.000-07:00

The Observer ran an article yesterday, Zero Hour in West Harlem, that looks at the coming eminent domain battle in West Harlem.

Also see Will Columbia Take Manhattanville?, which was published a few months ago, for background on the opposition. (Although I don't agree with the statement in this article that "relying on negotiating a community-benefits agreement before decisions about land use and zoning are finished amounts to 'purchasing' planning decisions." In the Columbia expansion case, where the CBA was negotiated primarily by local elected officials, this might be somewhat true. But that's not the way that CBAs are supposed to work--land use decisions and CBAs should inform each other, but neither should eclipse the other.)