New lawsuit questions the Atlantic Yards CBA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

CBA to cover residential development in Rohnert Park, Cal.

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.

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

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

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

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

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:

• Environmental Assessment Statement
• EA Positive Declaration
• Draft Scope of Work
• Final Scope of Work
  
• Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Notice of Completion for DEIS