tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10461526316658810262024-03-18T20:39:44.696-07:00Community Benefits Agreementslinking good jobs, affordable housing, social justice and livable neighborhoods to development projectsamy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.comBlogger183125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-14045860783772243222010-08-12T08:36:00.000-07:002010-08-12T08:45:01.480-07:00National Survey on CBAs<a href="http://www.stthomas.edu/business/faculty/directory/Musil_Tom.html">Dr. Tom Musil</a> at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, is conducting a <a href="https://survey.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_bK2tZxAy3CYtjQ8">national survey on CBAs</a>, 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.<div><br /></div><div>Complete the survey <a href="https://survey.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_bK2tZxAy3CYtjQ8">here</a>.</div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com52tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-90079170422836849672010-08-09T11:37:00.000-07:002010-08-09T11:54:17.188-07:00An "Obstructionist Manifesto"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 "<a href="http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/buffalo/Leaders-finger-pointing-over-Bass-Pro">obstructionists</a>" and the Buffalo News called the CBA a "<a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/buffalo-news-editorials/article93465.ece">job killer</a>.") <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; ">Mark Goldman, a business owner who has written several books about Buffalo, wrote an "<a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/from-our-readers/another-voice/article92313.ece">Obstructionist Manifesto</a>" in response to the CBA-naysayers, and it's well worth considering. Some excerpts:</span><blockquote>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.<br /><br />As an obstructionist, I believe that when a small group of tightly connected political insiders hijacks the city planning process, it must be stopped.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />...<br /><br />As an obstructionist, I believe in a truly democratic and public planning process that is embraced by our whole community....<br /><br />.... 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.</blockquote></i>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-21209054643943262762010-07-14T06:02:00.000-07:002010-07-14T07:15:42.327-07:00The debate continues on Buffalo's waterfront and possible community benefitsEarlier this week, the <a href="http://www.eriecanalharbor.com/">Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation</a> (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">ECHDC</span>, a subsidiary of the <a href="http://www.empire.state.ny.us/">Empire State Development Corporation</a>) finalized an agreement with the <a href="http://www.nypa.gov/">New York Power Authority</a> to issue $105 million in bonds for Buffalo's waterfront redevelopment project. As of today, this news is up on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">NYPA's</span> <a href="http://www.nypa.gov/press/2010/100713a.html">website</a>, but not <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">ECHDC's</span>, even though you would think (hope) the lead agency on the project would want to be more open about its dealings. According to the <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/07/13/1111984/canal-side-project-gets-significant.html">Buffalo News</a>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">NYPA's</span> investment, which includes $55 million in funding for waterfront developments, is "helping to make amends for past decisions that... shortchanged Western New York." <div><br /></div><div>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, <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2010/03/buffalo-common-council-supports-cba.html">doesn't want the project to go forward without a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">CBA</span></a>, 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">ECHDC</span> though, along with pro-business advocates, think that a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CBA</span> 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 <a href="http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2006/092006/leroy-sports.html">playing the public <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">fisc</span></a> for all it can get.</div><div><br /></div><div>Buffalo State College economics professor Susan M. Davis <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/07/13/1112158/waterfront-project-hearing-turns.html">pointed out</a> "the irony of business people asking for subsidies and then turning around and calling it [a living wage] 'socialism[.]'" On the other hand, <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/07/06/1104659/community-benefit-agreement-will.html">Julia <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Vitullo</span>-Martin</a> from New York City's Regional Plan Association claims that "[w]hat they [<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">CBAs</span>] really do is increase the costs of development tremendously--and often halt it altogether." She cites the recently failed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Kingsbridge</span> Armory Redevelopment project in the Bronx, which <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/12/kingsbridge-armory-plans-rejected-45-1.html">fell apart</a> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CBAs</span> and meddling community groups. And <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">CBAs</span> 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. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Vitullo</span>-Martin, have some optimism; the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Kingsbridge</span> failure might be a blessing in disguise. The next development proposal for the property might offer something a lot better.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jordan Levy, chairman of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">ECHDC</span>, <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/07/13/1112158/waterfront-project-hearing-turns.html">says that</a> the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">CBA</span> 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." </div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, Mr. Levy, this project is about the Buffalo community, and the interests of the community should come before Bass <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Pro's</span> bottom line. Maybe it's time to start listening to what the community wants. </div><div><br /></div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-76250895289638652122010-06-10T07:54:00.001-07:002010-06-10T09:03:03.435-07:00Fake NIMBYsI first heard about the <a href="http://tscg.biz/">Saint Consulting Group</a> a few years back when I saw an executive speak at a legal conference about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY">NIMBY</a> and the socio-political dynamics of development opposition. It was a fascinating lecture, and it introduced me to some *very* important acronyms like <a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/152">CAVEmen</a> and <a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/152">NIMTOO</a>. <div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>And that's where it gets interesting, because Saint has learned to apply the <a href="http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/12408319.html?FMT=ABS&date=Jun%2010,%201997">Harvard approach</a> (see <a href="http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2005/03/23/perspectives-expansion-part-three-five-part-series-campus-planning">here</a> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>The WSJ published a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704875604575280414218878150.html">fascinating profile</a> 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<i> connections</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's something distasteful about all of this, with large grocery chains like Safeway and Giant paying Saint to create <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing">astroturf</a> 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...</div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-37476697196635333912010-05-31T13:23:00.000-07:002010-06-03T07:34:52.978-07:00The Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8ZHP__Fuqe_bZdQ0_1dQfHE6ETKzjUO_PdiuXjs47I-0rQO7aXFF5f1fsI1wAamdLMM5MsOmuatjSvZn_ls_T2zGXi7JSbGrngyDOEky7f6buVVwTyZ7Q-utWh5Byb-N4FJQSAK7e4Ck/s1600/Picture+1.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 297px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8ZHP__Fuqe_bZdQ0_1dQfHE6ETKzjUO_PdiuXjs47I-0rQO7aXFF5f1fsI1wAamdLMM5MsOmuatjSvZn_ls_T2zGXi7JSbGrngyDOEky7f6buVVwTyZ7Q-utWh5Byb-N4FJQSAK7e4Ck/s400/Picture+1.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5478554922870296754" /></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Picture via KimTheWolf (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimthewolf/7250891/">flickr</a>), showing a protest sign at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. (where the living wage is almost $15 per hour.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>The Kingsbridge Armory CBA campaign may have <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/12/kingsbridge-armory-plans-rejected-45-1.html">tanked</a>, but its supporters have not been deterred. They're hoping the city council will enact the <a href="http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=664291&GUID=A83A5A5B-9589-4589-AAD7-5B2C6884610F">Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act</a>, which would mandate a $10 minimum wage for all projects receiving more than $100,000 in subsidies. As many people have <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-york-city-bar-association-panel-on.html">argued</a> of late (including <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-should-be-done-about-these-messy.html">myself</a>), 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," <a href="http://www.bronxnewsnetwork.org/2010/05/kingsbridge-armory-battle-inspires.html">explained</a> Ruben Diaz, Bronx Borough President. "This is a citywide debate."</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Some details about the <a href="http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=664291&GUID=A83A5A5B-9589-4589-AAD7-5B2C6884610F">bill</a>:</div><div><ul><li>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.</li><li>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?)</li><li>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.</li><li>Employees would be entitled to a living wage, regardless of their part time, temporary, or seasonal status. Independent contractors would be covered too.</li><li>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.</li><li>The living wage requirement lasts for the longer of 30 years or the duration of the subsidy.</li><li>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. </li><li>If an employer receives two violations in any six year period, the employer would become ineligible for financial assistance for five years.</li><li>Developers and employers would also have include <a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/accountable_development/reform2.cfm">clawback</a> 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.</li></ul><div>Well, Mayor Bloomberg has predictably opposed the bill. As explained at the <a href="http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2010/06/as-law-proposed-to-require-minimum.html">Atlantic Yard Report</a>, his reasoning is completely illogical:<br /><blockquote><i>Bloomberg's conclusion: "The free market works much better."<br /><br />"Having the public subsidize some workers and not others is not fair," he added.<br /><br />Um, couldn't the same be said about "some projects and not others"?</i><br /></blockquote>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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 <a href="http://www.livingwagenyc.org/">Living Wage NYC</a> campaign.</div><div><br /></div><div>No doubt we'll be hearing more about this. For more to read:</div><div><ul><li>Sam Dolnick, <i><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/nyregion/24wage.html">Wage Proposal May Prompt Fight at City Hall</a></i>, The New York Times, May 23, 2010</li><li>Daniel Massey, <i><a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100523/FREE/305239971">Living-wage debate gets broader, louder</a></i>, Crain's New York Business, May 23, 2010</li><li>John Del Signore, <i><a href="http://gothamist.com/2010/05/24/bloomberg_expected_to_battle_fair_w.php">Bloomberg Expected to Fight "Fair Wage" Bill</a></i>, Gothamist, May 24, 2010</li><li>Eliot Brown, <i><a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/living-wage-bill-formally">Living Wage Bill Formally Introduced; Bloomberg Smirks</a></i>, The New York Observer, May 25, 2010</li><li>Molly Zelvonberg, <i><a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-6478-NY-Page-One-Examiner~y2010m5d25-Keep-the-working-poor-working-fair-wages-law-Is-Nice-but-stupid-says-Bloomberg?cid=exrss-NY-Page-One-Examiner">Keep the working poor working, fair wages law is "Nice," but stupid says Bloomberg</a></i>, NY Examiner, May 25, 2010</li><li>Jeanmarie Evelly, <i><a href="http://www.bronxnewsnetwork.org/2010/05/kingsbridge-armory-battle-inspires.html">Kingsbridge Armory Battle Inspires Citywide Living Wage Bill</a></i>, Bronx News Network, May 26, 2010</li><li>Michelle Chen, <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6044/living_wage_fight_revitalized_in_new_york_city/">Living Wage Fight Revitalized in New York City</a>, In These Times, May 28, 2010</li><li>Juan DeJesus, <i><a href="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Wage-War-Brewing-95440324.html">Pols, Labor Leaders Launch Wage War Against Big Business</a></i>, NBC New York, June 2, 2010</li></ul></div></div></div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-36335332817002013352010-05-27T05:26:00.000-07:002010-05-27T06:15:21.450-07:00New Haven community group asks city to enforce CBARepresentatives from <a href="http://www.ctneweconomy.org/cord.html">Communities Organized for Resonsible Development</a> (CORD) brought a petition to the mayor's office this week asking the city to enforce the <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/yale-new-haven-cba.html">CBA</a> involving Yale's <a href="http://www.ynhh.org/smilow/">Smilow Cancer Center</a>. 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.<br /><br />Now, Yale is supposed to provide annual reports on compliance with the CBA's jobs provisions. But the CBA is contained in the <a href="http://www.communitybenefits.org/downloads/Yale-New%20Haven%20Hospital%20CBA.pdf">development agreement</a> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_beneficiary">third party beneficiaries</a>, and it acknowledges that certain promises made by Yale and the city were intended to benefit the community. <div><br /></div><div>The third party beneficiary issue is addressed in a recent law review article by <a href="http://www.utulsa.edu/academics/colleges/college-of-law/Faculty%20and%20Administration/C/Patience%20A%20Crowder.aspx">Patience A. Crowder</a>, <i>More Than Merely Incidental: Third-Party Beneficiary Rights in Urban Redevelopment Contracts</i>, 17 Geo. J. Poverty Law & Pol'y 287 (2010) (available to download <a href="https://articleworks.cadmus.com/geolaw/z5800210.html">here</a>, 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 <i>and the community</i> as requested by the City[.]"</div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-48701115692752312882010-05-21T05:25:00.000-07:002010-05-21T05:40:40.024-07:00Sustainability and the Columbia University expansion projectA 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.<div><br /></div><div><i><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1611801#%23">Can Urban University Expansion and Sustainable Development Co-Exist?: A Case Study in Progress on Columbia University</a></i> was written by my Albany Law School colleagues Keith Hirokawa and Patricia Salkin. </div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-64949618958945775902010-05-18T05:49:00.000-07:002010-05-18T10:50:45.031-07:00New York City Bar Association panel on CBAsThe New York City Bar Association last night held a <a href="http://www.nycbar.org/EventsCalendar/show_event.php?eventid=1402">panel on CBAs</a>. Audio is available <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?mzc4dfrd2j4">here</a>, and you can read recaps at <a href="http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2010/05/panel-discusses-cba-reforms-in.html">Atlantic Yards Report</a> and <a href="http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-york-city-bar-association-program.html">Noticing New York</a>.<div><br /></div><div>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 <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/charter">Charter Revision Commission</a> might deal with land use and community planning (see, for instance, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's <a href="http://www.mbpo.org/uploads/CharterRevisionReport2.pdf">Recommendations to the Charter Revision Commission</a>, and recent news that the commission will hold a <a href="http://www.citylimits.org/news/articles/3989/term-limits-land-use-top-charter-revision-list">land use "issue forum"</a>). </div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-7690847110666363562010-05-12T06:37:00.000-07:002010-05-12T06:56:38.381-07:00Cincinnati School Construction CBAPerhaps taking a cue from the <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/06/cba-for-syracuse.html">Syracuse Schools Reconstruction Project CBA</a>, the Cincinnati School Board earlier this week approved <a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20100510/NEWS0102/5110365/">a set of community benefits goals to be met on school construction projects</a>, including:<div><ul><li>40% of workers at a given school site should be residents of the school district;</li><li>40% should be residents of the Cincinnati metropolitan area outside the school district;;</li><li>20% of labor and trade personnel should be minorities and women; and</li><li>provisions to encourage more apprenticeships for local workers.</li></ul><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>The CBA follows <a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100308/NEWS01/3090362/NAACP-demands-that-schools-complete-audit-of-minority-contractor-list">revelations</a> earlier this year that the Cincinnati Public Schools had awarded $12 million in contracts to white-owned firms improperly classified as minority contractors.</div></div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-58092099780361447002010-05-10T05:26:00.000-07:002010-05-10T05:44:42.602-07:00Trouble with the Columbia CBAThe New York Post <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/item_8H9n4nRLaXngddCK8OgyuL">reported yesterday</a> that the West Harlem Local Development Corporation--the quasi-private nonprofit set up to negotiate and implement the <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/with-atlantic-yards-and-yankee-stadium.html">Columbia expansion <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CBA</span></a>--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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CBA</span> is in jeopardy, but that's probably not the case, at least as long as Columbia keeps making its payments. What might jeopardize the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CBA</span>, however, is an <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/columbia-expansion-appeal-state-looks-atlantic-yards">upcoming court challenge</a> to the state's use of eminent domain on Columbia's behalf.amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-16450603094449138972010-05-04T06:26:00.000-07:002010-05-04T06:36:03.558-07:00CBAs and comprehensive planningYou can find a recently published law review article coauthored by myself and my colleague Patricia Salkin <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597275">here</a>. (You should also visit Patricia Salkin's excellent blog, <a href="http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/">Law of the Land</a>.) The article is titled <i>Community Benefits Agreements and Comprehensive Planning: Balancing Community Empowerment and the Police Power</i>, and it's appearing in the current issue of the Brooklyn Law School <a href="http://www.brooklaw.edu/IntellectualLife/LawJournals/Journal%20of%20Law%20and%20Policy/GeneralInformation.aspx?">Journal of Law and Policy</a>.<br /><br />Here's the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597275">abstract</a>:<br /><blockquote><i>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</i></blockquote>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-47581869030235485352010-04-29T06:31:00.000-07:002010-04-29T07:27:42.040-07:00And the New York City CBA debate continues...The <a href="http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20071844-TheRoleofCommunityBenefitAgreementsinNYCLandUseProcess.pdf">New York City Bar Association's report on CBAs</a>, issued in March, recommended that CBAs not be considered as part of the planning process. According to a New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/realestate/commercial/28cba.html?pagewanted=all">article</a> 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 <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/08/gateway-center-at-bronx-terminal-market.html">Gateway Center</a> and <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/with-atlantic-yards-and-yankee-stadium.html">Columbia</a> 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. <div><div><br /></div><div>Liu has convened his own <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2010/03/nyc-comptroller-lius-cba-task-force.html">task force on CBAs</a> 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 <a href="http://www.citylimits.org/news/articles/3962/strong-feelings-about-yankee-stadium-deal-too-bad-">City Limits</a>, 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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." </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, I can sort of respect that. But why not have at least <i>some</i> 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 <i>learn something</i> 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. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-864262251609138152010-04-20T05:32:00.000-07:002010-04-20T05:54:34.985-07:00Buffalo CBA advocates get the cold shoulderThe 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 <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/19/1024051/council-hears-debate-on-benefits.html">Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation wants nothing to do with negotiations</a>. 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. <div><br /></div><div>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 <a href="http://law.justia.com/newyork/codes/urban-development-corporation-act-174.68/">Urban Development Corporation Act</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>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."</div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-26766301777830387752010-04-06T05:51:00.000-07:002010-04-06T07:07:57.706-07:00Public and city support for a Canal Side CBA in Buffalo; developer and state resistance to negotiationsDespite broad <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/10/buffalo-partnership-for-public-good.html">coalition</a> and <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2010/03/buffalo-common-council-supports-cba.html">city council</a> 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, <a href="http://www.basspro.com/homepage.html">Bass Pro</a>, is a <a href="http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2006/092006/leroy-sports.html">well-know subsidy-chaser</a> (or, as some would call it, a tax-dodger) and poverty-wage job supplier. And the quasi-public <a href="http://www.eriecanalharbor.com/">Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation</a> (ECHDC) is a subsidiary of the <a href="http://www.empire.state.ny.us/">New York Empire State Development Corporation</a> (ESDC), which has used its power to override local laws and its authority to use eminent domain to facilitate the <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/search/label/columbia">Columbia University expansion</a> and the <a href="http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com">Atlantic Yards project</a>. Although both of those projects have CBAs, they also face significant public opposition, and ESDC's involvement has been crucial to overcome that opposition. <div><br /></div><div>This week, reporter James Heaney put up a <a href="http://blogs.buffalonews.com/outrages_insights/2010/04/canal-side-post.html">blog post</a> 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." </div><div><br /></div><div>Previous posts on Canal Side also by Mr. Heaney can be found <a href="http://blogs.buffalonews.com/outrages_insights/2010/03/progress-of-sorts-on-the-bass-pro-project.html">here</a>, <a href="http://blogs.buffalonews.com/outrages_insights/2009/12/the-other-partnerships-priorities.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://blogs.buffalonews.com/outrages_insights/2008/12/questions-for-t.html">here</a>.</div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-48307524194660735262010-03-31T06:37:00.000-07:002010-04-02T08:53:05.825-07:00Columbia Spectator on the Manhattanville CBA... but what about the 197-a plan?The Columbia Spectator published an <a href="http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/03/24/mville-method-draws-scrutiny">article</a> last week about the Columbia University CBA, going over the criticisms of the CBA process outlined in the <a href="http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20071844-TheRoleofCommunityBenefitAgreementsinNYCLandUseProcess.pdf">New York City Bar Association's recent report on CBAs</a>. The article does a decent job of recapping the CBA's negotiation, but it leaves out any mention of the preexisting community-based <a href="http://prattcenter.net/sites/default/files/users/images/CB9M_Final_24-Sep-07.pdf">197-a plan</a> that Columbia basically got the city to throw out (with <a href="http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2008/01/22/money-words-fly-heated-public-relations-battle">a whole lot of lobbying</a>). 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.amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-32705339832113767162010-03-31T06:00:00.001-07:002010-03-31T06:20:51.402-07:00Planning conflicts in PittsburghThe 2008 <a href="http://communitybenefits.org/article.php?id=1463">Hill District CBA</a>, which covers the new Penguins arena (the <a href="http://penguins.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=56350">Consol Energy Center</a>) 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.<div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A76935">At a community meeting earlier this month</a>, 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. </div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-59746765656287629572010-03-25T09:17:00.001-07:002010-03-25T12:15:34.553-07:00New York isn't the only place with CBA problems after allSan Francisco has the <a href="http://communitybenefits.org/article.php?id=1466">Hunter's Point <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CBA</span></a>, which was called a "<a href="http://clawback.org/2008/06/19/big-victories-for-partnership-for-working-families-and-affiliates/">big victory</a>" when it was finalized in 2008. <div><br /></div><div>But now there's another <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CBA</span> campaign on in the city by the bay, and it doesn't look so promising. The controversy concerns a 550-bed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">megahospital</span> being proposed by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Sutter</span> Health, which will allow <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Sutter</span> to reduce its acute care services at the existing St. Luke's hospital. St. Luke's is located in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_District,_San_Francisco,_California">Mission</a>, 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">BeyondChron</span> <a href="http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Defying_Health_Care_Advocates_SEIU_UHW_Backs_Sutter_s_CPMC_Mega_Hospital_7940.html">article</a>, "the California Nurses Association and virtually every health care advocacy group is fighting save St. Luke's Hospital and force <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Sutter</span> to sign an enforceable agreement protecting the community". </div><div><br /></div><div>Sounds like a strong campaign. Except that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">healthcare</span> workers' union, <a href="http://www.seiu-uhw.org/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">SEIU</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">UHW</span></a>, undercut the coalition by signing its own agreement with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Sutter</span>. In the Side Letter, the union agreed to publicly and privately support the project, and it authorized <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Sutter</span> to assign union employees to outreach work building support for the project.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to Shaw, the community's reaction to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">SEIU</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">UHW's</span> side deal has been mostly negative. The vice president of the other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">healthcare</span> workers' union, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><a href="http://www.nuhw.org/">NUHW</a></span>, explained that "there is no way <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">NUHW</span> would have made such a deal with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Sutter</span>. We always felt it important to work with the community regarding this project.” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">SEIU</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">UHW</span>, according to Shaw, has become disengaged from other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">healthcare</span> advocacy groups in the city and from elected officials. Although the San Francisco Building Trades are siding with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">SEIU</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">UHW</span>, "the Building Trades supports virtually every construction project proposed in San Francisco, and – unlike <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">SEIU</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">UHW</span> – does not claim protecting patient care and health equity as part of its mission."</div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-19510751545773645422010-03-25T08:56:00.000-07:002010-03-25T09:16:13.623-07:00NYC Comptroller Liu's CBA task force & more to come from the DuBois Bunche CenterLast week, New York City Comptroller John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Liu</span> announced the <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/liu-forms-developercommunity-agreements-task-force#">formation</a> of his task force on Public Benefit Agreements. (Why he chose the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">PBA</span>" nomenclature is unclear.) According to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Liu's</span> <a href="http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/opm/pba.asp">website</a>, "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, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">rezonings</span>, and other public resources are used to facilitate private development."<div><br /></div><div>The task force has more than <a href="http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/opm/pba/full-membership.asp">30 members</a>, 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 <a href="http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-lius-task-force-supporters-and.html">"through an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">AY</span> lens"</a> and points out that three of the task force members support the much criticized Atlantic Yards <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CBA</span>.<br /><div><br /></div><div>One of those three task force members is Roger Green, the executive director of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">DuBois</span>-Bunche Urban Policy Center (and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Green">former New York Assembly member</a>). The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">DBC</span> <a href="http://duboisbunche.org/2010/03/dbc-to-study-community-benefits-agreements/">announced</a> that it will be undertaking its own study of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CBAs</span>, which will "review the origins of the various Community Benefits Agreements to determine their effectiveness in enhancing minority business and equal employment opportunities." </div></div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-44265686055401418932010-03-18T07:38:00.000-07:002010-03-18T08:12:28.965-07:00What should be done about these messy CBAs?<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CBAs</span> have been a big issue in New York lately, ever since New York City Comptroller John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Liu</span> announced his intent to <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/18/2010-02-18_new_york_city_builders_must_stop_stifling_the_voices_of_local_communities.html">reform the process</a> a few weeks ago. Just this week, the New York City Bar Association issued a <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/bar-association-wants-reforms-communitydeveloper-deal-process">report</a> that's very critical of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CBAs</span>, calling for the agreements to be excluded from the land use approval process. <div><br /></div><div>Amid all of this <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">CBA</span> to-do, it can be easy to lose sight of the ultimate goals of the community benefits movement, <i>viz</i>., 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 <i>quality</i> jobs, creating programs to help local employees find employment and progress in their fields, protecting small and local businesses that strengthen local economies, etc. </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">CBAs</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">CBAs</span> are symptoms of deeper problems in the way that development and planning happen in New York City, and regulating <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">CBAs</span> won't fix these problems. What's needed is better and more transparent planning, and a different understanding of how <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">CBAs</span> are supposed to fit into the development approval process.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Is regulating <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">CBAs</span> even feasible?</span><br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">CBA</span> advocates have generally eschewed legislative <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">CBA</span> requirements because of the difficulty of defining "the community." To illustrate, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">CBA</span> legislation was <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/03/cba-legislation-to-be-discussed-in.html">proposed</a> (but not passed) in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Allegany</span> 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 <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2010/03/dc-land-disposition-law-requires-cbas.html">law</a> 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 <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/atlantic-yards-cba.html">Atlantic Yards <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">CBA</span></a>, or the <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/10/sugarhouse-cba.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">SugarHouse</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">CBA</span></a>. In both cases, opposition groups weren't involved in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">CBA</span> talks, and in both cases (although indirectly in the case of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">SugarHouse</span>) the community groups that did participate had financial reasons to do so. So was the "community" really involved?<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28521693/20071844-TheRoleofCommunityBenefitAgreementsinNYCLandUseProcess">points out</a>, there are due process and takings problems when <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">CBAs</span> are mandated or considered as part of the planning process. Indeed, the planning commissions in <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/10/kingsbridge-armory-plans-get-approval.html">New York City</a> and <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/06/pittsburgh-planning-commission-approves.html">Pittsburgh</a> have both recognized that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">CBAs</span> 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.<div><br /><div>Where subsidies or government properties (rather than development approvals) are involved, a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">CBA</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">CBA</span> to gain a seat at the table.<br /><br />There are other questions. Would <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">CBA</span> legislation prescribe negotiating rules? The proposed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Allegany</span> 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 <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/search?q=connecticut">Connecticut law</a> that regulates <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">CBA</span>-like agreements, the developer has to file a "meaningful [public] participation plan" before meeting with the local government to determine whether a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">CBA</span> is necessary. Other regulations might require the developer to negotiate in good faith, maybe using negotiation rules fashioned after the <a href="http://www.nlrb.gov/">National Labor Relations Act</a> requirements for collective bargaining (although I've never seen anything like this for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">CBAs</span>). <div><br />It's also worth considering that even if you regulate <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">CBAs</span>, there will always be the opportunity for developers and community coalitions to enter into side deals and call them something else (like maybe a <a href="http://timesratnerreport.blogspot.com/2006/01/after-cba-will-ratner-negotiate.html">Neighborhood Benefits Agreement</a> or a <a href="http://www.cpn.org/topics/environment/goodneighbor.html">Good Neighbor Agreement</a>). While people often talk about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">CBAs</span> 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 "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">CBA</span>" 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">CBAs</span> a useful persuasive device will make other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">CBA</span>-like-agreements useful too.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">What about existing land use regulations?</span><br /><br />The <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/bar-association-wants-reforms-communitydeveloper-deal-process">New York City Bar Association</a> has wisely discerned that the biggest problem with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">CBAs</span> may not be the lack of regulation but the failure of existing land use and planning regulations to meet communities' needs.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/community_planning/197a.shtml">197-a neighborhood plans</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml">Uniform Land Use Review Procedure</a>. 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">supermajority</span>, as they must when they overturn a borough president's recommendation, would help give the Community Boards more say in developments impacting their neighborhoods.<br /><br />Developers could also be required to submit better information in their <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulurp.shtml">Land Use Review Applications</a>, which could help everybody in the process to better understand projects' impacts. <a href="http://communitybenefits.org/article.php?list=type&type=157">Community Impact Reports</a> have been recommended for this purpose (see <a href="http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/economic-impact-review">here</a> 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 <a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/accountable_development/reform1.cfm">subsidy disclosures</a>. 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">pre</span>-application meetings between developers and the Department of City Planning. Even better would be regulations providing for a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">pre</span>-application public hearing.<br /><br />Finally, a lot of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">CBA</span> provisions deal with policy issues that might be appropriate for city-wide legislation. <a href="http://communitybenefits.org/article.php?list=type&type=154">Living wage laws</a>, <a href="http://communitybenefits.org/article.php?list=type&type=160">targeted hiring requirements</a>, <a href="http://www.newrules.org/retail">big box restrictions</a>, <a href="http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1852">green building requirements</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusionary_zoning"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">inclusionary</span> housing ordinances</a> all seek to address problems that are covered by a lot of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">CBAs</span>. 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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The importance of planning</span><br /><br />Good planning, anyway, could help developments to provide more benefits to the communities where they're located. As Washington D.C. planner Richard Layman <a href="http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/04/community-benefits-agreements.html">points out</a>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">CBAs</span> 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."<br /><br />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:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">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.</span></blockquote>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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">CBA</span>. The <a href="http://www.sustainable.org/casestudies/newyork/NY_af_melrose.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">Melrose</span> Commons</a> development in the Bronx is one example. The <a href="http://www.dsni.org/">Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative</a> in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">Roxbury</span>, Massachusetts, is another.</div><div><br /></div><div>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 <a href="http://www.abcny.org/pdf/report/RoleofAmenitiesintheLandUseProcess.pdf">1988 report</a> 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 <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/bar-association-wants-reforms-communitydeveloper-deal-process">report</a> reaffirms these points:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">The community negotiating the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">CBA</span> may capture benefits that would have gone instead to the broader community if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">CBAs</span> 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.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">Further, while the benefits incorporated into <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">CBAs</span> 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....<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">CBAs</span> divert benefits from the City as a whole, however, those neighborhoods may see little of the benefits from the City’s growth.</span></blockquote>The report mentions as an example the affordable housing commitment in the Atlantic Yards <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">CBA</span>. 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 <a href="http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2010/02/award-of-no-bid-mega-monopoly-means.html">monopoly</a> 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--<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">CBAs</span> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Another example is the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/realestate/commercial/30armory.html">supermarket fight</a> involving the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">Kingsbridge</span> Armory <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">CBA</span> (which was never finalized because the project wasn't approved). The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">CBA</span> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps most importantly, formal planning ensures a level of democracy and accountability that you can't always ensure in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">CBA</span> process. Yes, many <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">CBA</span> 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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">What else can be done to give some integrity to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">CBA</span> process?</span><br /><br />To start, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">CBAs</span> need to be more transparent. Local governments should require all <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">CBAs</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">CBA</span> has become something of an institution, the agreements are often not easy to find. (Just go try to find a copy of the <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/05/grand-avenue-community-benefits-package.html">Grand Avenue</a> or <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/hollywood-and-highland-center.html">Hollywood & Highland</a> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">CBAs</span>.) Where local governments or other agencies have a role in overseeing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_59">CBAs</span>, they should also make monitoring reports, amendments, and other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_60">CBA</span>-related documents publicly available.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_61">CBA</span> regulations protecting community members and signatories could also be enacted without getting into the messy task of identifying the community. So without mandating <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_62">CBA</span> negotiations, whenever a developer submits a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_63">CBA</span> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_64">CBAs</span> are going to be considered in the subsidy award process, state and local development agencies need to create uniform award guidelines--not just for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_65">CBAs</span>, but also for other project aspects. Too many development agencies award subsidies on an <a href="http://www.publicauthority.org/files/lavine.pdf">ad <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_66">hoc</span> basis</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/accountable_development/reform2.cfm">clawback agreements</a>. </div></div></div></div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-66519468863010334222010-03-17T04:30:00.000-07:002010-03-17T04:39:26.358-07:00Buffalo Common Council supports CBAIn Buffalo, N.Y., the Common Council<a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/16/989389/groups-want-assurances-canal-side.html"> unanimously passed a resolution</a> supporting a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CBA</span> for the heavily subsidized Canal Side Bass Pro project. A copy of the resolution is <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/16/989370/community-benefits-agreement-for.html">here</a>. It says that the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CBA</span> 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.amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-72238419007808457642010-03-10T07:35:00.000-08:002010-03-10T08:19:25.208-08:00D.C. land disposition law requires CBAs (sort of)The Washington D.C. <a href="http://www.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20090722153759.pdf">District Land Disposition Amendment Act of 2009</a> 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". <div><br /></div><div>The law doesn't seem to require <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">CBAs</span>, since there might not be "any" relevant community. It raises some questions though, like can a community coalition demand a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CBA</span> 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"?<div><br /></div><div>Aside from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CBAs</span>, the law also imposes some generally applicable community benefit policies. It requires developers that purchase city land to contract with <a href="http://dslbd.dc.gov/olbd/cwp/view,A,1403,Q,640636,olbdNav_GID,1747,olbdNav,|34049|,.asp">Certified Business Enterprises</a> (local/disadvantaged businesses) for at least 35% of the project's contract dollar volume and to enter into a <a href="http://does.dc.gov/does/cwp/view.asp?Q=537680&a=1232">First Source Agreement</a> 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. </div><div><br /></div><div>Leila Marie Jackson <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Batties</span> at the Holland & Knight law firm has prepared an <a href="http://www.hklaw.com/id24660/publicationid2859/returnid31/contentid54731/">article</a> discussing the law in more detail.</div></div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-56282658806485240342010-03-09T07:14:00.000-08:002010-06-06T21:03:37.578-07:00Just to be clear, Mr. CarrionI 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 <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oua/staff">official bio</a>. 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 <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2009/08/gateway-center-at-bronx-terminal-market.html">Gateway Center</a> and <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/yankee-stadium-cba.html">Yankee Stadium</a> CBAs didn't really involve the community, making them <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/search?q=julian+gross">less like real CBAs</a> 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 <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration">consideration</a>. Nor does it mention all of the shenanigans that have gone on with the Yankee Stadium CBA, like the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/nyregion/07stadium.html">year and half long delay</a> in distributing funding under the CBA, the lawsuit filed by the community fund's former lawyer and administrator alleging <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/nyregion/01bronx.html?_r=2">mismanagement of the fund</a>, the indictment of a city council member on <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-you-say-slush-fund.html">extortion and money laundering charges</a> related to a procurement contract connected to the CBA, or the fact that <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/02/18/2010-02-18_new_york_city_builders_must_stop_stifling_the_voices_of_local_communities.html">parks promised to be built</a> on the site of the old Yankee Stadium still haven't materialized. <div><br /></div><div>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 <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/liu-wants-changes-community-benefits-agreements-development-subsidies">City Comptroller John Liu's recent decision</a> 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. </div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-54333964778039196172010-03-05T11:26:00.000-08:002010-03-05T12:30:55.481-08:00CBAs and livable streetsStreetsBlog posted an <a href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/02/26/community-benefits-agreements-what-do-they-mean-for-livable-streets/comment-page-1/#comment-212571">article</a> by Noah Kazis last week about how CBAs are increasingly being used to encourage livable street designs. The <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/03/longfellow-cba.html">Longfellow CBA</a>, which has a variety of pedestrian and transit benefits, is cited as an example, as is the residential parking permit program included in the <a href="http://communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/success-of-hollywood-and-highland-cba.html">Staples Center CBA</a>. 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."amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-68417347027994524852010-02-11T06:07:00.000-08:002010-02-11T07:16:35.782-08:00Did you say "slush fund"?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 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/nyregion/10seabrook.html">New York Times</a> 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.<br /><br />City Comptroller John Liu is now <a href="http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/liu-wants-changes-community-benefits-agreements-development-subsidies">pressing for changes</a> 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:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">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.</span></blockquote><br />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 <a href="http://www.publicauthority.org/files/lavine.pdf">channel subsidies</a> 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.<br /><br />The <a href="http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2010/02/cba-angle-to-seabrook-indictment-lius.html">Atlantic Yards Report</a> points out the Seabrook scandal raises questions about the Atlantic Yards CBA:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><blockquote>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. . . .<br /></blockquote></span><br />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."<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.abcny.org/pdf/report/RoleofAmenitiesintheLandUseProcess.pdf">1988 report</a> from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York recommended doing away with CBA-type deals:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</span></blockquote><br />Good luck Mr. Liu.amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1046152631665881026.post-64344380914159217912010-01-26T05:54:00.001-08:002010-01-26T06:21:09.266-08:00Work begins on the Hill District master planOne 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 <a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_664064.html">the process is finally starting</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09282/1004166-53.stm">want to work with the community</a>. <div><br /></div><div>The master plan will be guided a set of <a href="http://www.hdcg.org/Default.aspx?pageId=520166&mode=PostView&bmi=264453">principles</a> developed by the <a href="http://www.hdcg.org/">Hill District Consensus Group</a>.</div>amy lavinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14665934013964542103noreply@blogger.com0