Community Benefits Proposals A and B

[ABetterDetroit]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just put a proposal on the ballot: No more tax credits for devolopers in the City of Detroit yes or no? These proposals seem as clear as mud and will have the same effect no matter which one passes until the lawyers collect a pile of fees to sort it out.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...plan/91897850/

[Wesley Mouch]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just put a proposal on the ballot: No more tax credits for devolopers in the City of Detroit yes or no? These proposals seem as clear as mud and will have the same effect no matter which one passes until the lawyers collect a pile of fees to sort it out.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...plan/91897850/

The idea for tax breaks is that the development itself is the community benefit. If a project itself doesn't provide benefit, then there's no reason for a tax break.

The idea of Community Benefits is just bribery by another name. But I guess you're in favor if you personally benefit.

[ABetterDetroit]

Judging by the TV commercials on the "vote no on proposal A" there is some serious money behind stopping it from being passed.

[Wesley Mouch]

'Community Benefits' is a bad idea. It has become a feeding trough for special interests, not 'community benefit'.

I am against all tax breaks for business -- they should all receive equal treatment. We have a major problem in the country that we've decided to use the tax laws to choose winners and losers in business. And we often choose wrong -- wasting real taxpayer money. Think Solyndra.

We should stop all tax breaks -- and let good projects that make actual sense proceed on their own, and not prop up weaker projects that only make sense because they're propped up.

But here's where the real problem lies: Community Benefits just means a project is more expensive. So this means that both urban development gets more expensive -- and thus we will get less of it.

That's the real reason to oppose. We want more business in Detroit -- not less.

[ABetterDetroit]

With all due respect, you are contradicting yourself Wesley.

You go into a long explanation of why you are against tax breaks then argue if we are going to have them then there shouldn't be any community benefits attached making them easier to obtain therefore increasing frequency with the result being "more business" in Detroit which is wanted. ???

Though worded poorly, these proposals seem to make it clear that there are constituents in Detroit that are tired of their tax rates climbing constantly while a select few keep receiving large tax breaks.

That is a fair argument considering the sheer numbers who have had their property foreclosed on them in the last decade because of unpaid taxes.

Having tax incentives to bring jobs to a troubled environment a few times is one thing, but if it is the only way that will bring investment into a given area [[in this case anywhere outside of midtown or downtown) from the private sector, it is symptomatic of a larger unaddressed problem:

The inability of Detroit to compete with even its closest neighbors because the tax burden is too high within the city when it is relatively easy to just jump across the city limit to get relief.

Not addressing this issue has a catastrophically high cost both on a human level and financially. Poverty, schools and crime will only get more troubling or at best remain flat even with huge increases in social spending. For example, the current state of primary and secondary schools. With over 800 Million injected in a matter of months with no clear policy change, there isn't a lot of hope for anything beyond the under-performance that already exists.

I'm interested in hearing what others think. Please discuss.

[Dumpling]

Here is a page from the Detroit Regional Chamber
regarding Proposal A.

http://www.detroitjobsfirst.com/about

[Dumpling]

This article does give some of the background for Proposal A.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ents/86598784/

Proposal B makes "community benefits" go away for most projects seeking
tax breaks within the City of Detroit, rather than clarifying which community
organizations are to be negotiated with and which would have legal standing
if the developers are found to not be in compliance.

[Dumpling]

Back in the 90's here is what the Mackinac Center had to say about
the underlying problem that Proposal A is intended to address:

https://www.mackinac.org/V1997-26

[Zacha341]

Thanks for this info D.

[Honky Tonk]

Do these "community leaders" own the land or have money to invest in development? Sounds like more self-appointed self-serving "activists" looking for a hand out. As far as that Mackinac Report crying "racism", they're not really presenting any conclusive evidence. They're using the same logic as the witch scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail".

[gvidas]

Here's the full text of Proposal A.

I'm skeptical of Proposal B. It reminds me a lot of when Mike Dugeon, the barber, randomly ran for mayor. Similarly, the opposition to Prop A seems to be supply-siders who enjoy the rate at which gravy currently flows and resent anyone adjusting that spigot.

Developers that are spending over $15M should have a good understanding of the people who live near their development. If requiring that is akin to hamstringing them, how successful was the development going to be?

"Community leaders" is a nice broad term to encompass anybody with the ego and charisma to organize people. It's an organic way of saying "if you're spending our tax dollars, we should have a seat at the table." I think that's pretty reasonable.

It's worth pointing out that the ballot initiative exists because our fair city has dropped the ball so hard and so often. Remember the Marathon refinery? $175M for 15 jobs?

I'd like to see option A pass.

[mwilbert]

If people don't trust the people running the city to make appropriate decisions about discretionary tax breaks, they should elect different people. If people want to eliminate tax breaks, they should create and vote for a proposal eliminating them. I have a hard time seeing the benefit in creating new barriers to people doing projects in the city. It isn't as if there aren't already numerous opportunities for the public and interested parties to insert themselves into the permitting process. I think those opportunities are probably sufficient.

[Wesley Mouch]

Do these "community leaders" own the land or have money to invest in development? Sounds like more self-appointed self-serving "activists" looking for a hand out. As far as that Mackinac Report crying "racism", they're not really presenting any conclusive evidence. They're using the same logic as the witch scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail".

Its a nearly 20 year old report, but its probably still fairly accurate.

They do present evidence. As of that report [[1997), unions had 8% minority membership, yet minorities were 23% of the population. That's evidence that requiring union participation on city projects prevents minority employment.

I worked on a major construction project where I saw minorities who couldn't be hired because they didn't the precise rules of CAY's Executive Order 22 -- which had hard quotas per trade for city residents, minorities, and women. In that case, small, black suburban contractors 'need not apply'.

Rules and requirements seldom do what they are intended -- but are great gravy machines for activists. Rather than passing more rules -- get rid of rules. These days most companies are pretty good about hiring based on quality -- and not the good old boy networks, IMO.

[Dumpling]

Metro Times has more background on the Prop. A vs. Prop. B controversy, leading
me to realize that even Proposition A is watered down from what its backers originally
wanted.

http://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/ge...nt?oid=2470133

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/arch...agreement-bill

State Representative Earl Poleski, term-limited Republican representing Jackson,
introduced the House bill limiting community benefits. It was specifically targeted
towards Detroit as no other Michigan city was looking for community benefits at
the time. The Detroit Regional Chamber was apparently the only organization
backing the bill. Yet it passed.

[Dumpling]

Community leaders vs. developers comparisons:

Community leaders, given that they earn an income, are paying 25% or
more in taxes on the income. Developers almost by definition have
enough assets where part of their taxes is of the capital gains 15% variety.
Similar to Gov. Snyder and his 8% tax rate, they may get to that lower tax
rate by means of charitable contributions.

Many community leaders are probably taking care of vacant lots near
their homes. The homes are proportionately valued less as there is not
as much mortgage backing within Detroit. Community benefits gives
them and their neighboring citizens back some of their taxes that are
going into the development that should be benefiting the developer as
well [[but if not, like Trump, it should be a nice Federal write off for the
next twenty years).
I am okay with voting yes on A but would like to see a strong vote no
case made for it.

[Wesley Mouch]

Community leaders vs. developers comparisons:

Community leaders, given that they earn an income, are paying 25% or
more in taxes on the income. Developers almost by definition have
enough assets where part of their taxes is of the capital gains 15% variety.
Similar to Gov. Snyder and his 8% tax rate, they may get to that lower tax
rate by means of charitable contributions.

Many community leaders are probably taking care of vacant lots near
their homes. The homes are proportionately valued less as there is not
as much mortgage backing within Detroit. Community benefits gives
them and their neighboring citizens back some of their taxes that are
going into the development that should be benefiting the developer as
well [[but if not, like Trump, it should be a nice Federal write off for the
next twenty years).
I am okay with voting yes on A but would like to see a strong vote no
case made for it.

The tax rate in Detroit is one of the best arguments. That rate certainly has baked into it a ton of stupidity that the residents really shouldn't be paying for. In many Detroit residents, the neighborhoods do need investment, so local area investment is a reasonable goal.

A tax rebate for local residents might be a better way to deliver community benefits. Let the residents decide how they'd like to spend the money.

I do believe that corporations that partner with local communities are most likely to succeed. Let them decide how to do that best. They might have good new ideas. The best argument against Community Benefits is that enforced rules on urban development have no proven track record. Money doesn't solve problems. We need new ideas. Rule-based charity probably won't make the difference the community needs.

Look at Uber. It turns out that its of great benefit to poor in our society. Who'd of thunk. Google 'uber benefits the poor' for some articles both pro & con. Would any Community Benefits agreement drawn up by Jesse Jackson have funded an Uber-like company to serve community transportation needs?

[gvidas]

Would any Community Benefits agreement drawn up by Jesse Jackson have funded an Uber-like company to serve community transportation needs?

I don't understand where you're coming from with this.

Here's two big chunks of the actual ordinance being voted on as Prop A. Skim it, it's not that bad.

The first chunk is a list of what the developer and the community reps must discuss during the course of negotiations, although they don't need to agree to actions in every category.

The second chunk is a long list of examples of community benefit programs.

It doesn't seem very onerous to me. It's pretty much just saying "let's take all that warm fuzzy stuff we hear about when we're being asked to help fund a big development, and put it into writing."

Yes, our elected officials / the DEGC should have been doing this. They're not.

1. The Community Benefits Agreement shall provide for Community Benefits as negotiated by the parties, and shall specifically address each of the following:

[[1) targeted benefits
[[2) low- and moderate-income housing,
[[3) quality of life or environmental mitigations,
[[4) neighborhood, infrastructure and amenities, and
[[5) community representation for the benefit of the Host Community in the development and post-development processes.
Although the Community Benefits Agreement shall specifically address each of the above issues, that does not mean that the parties are required to reach an agreement providing any particular benefit, only that each of the above subjects must be recognized in the written agreement using language agreed upon by the parties.

Sec. 14-12-4. Community Benefits
[[a) The following is a non-exclusive list of examples of Community Benefits that may be considered on a voluntary basis for inclusion in a Community Benefits Agreement, or in a Development Agreement:
[[1) Educational Programs, such as:

1. Education in the City’s high schools, community colleges and other educational programs.

b. One or more adult education programs operated by one or more qualified administration or an administrative collaboration comprised of organizations that benefit residents of the Host Community, including but not limited to agencies such as the Partnership fro Diversity and Opportunity in Transportation.

1. Actively supporting educational activities that provide employment opportunities for residents of the Host Community, including but not limited to programs through federal funds received annually and allocated by agencies such as the State’s Michigan Works! Partner, Detroit Employment Solutions Corporation, or another appropriate agency or entity.
2. Providing annual Contractor readiness training for Detroit Businesses, through the United States Department of Transportation Bonding Education Program or other relevant training opportunities.
3. Hosting annual Contractor information and networking sessions about upcoming contracting opportunities with the Michigan Department of Transportation in the City of Detroit.
   
   1. Providing program materials, training and support for Detroit Public Schools/CTE [[DPS) or other educational institutions in the Host Community.
   2. Providing employment and career mentoring opportunities for youths who reside in the Host Community, including but not limited to the Michigan Department of Transportation’s Youth Development and Mentoring Program.
   
   

[[2) Land Use Programs:

1. Actively promoting City real estate and investment opportunities in the Host Community through agencies such as the Michigan Prospectus or another appropriate real estate investment agency or entity.
2. Providing additional recreational activities, parks, educational services, environmental amenities, housing capacity or other benefits in the Host Community.
3. Providing funds for demolition of abandoned homes or other structures in the Host Community.

[[3)Small Business Inclusion and Participation:

1. Targeted outreach within the Host Community for Detroit-based small businesses, minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises and relevant business organizations and chambers.
2. Inclusion of Host Community Detroit-based small businesses, minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises and relevant business organizations in pre-bid meetings and conferences with advance notice.
3. Hosting annual procurement, contracting and hiring forums with information and networking sessions about upcoming procurement, contracting and hiring opportunities with the procurement department and Detroit Economic Growth Corporation in the City of Detroit.
4. Meet with Host Community Detroit-based small businesses, minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises and relevant business organizations to train, develop and prepare for potential contractual opportunities.
5. Unbundling of construction work into bid sizes that will allow Detroit-based small businesses level competition, without restricting the project timelines.Assistance with access to bonding, lending, insurance, access to capital, procurement and other types of capacity-related assistance where necessary and available.

[[4) Provisions that require periodic reporting, the frequency to be determined by the parties, of activities and ongoing monitoring of compliance by the parties throughout the course of the project.
a. Provisions that require the parties to periodically meet and confer, the frequency to be determined by the parties, and disclose the parties’ activities and the status of compliance to the Host Community residents, and that require periodic public meetings with the opportunity for input and comments by Host Community stakeholders.
b. A community needs assessment regarding the Host Community at the developer’s expense.
c. An environmental and/or public health assessment of the impacts of the proposed development at the developer’s expense.

1. Specified remedies for violation of the Community Benefits Agreement, which unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, may include, without limitation specific performance, liquidated damages, claw backs, or revocation or withdrawal of tax abatement and public subsidies, either directly by the City of Detroit, or by application to the Michigan Tax Tribunal or Michigan Tax Commission, as provided by law.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't understand where you're coming from with this.

Here's two big chunks of the actual ordinance being voted on as Prop A. Skim it, it's not that bad.

The first chunk is a list of what the developer and the community reps must discuss during the course of negotiations, although they don't need to agree to actions in every category.

The second chunk is a long list of examples of community benefit programs.

It doesn't seem very onerous to me. It's pretty much just saying "let's take all that warm fuzzy stuff we hear about when we're being asked to help fund a big development, and put it into writing."

Yes, our elected officials / the DEGC should have been doing this. They're not.

The first chunk says "Community Benefits Agreement shall provide for Community Benefits". The operative word in the sentence is 'shall'. Yes -- there are negotiations about what to provide, but not whether to provide.

I believe that we will do best when people want to locate in Detroit, not when they have to pay tariffs to do so. I believe our communities are best services by good jobs for people, not by bribes paid. Any bribe paid is that much more that it costs to do business in Detroit vs. elsewhere that they don't demand bribes.

[gvidas]

The first chunk says "Community Benefits Agreement shall provide for Community Benefits". The operative word in the sentence is 'shall'. Yes -- there are negotiations about what to provide, but not whether to provide.

I believe that we will do best when people want to locate in Detroit, not when they have to pay tariffs to do so. I believe our communities are best services by good jobs for people, not by bribes paid. Any bribe paid is that much more that it costs to do business in Detroit vs. elsewhere that they don't demand bribes.

I agree that the operative word is "shall," but before that is a big "if":

If you want public support for your development, your development shall provide for community benefits.

Straight from the ordinance's mouth again here:

[[h) “Public Support For Investment” means either or both of:
[[1) direct or indirect transfer to the developer of city-owned land parcels that have a cumulative market value of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars [[$300,000) or more [[as determined by the City Assessor or independent appraisal), without open bidding or priced below market rates [[where allowed by law); or

[[2) Provision or approval by the City of other forms of public subsidies to the developer, including but not limited to tax abatements or grants, that are cumulatively valued at Three Hundred Thousand Dollars [[$300,000) or more, but not including Neighborhood Enterprise Zones.

emphasis added.

I don't think it's fair to call the community benefits 'bribes' or 'tariffs.' They're the deliverables for which we, as taxpayers, are paying the developers. Previously these deliverables were fuzzy and intangible, the 'fringe benefits' and 'spinoff development' and all the other amorphous things that we're promised whenever a big deal is in the works.

[rjlj]

I agree that the operative word is "shall," but before that is a big "if":

If you want public support for your development, your development shall provide for community benefits.

Straight from the ordinance's mouth again here:

emphasis added.

I don't think it's fair to call the community benefits 'bribes' or 'tariffs.' They're the deliverables for which we, as taxpayers, are paying the developers. Previously these deliverables were fuzzy and intangible, the 'fringe benefits' and 'spinoff development' and all the other amorphous things that we're promised whenever a big deal is in the works.

Prop A is a shakedown pure and simple.

Detroit will continue to fall further behind in it's entitlement culture as other cities around the world continue to grow.

[bust]

Community Benefits Agreements have existed elsewhere for about 15 years. The first CBA was created in 2001 for a development abutting the Staples Center in Los Angeles. They've since spread across California, to Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Miami, New Haven, New Orleans, Seattle, Washington D.C., New York City, and beyond. If Detroit passes a CBA resolution it will be in good company. Even if the jury is still out what are the net effects CBAs have on developments, communities, and local economies.

In principle I support them. After all, they only come into effect when developments are awarded significant public subsidies. And at least in Michigan, much of the power to collect public money and decide how to allocate it in the form of development subsidies has been outsourced to extra-governmental agencies who barely answer to the public, if they do at all. The Detroit Downtown Development Authority [[DDA), Detroit Economic Growth Corporation [[DEGC), Michigan Strategic Fund [[MSF), and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation [[MEDC) are "non-profit corporations" and their officials are not selected by public election. It seems they are not subject to conflict of interest and other government oversight laws. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

But like all legal matters, whether a CBA is a net positive or negative is determined by the details how each is individually written, and even moreso how those details are interpreted and executed when put into effect on the ground. When large sums of money are at stake "dealmaking" can subvert the intent of laws.

The New York City Bar Association provided an informative history of CBAs in this 2010 publication:

The Role of Community Benefit Agreements in New York City’s Land Use Process
http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/upl...UseProcess.pdf

They are generally skeptical of CBAs.

For another perspective, this advocacy group presents a deeper background on CBAs and a thorough position in their favor [[I've only skimmed it thus far):

Good Jobs First, Community Benefits Agreements: Making Development Projects Accountable
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/d...a2005final.pdf

The New York Times described some risks and issues that have arisen as the result of CBAs, including how a developer walked away from one project rather than agree to a concession local community leaders attempted to require:

Community Pacts Questioned in the Zoning Process
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/re...ial/28cba.html

The article also mentions how CBAs have often worked to ease the path of developments by blunting community opposition.

Case in point: After many years of lawsuits and local opposition to the Barclays Center project at what was formerly known as Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, a CBA was finally enough to quell most of the local opposition, and paved the way for the development to proceed. Here's the press release:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Forest City Ratner CEO and President Bruce Ratner and Civic Leaders Sign Community Benefits Agreement
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgo...&rc=1194&ndi=1

It's my belief developers should have more than just their honor at stake if their project falls far short of providing the benefits to the community they heralded when campaigning for public funds and approvals. But it's also my belief there is more to the system to publicly fund urban development in need of reform.

A CBA law could be a step in the right direction — maybe even a big one. But the devil is in their details and scrutiny will be required of their execution. Here's hoping there are ample more opportunities to try to get them right.

[Wesley Mouch]

...The New York Times described some risks and issues that have arisen as the result of CBAs, including how a developer walked away from one project rather than agree to a concession local community leaders attempted to require:

Community Pacts Questioned in the Zoning Process
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/re...ial/28cba.html

The article also mentions how CBAs have often worked to ease the path of developments by blunting community opposition.

Case in point: After many years of lawsuits and local opposition to the Barclays Center project at what was formerly known as Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, a CBA was finally enough to quell most of the local opposition, and paved the way for the development to proceed. Here's the press release:

...But the devil is in their details and scrutiny will be required of their execution. Here's hoping there are ample more opportunities to try to get them right.

So its your belief that there's need for reform, and you support granting the right to demand bribes as a solution?

I do see that the basic idea that the community should have some voice as valid, but in practice it means giving professional grifters the power to dispense favours. Once, it was jut the developer who had power. Then we gave more power to the municipality to dispense favors. Often works, but also results in Kwame's Disease where an otherwise good guy gets corrupted by the money. Good governance gets replaced by crony communityism. Now the next solution is to add the loudest community organizers into the bribery pool?

That's the biggest problem. Giving the right to demand payment to community groups means that real community groups will disappear and be replaced by groups whose expertise is in extracting money from developers.

Oddly, developers will probably be in favor. Its always better when there's someone who just wants money -- and will go away when its delivered along with beautiful promises. Those principled community voices were so irritating.

Maybe you're right. Let's "blunt community opposition" as you say.

[bust]

You have a way with twisting words Wesley. Your edit is reminiscent of an O'Keefe Project Veritas hatchet job. Good thing my actual words are available in their entirety just one post up for context.

I said I'm in favor of CBAs in principle, but I also made it clear they have potential pitfalls. I offered a variety of perspectives, two of which were critical. Assessing the pros and cons of CBAs is complicated, especially when their details vary and so much of depends on their implementation on the ground.

And it should be clear from my prior posts on this forum when I speak of blunting community opposition it's not from a position in favor of it. I did not point to the Barclays Center as a positive example. I'm one of its longstanding local critics. Even with CBA in place the developer has failed to live up to so many of his promises. A CBA alone is not enough.

Without sufficient scrutiny their intent may be subverted. Many of them are not enforceable. If they are, many of those responsible for enforcing them lazily or intentionally don't do the job. In Detroit they are not even government officials and operate with little oversight. It should be the responsibility of local journalists to keep tabs on these things, ask the tough questions, and inform the public so we can try to keep things honest, but Detroit does not have enough of them with the will and the means to do the job. Even in New York, which may be the country's big city best served by local journalists, they mostly drop the ball.

I did not even say whether I supported either of the resolutions on the ballot. First because this issue should be decided by Detroiters. Second because for all the reasons I've already mentioned, CBAs may be a good idea in principle but a CBA resolution alone is far from enough. As I said previously, many other aspects of the system in place to publicly fund urban development need reform.

If I could vote I'm not sure what I'd do. Proposition A seems the much better of the two options and I'd consider voting for it. But it would be at best only a partial solution. Without the other needed reforms and enough honest people diligently paying attention to the often boring, complicated, and confusing details of zoning, taxation, public subsidies, and related law little community benefit may result.

When I said let's hope for ample more opportunities to get it right I meant either in the form of an alternative Proposal, or in the form of Community Benefit Agreements that are written and enforced in a way that truly benefit the community. I don't think I need to provide examples: trusting megaproject developers on their honor to fulfill their promises has generally not proven to serve local communities very well.

[Wesley Mouch]

You have a way with twisting words Wesley. Your edit is reminiscent of an O'Keefe Project Veritas hatchet job. Good thing my actual words are available in their entirety just one post up for context.

I said I'm in favor of CBAs in principle, but I also made it clear they have potential pitfalls. I offered a variety of perspectives, two of which were critical. Assessing the pros and cons of CBAs is complicated, especially when their details vary and so much of depends on their implementation on the ground.

I didn't intend to twist your words... please accept my apologies. As we all do, I listened to what I wanted to, and amplified what I thought needed attention.

Your post was in fact very balanced. My thoughts on CBA's are not. They are harmful to the community and its future.

And it should be clear from my prior posts on this forum when I speak of blunting community opposition it's not from a position in favor of it. I did not point to the Barclays Center as a positive example. I'm one of its longstanding local critics. Even with CBA in place the developer has failed to live up to so many of his promises. A CBA alone is not enough.

Fair enough.

Without sufficient scrutiny their intent may be subverted. Many of them are not enforceable. If they are, many of those responsible for enforcing them lazily or intentionally don't do the job. In Detroit they are not even government officials and operate with little oversight. It should be the responsibility of local journalists to keep tabs on these things, ask the tough questions, and inform the public so we can try to keep things honest, but Detroit does not have enough of them with the will and the means to do the job. Even in New York, which may be the country's big city best served by local journalists, they mostly drop the ball.

A good case for why requiring them is a bad idea. The devil always is in the details. And typically, the 'community of advocates' have different ideas on development than the developer. So its natural for the developer to try and do things their way. They resent the capricious nature of these CBA's, and view them as just another obstacle to good implementation to be overcome -- or a bribe to just be paid.

I did not even say whether I supported either of the resolutions on the ballot. First because this issue should be decided by Detroiters. Second because for all the reasons I've already mentioned, CBAs may be a good idea in principle but a CBA resolution alone is far from enough. As I said previously, many other aspects of the system in place to publicly fund urban development need reform.

If I could vote I'm not sure what I'd do. Proposition A seems the much better of the two options and I'd consider voting for it. But it would be at best only a partial solution. Without the other needed reforms and enough honest people diligently paying attention to the often boring, complicated, and confusing details of zoning, taxation, public subsidies, and related law little community benefit may result.

There are never ENOUGH objective, honest, diligent people doing anything. This applies to both the developers and the 'community representatives'. If anything, bribes to get development only means we'll get more hands out asking for bribes -- and fewer real community representatives at the table.

When I said let's hope for ample more opportunities to get it right I meant either in the form of an alternative Proposal, or in the form of Community Benefit Agreements that are written and enforced in a way that truly benefit the community. I don't think I need to provide examples: trusting megaproject developers on their honor to fulfill their promises has generally not proven to serve local communities very well.

So you see non-compliance, and ask for a bigger, more ethical hammer. Sometimes the right answer is to approach mega-projects differently.

What we want in our fine city of Detroit is more business investment and activity. Yes, there's a need for regulation, zoning, goals, etc. in what kind of projects get civic support. But they should be spelled out in advance. Once someone decides to do a project, and it meets the guidelines for physical infrastructure -- get out of their way and let them build. If you put barriers up, you chase development away. We do not have to give tax breaks at all. But if we must, then we should do so because the developer has brought us a good proposal to do good things. Things that will result in economic activity and make life better. Anything else must be avoided. Hiring quotas, bribes to the Community 'representatives'... are all bad ideas.

So to take things to a less argumentative place, can you name a project where CBA's have really given both sides what they wanted? And made a project happen that otherwise wouldn't have?

[BankruptcyGuy]

Let me help out if I can. You can divide "tax breaks" that a developer receives into different categories.

Think of the problem as two questions in a grid, with four possible results. Question 1: are the improvements public or private? Question 2: are the funds used currently taxes being paid, or are they future taxes [[called an "increment", it's the "I" in TIF)?

Let's take the simple one first: public improvements funded by an increment. Let's say we need to widen a road or put new traffic lights in. Cities generally don't want to pay for that. In a unsexy residential development in the suburbs, the city will condition its approval upon the developer paying those costs. If the project is attractive enough, the city might want to pay for those improvements. If the city does, but doesn't have the money, they may capture some tax revenues from the new development to pay for the improvements. This is probably the least objectionable of the four.

If the improvements are public, but the development generates no new taxes [[or no new taxes are used), that's more like normal decision-making that municipalities make [[i.e. where do cities spend their taxpayers' money?)

If the improvements are private, that's where it gets tricky. This is done all over the country. The largest example is the Gigafactory in Nevada--states were throwing money at Telsa. If you want an example for a stadium, try the new Comiskey Park [[now "Guaranteed Rate Stadium--with its logo of an arrow pointing down--hilarious). The park is privately owned and funded almost entirely by public funds, some through tax increment and some through existing taxes. A deal where public taxes [[without an increment) are used solely for the construction of a private property has dubious constitutionality.

The LCA is financed almost 50-50. $450MM total cost, $250MM in DDA bonds [[increment unknown), $200MM from Mr. I. Now, how much of the construction is public [[roads, streetscape, etc.), I don't know.

I'm in the camp that I don't know why a "community benefits" agreement would be needed. Is the City Council that out of touch with its citizenry that it can't figure out what the voters really want? How you define "community" in this case? Is it downtown only? Why would that be; residents of the whole city pay taxes? A well-run city doesn't need it.