Quote Originally Posted by bust View Post
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.
Thanks for the links bust. More than a fair balanced post with excellent research behind it.