CBA Operating Agreement

The Public Law Center at Tulane Law School has produced two really useful documents. The first is a CBA Coalition Operating Agreement and set of Principles, and the second is a memo called A "Concentric Circles" Model for Organizing Community Benefits Agreements.

 The Operating Agreement and Principles are intended to govern the internal relations of a CBA Coalition. Each community group must sign it before becoming a coalition member. Although in a better world these rules wouldn't be necessary, internal coalition politics can become problematic.

 The Operating Agreement is designed as a starting point, and coalitions are encouraged to debate its provisions and modify it as they see fit. Having established rules and procedures will help coalitions resolve disputes, and even if an operation agreement isn't ultimately adopted, just debating it is likely to stimulate discussion among coalition members about how these issues should be dealt with. Some important aspects of the Operating Agreement and Principles:

• individual coalition members are prohibited from taking actions "at variance" with coalition positions.
  
• they require, as part of the CBA process, that the coalition must actively seek out other community groups and invite them to be a part of the process.
  
• the coalition must participate in a visioning process to define its goals. 
  
• a coalition ethics committee must be established to resolve disputes. 
  
• any coalition member that stands to receive a direct benefit from a CBA or that will be involved in implementation must recuse itself from negotiations and votes.
  
• individual community groups are prohibited from making side deals with the developer or otherwise attempting to improperly influence negotiations.
  
• it prohibits anybody who participates in negotiations from getting a job from the developer for a period of one year following completion of the CBA.
  
• disputes between a community group and the coalition must be brought to the coalition's membership before being made public.
  
• members cannot speak out individually against the project unless they resign.

I particularly like that the Operating Agreement stresses the need for coalitions to actively seek out other community stakeholders to join in their efforts. Coalitions obtain greater bargaining power and more social capital when they are truly representative of community interests. In this regard, I would add to the list that coalitions should be expected to prioritize its goals through community research, whether it be through surveys, door-to-door campaigns, telephone drives or some other manner of reaching individuals who might not otherwise come into contact with a coalition (or go to a public visioning session). Such research should be quantifiable, and although it may be time consuming and expensive, it provides a concrete way to show what benefits are truly desired by the community. Community organizing, and not just coalition organizing, is an important step in developing policies and goals that reflect the needs of residents.

The “Concentric Circles” Model for Organizing Community Benefits Agreements provides a four step process for the CBA process: (1) the coalition must organize, meaning that it must seek out community support and implement internal rules and policies; (2) the coalition must build support among elected officials; (3) the coalition must educate the press, the public and civic groups; and (4) the coalition then begins negotiations with the developer. The author, David Marcello, makes a number of salient points in this brief memo, and I very much recommend it to CBA coalition organizers and supporters.

Penguins Update

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported today that the Penguins have agreed to resume talks with the One Hill Coalition. This follows several weeks during which time the Penguins were content to have CBA negotiations carried out by city and county officials.

New Orlean's Lincoln Beach CBA

All Congregations Together (ACT), a coalition of about forty faith-based organizations in the New Orleans region, has been discussing CBAs since Hurrican Katrina struck the gulf coast. ACT believes that CBAs can play an important role in ensuring that the rebuilding of the gulf coast provides concrete benefits to residents of New Orleans and other gulf coast communities, including affordable housing, living wage jobs, job training programs and first source hiring requirements.

Recently, developers of a proposed recreation and entertainment complex announced that they had signed a CBA with ACT, and they have cited the agreement as evidence of community involvement, likely in order to influence the plans’ approval.

Cramer Hill (Camden, NJ)

Plans have been under way for the redevelopment of the Cramer Hill area of Camden, New Jersey, for several years. The Cramer Hill Community Development Corporation (CHCDC), a non-profit organization created to advocate for the community’s residents, has been working contemporaneously to ensure that the redevelopment plan takes community interests into account. The CHCDC has sought to create a CBA with the Camden Redevelopment Agency and the designated developer, Cherokee LLC; once completed, the CBA would be incorporated into the redevelopment plan for the neighborhood. As part of this effort, the CHCDC undertook a comprehensive survey of 245 area residents in order to determine the community’s priorities. The survey was distributed by coalition groups in English and Spanish, and the results were then analyzed by a local nonprofit. Although such information gathering may be financially prohibitive to many CBA coalitions, it provides a good way for coalitions to show that they have been inclusive and attempted to prioritize CBA provisions based on represetative public input.

Despite the CHCDC’s extensive community organizing, the community benefits coalition has not gained the support of numerous community stakeholders and groups. As in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia cases, the Cramer Hill redevelopment plan is slated to include the use of eminent domain, and this has caused some community members to reject negotiations and opt to flat-out oppose the development instead. Several lawsuits have been filed to prevent the plans from proceeding as they are currently formulated (see here and here). The plaintiffs indicated that the coalition was not representative of the community and that they wanted no part in negotiations. As redevelopment plans continue to be revised for the area, it remains to be seen whether these interests will unite to devise any CBA.

(update Mar. 20, 2009.)

The Cramer Hill CDC has presented a new redevelopment plan in response to the Cherokee plan that was criticized for relying heavily on eminent domain. The plan emphasizes infill building and making improvements to existing homes and businesses. However, the plan calls for new development to be located on what's now the site of a recycling plant, and the owner of the plant is not happy. A final presentation of the community plan is scheduled for May.

Washington D.C. Shaw District CBA

Washington D.C.’s Shaw District is a neighborhood steeped in history. In the early part of the twentieth century, it was home to a vibrant African American community, but it suffered from misguided redevelopment policies and civil rights riots in the 1960s, leaving it in a blighted condition for decades. In 2005, the city created the Duke Plan (named after Duke Ellington) to attract new business to the economically depressed district and spur revitalization. With bustling neighborhoods surrounding the Shaw District and threatening gentrification (seehere), the community group One DC began to plan ways of ensuring that the coming revitalization would be equitable and accountable. One DC won an agreement from the redevelopment corporation in 2003 to subsidize an affordable housing development, and, in 2005, it concluded the city’s first CBA with the redevelopment corporation and a private developer. The agreement included many CBA staples, including terms dealing with affordable housing, first source hiring, job training and a community development fund. Unfortunately, the CBA has been described as a poorly drawn contract, lacking clearly defined obligations, procedures and monitoring provisions. Nevertheless, the Shaw District CBA has been viewed as a watershed. An article by Ryan Juskus and Elizabeth Elia explains that:

One DC and Shaw residents claimed these blighted lots as community assets and declared that even these properties, if jealously guarded, could be a source of neighborhood power and wealth. This is the revolutionary idea of community-benefits agreements: that the community members - even those without money or power, who are usually ignored in development plans or manipulated like chess pieces - can be an asset and a force with which to contend…. If the Shaw community benefits agreement can lead other groups to harness these and other under-appreciated assets throughout the city, then it must be counted a success.

Indeed, the Equitable Development Initiative, a community coalition and an off-shoot of One DC, has continued to focus on ensuring community benefits for the Shaw District. The Washington Times ran a story on January 10, 2008, detailing some of One DC's current efforts and claiming that the neighborhood groups are enabling Shaw's "fruition."

Gates-Cherokee Redevelopment CBA

The Gates Rubber Company redevelopment project in Denver was the subject of a CBA finalized in 2006. Located on a fifty-acre brownfield in downtown Denver, the developer, Cherokee, plans to demolish the abandoned rubber plant and clean up the site. In its place, an eight million square foot residential and retail center will be built. A coalition of community and labor groups was organized by the Front Range Economic Strategy Center (FRESC) to participate in the negotiations, which lasted for more than three years. Among the provisions of the agreement are benefits related to affordable housing, living wages for construction jobs, first-source hiring and continued communication between the developer and the community concerning the site’s clean-up. The developer also agreed not to allow any big-box stores to be included in the redevelopment. In exchange for these benefits, the developer was supported by the community in seeking $126 million in city subsidies.

During the negotiation process, it became clear that contaminants from the site had leached into neighboring areas. Because of this, members of the coalition formed the Voluntary Cleanup Advisory Board, and with the developer’s help, they tested neighborhoods adjacent to the factory for environmental contamination. The developer has agreed to make documents related to the site’s cleanup available to residents at a local library.

FRESC summarizes the CBA's provisions as including:

• An early agreement that excludes big-box grocery stores, which are typically low-road employers and bad neighbors.
• A landmark Affordable Housing Plan that includes 200 units of affordable rental units for Denver families with the greatest need, those at 50% and 30% of Area Median Income (50% = $35,825 and 30%=$21,495 for a family of four in 2005).
• Developer cooperation and participation with the neighborhood coalition Voluntary Cleanup Advisory Board that is monitoring the environmental cleanup and communicating cleanup issues to affected neighbors.
• An unprecedented agreement to pay prevailing wages and benefits for every construction worker engaged in the publicly-funded construction of site infrastructure and maintenance of public spaces and facilities.
• Selection of a union construction manager and general contractor with a strong record of good wages, health care & retirement benefits, and high quality skills and safety training.
• A commitment to use a “Best Value” selection process for subcontractors at all tiers that will maximize the chances of worker health care coverage and opportunities to train new apprentices.
• An unprecedented agreement to extend Denver’s Living Wage Ordinance to cover parking lot attendants and security personnel employed at the site’s public facilities.
• An enhanced “First Source” local hiring system that promotes the recruitment of local residents to fill new positions and, for the first time, prioritizes immediately adjacent low-income neighborhoods.

As of early 2008, construction had begun on one parcel at the site, which will have more affordable housing than originally planned. Demolition of the factory has been delayed due to issues related to the site's contamination, but may start late this year. 

The text of Gates-Cherokee CBA is available here, and more information about the community benefits not included in the CBA is located here. Also, check out FRESC's website. Cherokee's website has more information about the project and what it has done to involve the community in the planning process.

Minneapolis Digital Inclusion CBA

In Minneapolis, a 2006 CBA has demonstrated that CBAs need not be limited to physical developments. The agreement was made in relation to the creation of a city-wide wi-fi network and is designed to minimize the digital divide by making the city’s internet service more accessible to low income and other “digitally disenfrachised” residents. The idea to use the CBA model arose as a hybrid, combining elements of CBAs and municipal cable franchise agreements. After a coalition was formed and presented its case to the city council, the city amended its request for vendor proposals to require internet providers to address the digital divide. The city council also authorized the formation of a Digital Inclusion Task Force to work with the community coalition to assess the community’s digital needs and develop a CBA proposal. The task force and coalition worked extensively with the community to develop the CBA, and the vendor contract ultimately included a $500,000 fund for digital inclusion and provisions for advertising revenues to be added to the upfront amount, subsidized internet services for more than 100 community groups and nonprofits and a guarantee of network neutrality. Organizers in Chicago are working on negotiating a similar digital access CBA, and Microsoft has voiced its support for Minneapolis’ plan to address the digital divide.
Several reports about the Digital Inclusion CBA are available at the Digital Access Project's website.
Community organizers should also take a look at these talks given by Catherine Settani and Jim Farstad, who both played pivotal roles in developing the Digital Inclusion CBA. They are positively inspiring.

Milwaukee Park East Redevelopment CBA

A 2005 Milwaukee CBA known as the Park East Redevelopment Compact (PERC) was the first CBA to be implemented through legislation rather than through negotiations between the community and individual developers. The agreement arose due to plans to demolish of a section of freeway in downtown Milwaukee, which opened up prime land for development. Since no unified development plan for the area was contemplated, the coalition could not undertake negotiations with a single prospective developer. For this reason, the coalition pushed to have its CBA incorporated into the redevelopment plan. While the city did not approve of including the CBA in its plan, the county eventually did, and the resulting Park East Redevelopment Compact applies to sixteen acres of county lands and requires developers to provide living wages for construction jobs, to incorporate green design elements into their buildings and to implement job training programs. The plan also requires the county to provide for affordable housing and to contribute to various community programs, such as those to train and find placements for minority workers. Additionally, the agreement set up a Community and Economic Development Fund to be financed by land sales. The fund is to support the Community Advisory Board, which will oversee and monitor the implementation of the Park East Redevelopment Compact.

A nice report about the Park East CBA is available here, and a shorter brochure can be found here. More information can be found at the Institute for Wisconsin's Future website.

Yale-New Haven CBA

In Connecticut, a CBA concerning Yale University’s construction of new cancer center was reached in 2006. The community was represented by CORD (Community Organized for Responsible Development), a coalition of twenty-two community groups, faith-based organizations and local unions. The CBA also received support from the city, which used the California CBAs as a model when the Board of Alderman passed a resolution encouraging the hospital to enter into the agreement. Provisions included in the CBA relate to affordable housing, job training and local hiring, traffic and parking, union organizing rights and environmental issues. One of the more unique aspects of the Yale-New Haven CBA is that the hospital also agreed to fund outreach programs that will provide medical care to uninsured children and children suffering from asthma.

News reports show that the Yale CBA is being implemented, although not without rough spots. Money pledged to a community college, for example, was nine months late. The city and the hospital have also been in disagreement about the fulfillment of the local hiring provision.

Text of the CBA is available here, and a summary available here. More information is available from the Connecticut Center for a New Economy.

A video about the new cancer center can be viewed here.

Columbia expansion CBA

With Atlantic Yards and Yankee Stadium, New York City established a pretty bleak track record in coming up with CBAs that came anywhere near their Californian counterparts’ successes (like the Staples Center and LAX CBAs). Because of this, CBA supporters were hoping that an agreement concerning Columbia University’s expansion into West Harlem would provide a better model for future New York CBAs.

The project, in which Columbia will put up 16-18 new buildings, is estimated at about $6 billion and is likely to span about 20 years. The project is also expected to create about 6,000 jobs, and "transform a shabby enclave of auto-repair shops, warehouses and small manufacturing plants into a pedestrian-friendly environment with more open space, restaurants and shops." Columbia also argues that the expansion is necessary to its educational mission, as its now-cramped and spread out facilities do not allow it to be as competitive as universities such as Harvard and Princeton.

The city and Mayor Bloomberg have been especially supportive of Columbia's interest in creating a CBA, providing funds and technical assistance for the negotiating process. The process, in this case, has also been markedly different than the other New York CBAs from the start. Rather than being driven primarily by the developers or elected officials, County Board 9 authorized the creation of a local development corporation (LDC) to be composed of appointed community leaders representing a broad range of constituents. Public meetings began September, 2006 and continued on a weekly basis with working groups devoted to housing, business and economic development, employment, education, historic preservation, community facilities and social services, arts and culture, environmental stewardship, transportation, research and laboratory activities and green spaces.

Although the Community Board originally intended that the LDC would not include any elected officials, after the LDC’s first meeting it revised this choice. The decision to include city officials would prove to be detrimental to the process, however, as perceptions arose that they were not representing the true interests of the community and that they were inappropriately controlling negotiations. Moreover, Columbia did not have any representatives on the LDC and was not very involved with the negotiations.

The situation took a distinct turn for the worse in November 2007 when three members of the LDC resigned. They cited conflicts of interest among the elected officials on the board and complained that there was a lack of transparency in the negotiations. Tom DeMott, one of the resigning members and a representative of tenants groups, stated that negotiating sessions were held without his being informed of them, and Nick Sprayregen, the largest property owner in the project's footprint (who was almost kicked off the LDC in the summer), complained that the CBA was a “sell-out of the community…that represents something that is not what the community wants.” Two other members resigned shortly thereafter, claiming that there had been misrepresentations and secrecy. As a result of these resignations, the LDC was left with fifteen members, seven being elected officials.

Despite these troubles, a memorandum of understanding was completed in December 2007 just in time for the City Council to approve of the expansion plan and Columbia's request for rezoning. The agreement commits Columbia to providing $150 million in benefits, including $30 million for a university-run public school, $20 million of in-kind services, $20 million for affordable housing, and $4 million for legal aid. But the bulk of the money, $76 million, was set aside for as-yet undetermined community programs to be implemented over the next 12 years. The agreement has been described as “one-and-a-half non-legally binding pages,” and criticism has been directed at the LDC for rushing the CBA process and punting the specifics of the agreement to a later date.

It seems that the Columbia CBA negotiations were begun in good faith, with intentions to be as inclusive of divergent community interests as possible. Regardless of the LDC’s continuing pledges of support for community interests, though, by a number of accounts it has not succeeded in instilling much faith in its efforts among the community. The resignations and hastily drawn up agreement have not helped. Nor has the fact that the Columbia situation is mired in controversy about the use of eminent domain and the possibility of gentrification in the area. Columbia did agree last fall that it would not seek to evict any residents through the use of eminent domain, but some residents have expressed displeasure with the relocation provisions and it's still up in the air what will happen to local businesses. The prospect that eminent domain will be used at all has been viewed negatively by many in the neighborhood, including some who support the expansion, and a number of commentators have suggested that had the CBA talks been conducted more openly, eminent domain would have played a more important role.

Hopefully, Columbia will resolve the eminent domain issue with the few remaining business owners in the expansion area and the finalized CBA will deal with the as yet uncommitted $76 million in a manner that's satisfactory to most of the community.

The Columbia CBA memorandum can be viewed here.

The Columbia Spectator has produced a website with audio interviews, photos and an interactive map of the expansion footprint.

Update July 22, 2008: Whether or not the remaining holdouts will sell to Columbia is still up in the air, but ESDC has made a formal blight finding--laying the foundation for its use of eminent domain--so it seems fairly certain that the land acquisitions will proceed, voluntary or not. See here.

Yankee Stadium CBA

The Yankee Stadium CBA, completed in 2006, has faced stiff criticism. The agreement, to begin with, was made between the Yankees, the Bronx Borough President and the Bronx Delegation of the New York City Council; it was not negotiated or signed by any community groups. On this basis alone it arguably should not be called a CBA. One of the agreement’s most controversial provisions is the trust fund that it created to be administered by “an individual of prominence” through distributions to local nonprofit groups. Because the fund’s trustee will be appointed by the same elected officials responsible for the CBA, it has been referred to as a “slush fund” by critics who fear that funding will be not be distributed impartially. The Yankee Stadium CBA has also been criticized by community members (see here, for example) due to the fact that the development will eliminate more than twenty acres of parks, leaving the city to pay for their replacement in addition to the subsidies already being given to the project.

These concerns have proven to be somewhat warranted. In January 2008, nearly seventeen months after construction began, the New York Times reported that none of the money set aside by the Yankees had been distributed. Apparently, the funding has been held up because the advisory panel that is responsible for administering the fund has yet to choose a chairman, register as a charity or select any grant recipients. The Yankees have indicated that their obligations were fulfilled by depositing the money into escrow and that the club is not responsible for the delay, and since no community groups signed the agreement, none exist that would have standing to bring an enforcement action. As a practical result, this has meant that the only people who could move the funding along are the four elected officials who signed the agreement and who, apparently, have not been very proactive about seeing to its implementation. Other elected officials are frustrated with the situation and have “complained that they are in the dark” about the CBA. Indeed, the names of people chosen to serve on the fund’s advisory panel have not been released, save for one member who has been credited with making political donations to one of the elected officials responsible for the agreement. All of this goes to show that negotiating a CBA may be only the first of many battles in ensuring that community benefits are actually received. But the Yankee Stadium CBA, despite its weaknesses, should not be totally discounted yet. The Yankees have promised that the community will receive all of the money pledged to it, and it may just boil down to a waiting game for the moment.

Good Jobs New York has produced a detailed report critical of the Yankee Stadium deal. They explain that:

To seize public parklands, win rapid permitting, and land massive taxpayer subsidies for their new stadium in the South Bronx, the New York Yankees hired numerous former public officials and benefited from the actions of a few current elected officials to play insider baseball, shutting out Bronx residents and New York City taxpayers.

More information from Good Jobs New York is available here, and text of the CBA is posted here.

Atlantic Yards CBA

The first New York CBA was completed in 2005 in relation to the multi-billion dollar Atlantic Yards arena project, future home to the New Jersey Nets. In addition to the basketball arena, the project will include an attached residential and office complex to be made up of several high-rise buildings, a development that will radically alter Brooklyn’s skyline. Since its inception, the project has faced broad opposition from Brooklyn residents, primarily because the project is to involve the use eminent domain.

The Atlantic Yards CBA was negotiated by only eight community groups and was purportedly based on the Staples Center agreement. It includes affordable housing, living wage, first source and minority hiring provisions, a commitment to build a day care center and the perk of free basketball tickets for neighborhood residents.

Reaction to the agreement has been decidedly negative, althought there has been some praise for the concessions contained in the agreement. Critics have pointed out that several of the coalition’s member groups were created expressly for the purpose of the negotiating the agreement. And numerous other community groups in fact expressed opposition to the development and to the CBA, claiming that the developer never had any intention of bargaining in good faith. One of the coalition’s member groups also reported that it expects to receive $5 million from the developer, creating a conflict of interest that has clearly tarnished the CBA’s integrity. Additionally, several chairpersons from local community boards protested statements made by the developer that they had played an advisory role in the negotiations. The chairpersons contended, to the contrary, that their involvement with the CBA ended very early in the process and well before a final draft was prepared. A representative of Good Jobs New York also expressed serious misgivings about the CBA, claiming that the negotiations were “marked by secrecy” and that they “contributed to a fragmentation of community responses.”

The fundamental problem with the Atlantic Yards CBA is that it is not representative of the community. A significant portion of Brooklyn residents are opposed to the project due to the extensive impacts that it will have on Brooklyn, and they were not invited to participate in negotiations. Rather, the talks were led by community members already on the developer’s side. It can only be guessed what the CBA would have looked like had inclusive and transparent talks actually been held. Without input from the stakeholders who had the most concerns about the project’s effects on the community, however, common sense would suggest that the CBA is weaker than it otherwise would have been. Interestingly, another Brooklyn community group lobbied the developer to reopen the CBA for further negotiations in 2006. The developer refused, but offered instead to consider a second agreement to be called a “Neighborhood Benefits Agreement.” Little seems to have come of this initiative, however.

Construction of the Atlantic Yards arena has been significantly delayed by litigation, and the major provisions of the CBA have thus yet to be implemented. The developer did advertise that it was seeking an Independent Compliance Monitor in 2007, as required by the CBA, but some have questioned just how independent the monitor will be. One upside of the situation is that with so many people opposed to the project and the manner in which the CBA was made, there will likely be heightened public scrutiny of the developer’s compliance with its agreements. Moreover, fears that the Atlantic Yards CBA will establish “bad precedent” for future CBAs have died down somewhat. The Atlantic Yards CBA has been so thoroughly criticized (see here and here) that other New York CBA negotiators have expressly chosen to avoid “the Brooklyn model.”

The CBA is located here, and a summary of its provisions is available here.

For information about Atlantic Yards litigation, see Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. For additional news and information about the project, see the Atlantic Yards Report.

Oak to ninth CBA

Oakland’s first CBA was finalized in 2006 in relation to the controversial redevelopment of sixty-four acres of waterfront property. Planned for the site are more than 3,000 residential units and a retail complex. The agreement, entered into by the coalition members and the redevelopment agency and incorporated into the development agreement, focuses primarily on affordable housing, and it authorizes injunctive relief to be awarded for noncompliance. While the CBA itself has not been especially criticized, other community groups have separately fought to prevent the development. Environmental advocates who opposed building up the estuarine waterfront collected nearly 20,000 signatures for a referendum to stop the development, and another group has fought to prevent the development from destroying a historic warehouse on the site. These groups have also initiated litigation to prevent the project, and the Oak to 9th Referendum Committee, a group opposing the development, appears to have about as many endorsements as the CBA coalition. Why the community groups supporting increased environmental and historical preservation controls were not part of the CBA negotiations is unclear, but it does seem that the CBA did not adequately address all of the community’s concerns.

The Oak to 9th CBA has not been implemented to date, due to ongoing litigation concerning the development. Meanwhile, Oakland residents are pressing for another CBA to cover a condominum development in the Fruitvale neighborhood.

For text of the CBA, click here.

Tesco and the changing nature of CBAs

Recent developments in California have shown that the CBA concept may be changing. In 2007, Tesco, a British grocery chain and the world’s third largest retailer, announced plans to open hundreds of neighborhood markets on the west coast. A coalition was quickly formed to demand a CBA, primarily because Tesco does not have a unionized work-force.

Tesco has shown no interest in negotiating, despite media pressure and threats of a boycott from community and labor groups. Indeed, Tesco has sought to turn the media attention in its favor, arguing that a CBA is unnecessary because it already provides well-paying jobs, has environmentally-friendly policies and has pledged to locate stores in underserved areas.

The situation is notable because the coalition has relied for leverage primarily on its ability to influence consumers, and not on its ability to provide support in the land development approval process. Tesco does not seem to believe that refusing to negotiate a CBA will interfere with its business, and this underscores a fundamental aspect of CBAs—they may not work when the developer does not that it needs them.

San Jose CIM project CBA

San Jose’s first CBA was completed in relation to the downtown development of a residential retail and entertainment complex. The negotiations were led primarily by labor groups, and the coalition, which also included housing, small buisness and neighborhood groups, gained leverage in negotations because of the $40 million in subsidies being sought by the developer. The CBA was completed and incorporated into a development agreement in 2003. Included among its provisions were a living wage requirement for the developer’s employees, a project labor agreement (i.e. an agreement to use unionized labor during construction), affordable housing requirements, a plan to help establish small businesses, a commitment to help set up a day care facility, and a promise to seek business tenants that would provide living wages.

As of early 2008, the CIM project is still under construction. Working Partnerships USA reports that all of the developer’s commitments have been fulfilled to date, and they will continue monitoring the CBA’s implementation when the project is completed in 2009.

The CIM project CBA was fully incorporated into the development agreement. For the memorandum accompanying the development agreement, click here.

Marlton Square CBA

The Los Angeles developer of Marlton Square, a retail and housing redevelopment project entered into a CBA in 2002. The deal in that case included provisions relating to the creation of community spaces, a first source hiring policy and a commitment to reaching a seventy percent living wage goal. Although the project was approved and received subsidies in 2002, it has had a number of false starts and has had difficulty attracting retail tenants. Some housing has been built, but as of late 2007, the bulk of the project was still “delayed” and it is unclear whether any of the CBA’s provisions have been fulfilled.

Text of the Marlton Square CBA is available here.

NoHo Commons CBA

A 2001 deal in relation to a large mixed-use development in North Hollywood secured affordable housing, living wage and first source hiring promises for the community. The developer, in return, got about $44 million in city subsidies, a figure that was increased from the city’s original plan to award $31 million in funds. The CBA may also have helped to secure the unanimous approval the project received from the city council.

The NoHo Commons project includes residential, retail and office space, as well as a food market, a school and a child care center. LAANE, which also helped to negotaite the Staples Center CBA, organized a coalition to work with the developer, J.H. Snyder Co., on a CBA. The end result seems to have been positive for everyone. LAANE has reported that eighty percent of the tenants have chosen to use the first source hiring system set up by the developer, and tenants willing to pay living wages have been found. If anything, the project may have been too successful, with developments popping up all over North Hollywood and threatening gentrification.

Text of the NoHo Commons CBA is available here.

SunQuest industrial park

In 2001 an agreement was reached for the redevelopment of an environmentally contaminated industrial site in Los Angeles. The city agreed to provide environmental remediation, and the developer committed to such terms as paying living wages, hiring local residents and setting up a neighborhood improvement fund. Unfortunately, plans for the SunQuest industrial park project were tabled after the developer went bankrupt, and the foreclosure cancelled the CBA. As of early 2008, it is unclear exactly how the property will be developed.

Links & News

• SunQuest CBA
• Jason Takenouchi, Sun Valley Industrial Park on Tap, Los Angeles Daily News, Jan. 14, 2000
  
• Gregory J. Wilcox, Nonprofit, Investors Set to Reclaim Blighted Cityscape, Los Angeles Daily News, Jul. 21, 2002
• Gregory J. Wilcox, Turning Ex-Dump Into Jobs, Los Angeles Daily News, Feb. 9, 2003
• Shelly Garcia, Four bidders emerge for troubled Sun Valley property: former Branford landfill parcel part of bankruptcy, San Fernando Valley Business Journal, May 14, 2007
  
• Kerry Cavanaugh, New Hope for Former Dumpsite: Latest Owner is Resurrecting Plans to Develop Landfill After False Starts, Los Angeles Daily News, Jan. 2, 2008
• Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Recommendation Report, Dec. 18, 2008
  

Ballpark Village CBA

In September 2005, a broad coalition of twenty-seven housing, labor, community, environmental, and religious groups negotiated San Diego’s first CBA with developer JMI/Lennar in relation to Ballpark Village, a seven-acre project with 3.2 million square feet of offices, residences and retail space. The CBA negotiations were held in private and were not made public until just hours before the city council was to vote on the project’s master plan. By this time, the developer had been working on a deal with the local redevelopment agency for nearly two years, and the last minute change in plans provoked criticism that it “circumvented the process.” Moreover, the new agreement called for significant changes to be made to the proect’s affordable housing component. Although it called for more units, none of them were to be inclusionary units located-on site, as the agreement with the redevelopment agency had required. A revised version of the CBA that incorporated some aspects of the original affordable housing plan was eventually approved, and the CBA, as a whole, has been viewed positively. The agreement set out a range of community benefits, including:

• requirements that the developer meet LEED green building standards for the development and use environmentally-friendly construction practices;
• a requirement to include “bird-friendly” structural elements, such as non-reflective windows;
• mitigation, monitoring and reporting programs to reduce pollution during construction;

• a living wage requirement for the developer’s employees and the employees of its service contractors;
• a local hiring program;
• $1.5 million in funds set aside for job training programs for community residents;
• plans for on and off-site affordable housing, with the total number of units exceeding the city’s minimum affordable housing requirement;
• a commitment to attract a grocery store to the community that would offer living wages and provide benefits; and
• funding for a gentrification study and for community arts, youth, and cultural programs.

Links & News

• Ballpark Village CBA
• JMI Realty, About JMIR Ballpark District
• Center on Policy Initiatives, Ballpark Village Project Sets New Standards for Affordable Housing and Jobs in San Diego
  
• Martin Stolz, Council Approves giant Ballpark Village project, San Diego Union Tribune, Oct. 19, 2005
• Jeanette Steele, Ballpark Village hotel still alive, San Diego Union Tribune Newsblog, Jul. 6, 2009
• Rob Davis, Union Cries Foul on Ballpark Village, Voice of San Diego, Jul. 20, 2009
  

LAX airport CBA

The LAX airport expansion CBA demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability of this method of negotiating. In December, 2004, the Los Angeles City Council approved the agreement reached between Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the public administrator of LAX, and a coalition of twenty-two community groups concerning an $11 billion airport expansion. Among the coalition’s members were two local school districts and organizations representing community, religious, environmental and labor interests.

In addition to provisions covering job training, first-source hiring and living-wage requirements, the CBA also devoted substantial resources toward mitigating the environmental impacts of the airport. The airport thus contracted to provide more than $8.5 million annually for the soundproofing of local schools, city buildings, places of worship and homes, and it agreed to fund studies on air quality and community health. Further, the CBA required LAX to implement a number of environmental controls, including the electrification of passenger gates and cargo areas (to reduce the need for engine idling), emissions reductions and the conversion of airport vehicles to alternative fuels. The CBA also clearly required LAWA to incorporate CBA provisions into all airport contracts, lease agreements, and licensing or permitting agreements, thus ensuring the translation of the requirements to the airport’s contractors and tenants.

A few useful documents:

• cooperation agreement
• CBA
• 2007 annual progress report

Other documents relating to the LAX CBA are available here.

Staples Center CBA

The success of the Hollywood and Highland CBA was followed in 2001 by the completion of the first full-fledged CBA. This CBA concerned L.A.Live, a sports and entertainment complex located adjacent to the Staples Center sports arena (home to the Los Angeles Lakers). Community residents had suffered a blow when the developer failed to provide orally promised benefits after the completion of the project’s first phase. The community hoped that a CBA would ensure that the developer would follow through with promises made in relation to the project’s second phase—the construction of an entertainment complex complete with two hotels, a theater, a 250,000 square foot expansion of the convention center, two apartment buildings and a retail complex. Negotiations were held between the developer and the Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice, which represented more than thirty community organizations, including environmental groups, religious groups, health organizations and immigrants’ and tenants’ rights supporters. Strategic Action for a Just Economy (SAJE) and LAANE were also involved in the negotiating process, which lasted over nine months, providing organizational and political support to the coalition and community members.

The spectre of broad community opposition to the project, which required significant land use variances and city subsidies, provided the community with the necessary leverage to negotiate one of the most comprehensive CBAs made to date. The completed agreement states that its purposes are to “provide publicly accessible park space, open space, and recreational facilities; target employment opportunities to residents in the vicinity of the Figueroa Corridor; provide permanent affordable housing; provide basic services needed by the Figueroa Corridor community; and address issues of traffic, parking, and public safety.” The CBA included reporting requirements and established a committee to monitor and enforce the agreement and to maintain a dialogue between the developer and the coalition. The CBA was also incorporated into the development agreement between the developer and the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency, making it enforceable by the city as well as by the contracting community groups. Several aspects of the CBA were implemented shortly after its completion, including the establishment of a residential parking permit program and the distribution of seed money for the construction of affordable housing.

Some of the provisions included in the Staples Center CBA:

·       $1,000,000 for the creation or improvement of parks and recreational facilities

·       $25,000 per year for a term of five years for the creation of a residential parking permit program

·       an agreement to comply with the city’s living wage ordinance and to make all reasonable efforts to reach the goal of ensuring that 70% of the jobs created by the project pay a living wage;

·       an agreement to give priority hiring to persons displaced by the project and to low income individuals residing within three miles of the project

·       job training programs to be coordinated with community groups

·       $100,000 in seed money for a first source (i.e. local) hiring program

·       a requirement that 20% of the residential units in the project be affordable

·       $650,000 in interest-free loans to non-profit housing developers for the creation of additional affordable housing

·       an agreement to cooperate with the coalition to establish an advisory committee to assist with the implementation and enforcement of the agreement.

Since 2001, a number of provisions of the Staples Center CBA have been implemented. Funds were distributed for parks and open space, the parking permit program was put into place and the revolving loan fund has revolved several times. SAJE has monitored the implementation of the CBA, and they have worked to set up a community land trust for affordable housing. 

 For text of the Staples Center agreement, click here.

Hollywood and Highland Center

The first CBA was negotiated in 1998 in relation to the planned development of the Hollywood and Highland Center, home to the theater that now hosts the annual Oscar ceremonies. The development, which includes more than 4,000 theater seats, several parking lots and hotels, and 1.2 million square feet of retail space, was projected to cost $388 million. At eight and a half acres, the project understandably sparked concerns among Hollywood residents and business owners that traffic and congestion would be increased, there might be environmental and aesthetic effects, and that crime rates might go up. With the help of Los Angeles Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg and the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), the developer agreed to a deal with community groups: in exchange for their support, the developer offered to finance traffic improvements, ensure that workers at the center would be paid a living-wage and implement a first-source hiring plan and a policy of union-neutrality. The deal, though, was not one-sided; community support of the development helped the developer to obtain $90 million in subsidies from the city.

By most accounts the project has been a success: in addition to revitalizing Hollywood Boulevard, nearly seventy percent of the initial employees hired at the complex were recruited from the immediate area and about half of the permanent positions provide living-wages. In 2004, LAANE reached another CBA for a development just down the street from Hollywood and Highland. The benefits package for the Hollywood and Vine mixed-use, transit-oriented development included similar living wage, affordable housing and job training provisions.

CBA reports, commentary, etc.

I'll add more to this from time to time, but here's a list of useful CBA resources:

• Julian Gross (with Greg LeRoy and Madeline Janis), Community Benefits Agreements: Making Development Projects Accountable, Good Jobs First and the California Partnership for Working Families (2005)
  
• Greg LeRoy and Anna Purinton, Community Benefits Agreements: Ensuring that Urban Redevelopment Benefits Everyone, Neighborhood Funders Group (2005)
• Good Jobs First, Community Benefits Agreement Victories
• Annie E. Casey Foundation, Community Benefits Agreements: the Power, Practice, and Promise of a Responsible Redevelopment Tool (2007)