Yankees CBA update

The Yankees have received a lot of attention because of delays in distributing funding under the CBA, but it seems that they have finally worked everything out. A spokesman for the community fund said yesterday that Bronx little league teams and and the City University of New York (CUNY) will be the first recipients of funding. Students from the Bronx will receive a preference in applying for the $50,000 CUNY scholarship. It's not clear yet, however, which little league teams will receive funding and how much they will receive.

The spokesman also denied claims that the distribution of funds under the CBA has been delayed. He attributed the problems to getting charitable tax status and finding suitable candidates for the fund's committee. The fact remains, however, that it's taken nearly two years for this funding mechanism to be implemented. Construction has been ongoing for much of that time as well, meaning that the benefits promised in the CBA have not coincided with many of the impacts of the development on its surrounding area. Quite a few people have characterized this as delay, even if the fund's spokesperson won't.

Now that the fund is up and running, I have a question: how is the community being involved in funding decisions? The community wasn't really included in negotiating the CBA, so is the fund going to be distributed in the same way, without real community input?

For more information on the recent funding decisions, see this article in the Bronx Beat. For the photo, thank jpchan.

CBAs go to court (for the first time?)

The first case that I know of to deal with CBAs in any detail was issued this week. The case, Merced County Farm Bureau v. County of Merced (No. 150013, Sup.Ct., County of San Joaquin), was brought under the California Environmental Quality Act by community groups hoping to prevent the development of the Riverside Motorsports Park. In particular, they claimed that the environmental impact report (EIR) was inadequate. The court agreed, in part because the EIR in this case did not address the development agreement and community benefits agreement that had been required by the county when it approved the master plan. As the court explained, "[t]he environmental effects of the Master Plan cannot be evaluated properly without consideration of the Development Agreement and the Community Benefits Agreement that have not been drafted. The absence of this analysis renders the EIR defective as an informational document upon which the public and its officials can rely in making informed judgments. An analysis of the Development Agreement and the Community Benefits Agreement should appear in the EIR or at a mininum in an appendix."

What isn't clear about this case is how the CBA requirement arose in the first place, i.e. whether the county imposed the CBA requirement in response to community concerns about the project, or whether the county put the CBA requirement in the master plan in order to hold the developer to promises that it had made (I'll be checking into this). It's also not clear what the county had in mind when it made the CBA requirement. The minutes of the board of supervisors from December 16, 2006 (just prior to the master plan approval), simply state that "[t]he applicant shall enter into a Community Benefits Agreement that commits them [sic] to a series of benefits that are specific to the nature of the project and the needs of the local community." There's no indication as to whether the county expects the developer to negotiate with community groups or local officials about these benefits. It's also unclear how extensive the benefits have to be.

Still, even if the scope of the CBA is presently unknown, it's good news for CBA supporters that the court rejected the EIR due to the fact that the CBA hadn't yet been completed. CBA provisions may indeed be important to the environmental review of the project. However, this case may not supply persuasive precedent for future cases involving CBAs that aren't required by the municipality.

The planning documents for the Riverside Motorsports project, including the draft master plan and the EIR, are up on Merced County's website. For more information on reaction to the case, see this article in the Merced Sun-Star.

Updated June 11, 2008, here.

It's not a shakedown

Paul Ellis, an attorney for the One Hill Coalition, responded to some myths about the Penguins CBA in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Here are a few excerpts:

* Myth No. 1: "Hill Residents are trying to shake down the city, the county and the Penguins."

If someone takes something from you, and you demand it back, does that constitute a shakedown, or charity? Of course not.
Many people cannot relate to the Hill's requests because their communities have been physically and culturally intact for the last 50 years, with responsive, funded programs and services. Where were the cries of foul play from these people when local government displaced thousands of Hill District residents to build what is now Mellon Arena for the Civic Light Opera and eventually the Pittsburgh Penguins, followed by a series of broken promises? Can you imagine your entire thriving neighborhood being destroyed?
It is inconceivable that anyone who knows the history of the Hill could fail to understand that Hill residents are trying to avoid the repeat of a devastating act of divestiture....

* Myth No. 2: "All they want is a handout."

It is a statement that is both insulting and hypocritical. The implication: Why don't they just do for themselves?
In fact, most Hill District residents are hard-working citizens just like everyone else in this largely blue-collar city. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that the Penguins are not doing for themselves. They are using hundreds of millions of public tax dollars to reconcile their debts, give investors a nice return and take advantage of prime real estate conveyed for free. What private business group couldn't thrive with that kind of public financial support?
To suggest that Hill District residents should create miracles in employment, health care, public accommodation and quality of life on their own is to ignore the source of the Penguins' funding: the public.
A community benefits agreement could help transform the entire culture of the community, and if Hill residents weren't fighting for equity, they'd be criticized for being apathetic.
As it is, we're criticized for seeking a community center, but expected to keep our kids off the streets. We're excoriated for wanting a master plan by those who have a voice if development is proposed in their neighborhoods. We're the targets of condescension for wanting a grocery store by those who have conscientious grocers nearby. We're ridiculed for seeking life-sustaining jobs by those who already have them. We're blamed for wanting a role in the development of land that was taken by our own government to benefit others, including the Penguins.
Residents of the Hill are very much trying to do for themselves, but certainly a level playing field is not too much to ask.

* Myth No. 3: "The community benefits agreement would benefit only Hill District residents."

The same individuals who criticize the Hill's residents would demand a legally binding understanding if major development was proposed in their neighborhoods with their public dollars.... A stronger Hill District would make for a stronger Downtown, encouraging business investment and residential opportunities while luring more visitors, conventions and commerce.