Brian Lehrer and Seth Pinsky discuss CBAs and economic development in New York City

Seth Pinsky, president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, spoke on the Brian Lehrer show on Monday. Responding to a question about Mayor Bloomberg's recent criticisms of CBAs, Pinsky said that "it's important to distinguish between garnering community benefits through the legally prescribed process and community benefit agreements. The objection that the mayor has is that communities, and who these community members are, have often tried to make agreements separate from the political process to benefit only those communities in ways that are completely unenforceable by the city and also in ways that cost the city and cost city taxpayers substantial amounts of money."

I would point out that Bloomberg endorsed the Atlantic Yards CBA, even though there was no city review of the project at all, and he provided substantial funding to help Columbia negotiate a CBA through the West Harlem Local Development Corporation. So to a certain extent, if these CBAs are costing city taxpayers and operating outside the city planning process, it can be attributed to the administration's previous policy stance. Moreover, the New York City CBAs, for the most part, are not "completely unenforceable." There may be difficulty in enforcing them, but they're still valid contracts. (On that note, the Yankee Stadium CBA, which has the most legal problems, will soon be going to court.)

Pinsky continued by emphasizing the importance of a more formal process: "What the mayor feels is the appropriate way to ensure that communities in the city as a whole benefit, is to use the political process that we have, the Uniform Land Use Review Process, through which the community board, the borough president, as well as the city council are able to ensure that the communities get the benefits that they need."

Connecticut statute defines CBAs, sort of

Connecticut Public Act No. 08-94, An Act Concerning Environmental Justice Communities and the Storage of Asbestos-Containing Material, takes a stab at defining CBAs. According to the act, a "community environmental benefit agreement" is:

a written agreement entered into by a municipality and an owner or developer of real property whereby the owner or developer agrees to develop real property that is to be used for any new or expanded affecting facility and to provide financial resources for the purpose of the mitigation, in whole or in part, of impacts reasonably related to the facility, including, but not limited to, impacts on the environment, traffic, parking and noise.

Unlike Staples-Center-type CBAs, these CEBAs are not negotiated by community coalitions, and they are only required in relation to the construction of "affecting facilities"--power plants, waste incinerators, sewage treatment plants, processing centers, landfills, medical waste incinerators, and major sources of air pollution. Finally, most of the law's requirements only apply when affecting facilities are being located in an "environmental justice community," i.e. a census tract designated as distressed under state law or with at least 30% of residents at or below 200% of the poverty line. In other words, CEBAs do not seem to be the type of multi-faceted, community driven, flexible agreements that are usually considered to be CBAs. With their emphasis on environmental impacts, they are more similar to Good Neighbor Agreements.

The law functions like this: whenever a developer seeks a permit for an affecting facility in an area that qualifies as an "environmental justice community," the developer has to "file a meaningful participation plan" and meet with the local chief executive "to evaluate the need for a community environmental benefit agreement." ("Meaningful participation plans" are also defined by the law.)

CEBAs can be entered into by any municipality, owner or developer, whether or not deemed to be necessary for a particular affecting facility. According to the law, the municipality has to provide an opportunity for public participation, and the agreement can contain both on and off site mitigation activities and programs, including "[f]unding for activities such as environmental education, diesel pollution reduction, construction of biking and walking trails, staffing for parks, urban forestry, support for community gardens or any other negotiated benefit to the environment in the environmental justice community."

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has a fact sheet about the law here. Public participation guidelines are located here.

CBA talk in Oro Valley, AZ and Newark, NJ

Just a quick mention that CBAs have recently been discussed as policy tools by officials in Oro Valley, Arizona and Newark, New Jersey.

In Oro Valley, the town council agreed to support the use of CBAs at a meeting in August. The town planning and zoning director suggested that the town could maintain a list of approved mediators/facilitators for CBA negotiations, and a member of the planning and zoning commission emphasized how important it is for the community to have access to development information and to be educated about the development process.

In Newark, Deputy Mayor Stefan Pryor had some comments about community benefits at a panel about "the New Newark." As reported at the AtlanticYardsReport, Pryor emphasized the need to limit subsidies and encourage development that gives back to the community. He asked, "Will a project deliver jobs for our residents? Will a developer commit to a First Source compact where jobs will go to Newark residents first? Small [and] minority business contracting and green building sustainability are among our criteria." While not mentioning CBAs specifically, Pryor's remarks reflect an awareness that development should be accountable to all community members and equitable in its effects.