Community Benefit Agreement Research

Campbell 1
How Community Benefit Agreements Lead to Resident Empowerment
Erika Campbell
Abstract/Introduction
The City of Detroit is currently in an historical moment of revitalization. Detroit is
gaining increasingly positive media coverage, young people have begun to move back into the
city, and businesses are bringing their headquarters back to Detroit. With these exciting
improvements comes increasing development. Midtown and Downtown have undergone massive
transformations that have made these areas safer, more walkable, more economically viable, and
attractive for visitors. These positive developments, however, must be balanced with the
understanding of a history that spans long before the current moment. Detroit and its residents
have been disregarded by City, State, and Federal officials, as well as economic players, since
the deindustrialization that came to a head in the late 1960s. This has led to a city of people who
distrust their government and the development they see happening in their communities. Distrust
can lead to dissatisfaction with development, and can even go so far as to create hostile attitudes
toward development in the city. This paper explores this resident disturst in the context of
Detroit, and Community Benefit Agreements, one of the best and most viable solutions to create
a positive development experience for both long-time Detroiters, and incoming residents and
businesses.
Methods
The methods I employed for this paper are several. First and foremost is a theory-based
understanding of resident distrust in government, and how that distrust is exacerbated when the
community is disadvantaged (which helped me to understand the context of Detroit- a city that
has been often disadvantaged and disregarded). The next type of method was a deep-dive into the

Campbell 2
scholarship on Community Benefit Agreements, case studies, and how they must be
implemented to be affective. This was helpful in building my case that Community Benefit
Agreements are the right solution for Detroit. Finally, I examined the Community Benefits
Ordinance that was on the ballot in Detroit in November 2016 and approved by voters1.
Resident Input
In studying urban, economic, and social theory as well as city revitalization, one of the
most common issues I come across is the problem of how to reconcile revitalization and
economic efforts with the desires, fears, and distrust of city residents. The city of Detroit is no
stranger to this challenge, and may even be an exemplar of the struggles encountered when
residents do not trust city officials to make decisions for their neighborhood. As John Mogk
noted in his 2013 Detroit Free Press article on the pushback against the Hantz farm project:
The enduring lesson of America’s sordid racial history is that government and economic
leaders, perhaps even developers, cannot be trusted to have the best interests of African-
American communities in mind.2
Mogk’s comment is an important one that builds on the history of not just Detroit, but American
cities more generally. Throughout the 20th century, “urban reform” was seen as clearing out
slums and ghettos thought to be unattractive to the city. This left many poor and minority
residents without a place to live, and without any sort of relocation or settlement after their
homes were cleared away. Bockmeyer’s research3 on the Culture of Distrust in Detroit also lends
to Mogk’s ideas, and the historical background of this distrust.
1 This paper was written duringthe Summer and early Fall of 2016.Duringthat time, the Community Benefits
ordinancehad not yet been voted upon by Detroit residents.I am happy to say it was approved, and I look forward
to seeinghow Detroit implements this policy
2 Mogk, John E. "Understand the Opposition to Hantz Urban Farm Plan." Detroit Free Press, 6 Jan. 2013.
3 Bockmeyer, JaniceL. "A Culture of Distrust:The Impact of Local Political Cultureon Participation in the Detroit
EZ." Urban Studies Journal, vol.37, no. 13,Dec. 2000, pp. 2417-40.

Campbell 3
Community residents often view urban renewal plans with distrust, particularly when
those plans target low-income communities with histories of conflict over urban renewal
and land-use policies (2417)
Detroiters have a long and tumultuous history of distrust, just like that noted by Bockmeyer and
Hantz. This history results a great deal from “executive-led decision-making patterns concerning
Detroit’s economic demise and possibilities for revival” (2422). Mayors such as Coleman
Young, and Jerome Cavanaugh dealt with economic development through what Sudjic4 has
termed the “edifice complex”- in which the building of new structures was equated with
economic progress and change; instead of large expenditures that would never be fully filled
once economic downturn had begun. These poor economic choices made by top-down mayors,
and the corruption of mayors such as Kwame Kilpatrick, has led to a deep mistrust of Detroit
residents.
Despite this mistrust devolution of poor, minority residents, now more than ever it is
vitally important that Detroiters, developers, and city decision-makers build trusting relationships
as revitalization occurs with increasing rapidity. Without this relationship, Detroit residents will
be left woefully out of the conversation about something incredibly personal: their
neighborhoods, and developers will be without the support and input of residents. The
importance of this relationship goes both ways. First, the advantage to developers when getting
resident input. As described by Sobin5 “residents are uniquely capable of contributing to
decisions affecting” (361) their neighborhood, if for no other reason than they are aware of a
neighborhood’s unique desires and needs. This makes them a valuable asset to developers, who
4 Sudjic,Deyan. The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World. New York, Penguin Group, 2005.
5 Sobin, Dennis P. "Why IncreaseCitizen Participation AmongGhetto Residents?" Journal of Black Studies, vol.2,
no. 3, Mar.1972, pp. 359-70

Campbell 4
can use resident’s knowledge to better make businesses decisions such as architectural choices,
economic development strategies, and the like. Another value to developers is that when creating
a development, the support of residents is absolutely essential to securing its success. Without
residential support, a new business or development can, at the least, be resented, and at the worst
it could be completely undone by active residents.
This leads to the second point on the importance of developer-resident relationships,
which is those benefits awarded to residents who contribute to the development of their
neighborhood. Sobin’s article “Why Increase Citizen Participation among Ghetto Residents?”
discusses the need for residents of an impoverished, minority area to have input in the decisions
of their neighborhood. This can no doubt be applied to Detroit, a city that has often faced poverty
and is 85% African American. By creating a dialogue with a developer wishing to come to their
area, Detroit residents would have the ability to discuss with developers the unique desires and
needs of their neighborhood, and therefore allow for the most fitting development within their
neighborhood. In addition, this dialogue leads to a greater level of citizen participation, and in
turn create a “sense of accomplishment and success” (363) in carrying out community
improvement efforts.
New Means of Creating Dialogue
The importance of resident-developer dialogue in Detroit cannot be understated. But
obvious questions begin to arise when deciding how best to construct this dialogue and create
this trust: how do we reconcile the interests of developers and revitalization efforts with the
desires of residents? How do we stay sensitive to gentrification, and the other impacts a new
development, big or small, can have on a community? Can we possibly get residents to agree to
change when change has not touched their neighborhood in the last fifty years? These are all

Campbell 5
important questions to ask when addressing revitalization and citizen participation in Detroit.
Made all the more important (and difficult) when compacted with the economic and racial
history that Detroit bares. In my own thinking about these questions of resident-developer
relationships and dialogue during my internship, the answer has made itself increasingly
apparent. The best way to create resident-developer relationships while still striving toward
revitalization and the protecting of resident interests is a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA).
II. CBA’s, What They Are, and How They Work
What Are They?
A Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) is a legally-binding contract negotiated
between a developer and the people of the community where development is set to happen.
Essentially, the developer exchanges benefits to the impacted neighborhood in exchange for the
support of residents during development. In many of the case-studies addressed in this paper,
CBA’s are a requirement if a developer wishes to have tax subsidies provided by the city or state.
How They Work
The exact form a CBA takes, or what negotiations look like, is fairly flexible, but a basic
outline is as follows. One interested party approaches the negotiating table. Either the developer
wishing to acquire the subsidies a CBA will have approaches the community; or a coalition of
community groups6 who believe that the development would impact them in such a way that
benefits must be provided to soften the effects will approach the developer. Once both the
community and the developer have come to the negotiating table, anything is possible. While a
community could feasibly ask for any sort of benefit or reparation they felt was appropriate,
6 I say a coalition of community groups only because this is the most typical model. It is possiblefor residents
themselves to negotiate, but they often lack the know-how, political power,and resources to negotiate a CBA fully
and to their greatest advantage.

Campbell 6
Salkin and Lavine7 make note that “CBA provisions are inspired by social justice concerns”
(294), such as “first source” hiring programs, living wage programs, and environmental impact
prevention programs. Oftentimes, CBAs can have both social justice and more superficial- but
equally valuable- benefits such as traffic control through a street near the development, preferred
parking for residents, or the replacement of a tree that must be torn down in the process of
construction. No matter what the benefit may be, so long as it reflects desires of the community
members and developers are willing to negotiate, a CBA is possible.
Community Benefit Agreements and Resident Enfranchisement
7 Salkin,Patricia E.,and Amy Lavine. "Understanding Community Benefit Agreements: EquitableDevelopment,
Social Justiceand Other Considerations for Developers,Municipalities and Community Organizations."
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 2008,pp. 291-331.

Campbell 7
The enfranchisement and inclusion of poor,
black residents in Detroit’s redevelopment is
incredibly important, and can only be
accomplished by rebuilding the long-lost trust of
residents toward city decision-makers. The
dialogue necessary to build this trust and give
residents a say in their community is exemplified
through DFC’s on-site community interactions,
and can be furthered through CBA negotiations.
First, the Community Benefit Agreemtn
allows Detroit residents to see the real
investment that is being made to ensure that their
needs are met. When a developer (or city
representative) comes to the negotiation table,
they convey to residents that revitalization can happen without destroying their way of life.
Second, in being able to have their own voices heard in negotiations, residents of extremely
disenfranchised areas are once again able to participate effectively and with positive results
toward improving their own homes. Through these negotiations and benefits, citizen
participation reaches the “partnership” stage of Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation8. This
partnership allows residents to be equals in the decisions that are made about their
neighborhoods. It is, after all, their tax revenue that allows the city to function, and their lives
8 Arnstein, Sherry R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. , Journal of the American Institute of Planners.

Campbell 8
that are affected by large-scale development or revitalization. By making sure residents reach
“citizen power” status within Detroit, trust can be re-built, and solutions can be reached that are
positive for developers and residents alike.
Community Benefit Agreements: Downfalls and Critiques
With all the positive aspects of Community Benefit Agreements, Salkin and Lavine also
make clear there are many “practical problems” (320) involved in negotiating and implementing
a CBA. The first issue is the need for bargaining power during a CBA negotiation. In order to
make a CBA effective, community coalitions must have proper bargaining chips with which to
bring a developer to the table. If community resistance to a project won’t hinder the
development, it is less likely that developers will come to the table. In Detroit, this is especially
problematic when one looks at the lack of political power many poor, minority people and
communities have. To remedy this, it is important that community coalitions be built early on,
through the use of nonprofit organizations, block clubs, and neighborhood associations to create
a body with the power and know-how and resources to get developers to negotiate.
While neighborhood coalitions have the power to negotiate a CBA, they do not always
have the ability to fight off the second, and perhaps larger, issue of CBAs: oversight. If and when
developers and community coalitions come to an agreement, it is then the responsibility of both
parties to carry out their ends of the agreement. But what happens if a developer decides not to
implement a quality program? Or perhaps the “living wage” hiring program is not up to the
standards of a living wage? These are issues of oversight, in which somebody must be able to
ensure that provisions are carried out to the quality and extent they were originally agreed upon.
Case studies discussed below show that this can best be remedied by first adding a provision
within the CBA designating who will oversee implementation, and second by requiring that as

Campbell 9
part of the agreement, the developer contributes seed money to make sure the oversight process
is continuous and well-funded. By addressing practical (and possibly disenfranchising) issues
with strategic approaches, communities can be better protected from developer abuse or
complete lack of benefits. To understand how CBAs work in practice, three case studies will
examine real-world CBAs, and how communities were able to empower their residents toward
better lives, while creating economic vitality.
III Case Studies: CBA’s in Practice
Case Study 1: Los Angeles Staples Center9
The Staples Center is thought to be one of the very first successful, large-scale
Community-Benefit Agreements. In 1998, construction of the Staples Center, home to the Los
Angeles Lakers, began. The project, costing approximately $1.34 billion, was expected to be an
incredible source of job opportunity and growth for Los Angeles. However, it came at the cost of
certain residents in the Figueroa Corridor. Trying to appease residents, the developer informally
agreed to community benefits at the end of the project’s first phase. But in 2001, this
development failed in providing those promised benefits, and spurred residents to negotiate a
Community Benefit Agreement.
Musso10 notes an important distinction between the Los Angeles of 1998 and the Los
Angeles of 2001, particularly in regards to structures of neighborhood and resident
empowerment. In 1999, Los Angeles’ city government began to develop a “citywide system of
neighborhood council with the goals of increasing participation in the policy-making process”
(79). This governmental support of resident empowerment as well as the formation of a network
9 " Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment DistrictCBA." Partnership for Working Families ,
www.forworkingfamilies.org/resources/staples-cba.Accessed 21 Dec. 2016.
10 Musso,Juliet A. "Neighborhood Governance Reform and Networks of Community Power in Los Angeles."
American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36,no. 1, Mar. 2006,pp. 79-97.

Campbell 10
structure to enable this empowerment no doubt influenced how the Staples Center CBA was
changed by 2001.
Residents of the affected area of Staples Center formed the Figueroa Corridor Coalition
for Economic Justice11 which brought developers to the table with “the specter of broad
community opposition to the project” (Salkin and Lavine 302). Gaining key benefits, the
coalition continues to meet with the developer quarterly to monitor implementation, and to make
sure that deals are not backed out of as they were before. This serves as an excellent model of a
well-executed CBA, in which a powerful coalition was formed, able to leverage negotiations,
and implemented specific plans for oversight- avoiding nearly all of the key problems presented
by Salkin and Lavine
The Staples Center CBA was able to negotiate incredible benefits for the community,
including ones that can bring important lessons to Detroit. Some of these most noteworthy
developments included a $1 million pledge to building parks and recreational areas within the
surrounding neighborhoods, distribution of seed money to create affordable housing, and a
pledge that “300 units of inclusionary affordable housing” (A-9)12 be financed. In addition, the
jobs created by this development, would use “first-source” hiring programs. That is to say people
within the neighborhood represented by the CBA would have preference in receiving jobs within
the development. Along with these hiring preferences, 70% of wages were to be a living wage.
The numerous benefits listed above are all incredible achievements for the residents of
Figueroa Corridor, and they act as important lessons and examples for what Detroit CBAs can
look like. Detroit is no stranger to sports stadiums. The creation of Ford Field ending in 2002,
12 "Los Angeles Community Benefit Agreement Document." Partnership for Working Families.

Campbell 11
Comerica Park in 2000, and the current construction of Little Caesars Arena are all multi-million
dollar projects in Detroit, which have no doubt had intense impacts on Detroit residents. The
Staples Center CBA is an important example for Detroit in displaying the kinds of benefits that
can be produced from a sports stadium. Stadiums often produce hundreds, if not thousands, of
low-education or low skill jobs. These range from concessions to custodial, to ticket-takers and
ushers. These sorts of jobs are vastly important to many long-time Detroit residents, as the
educational attainment levels in the city go down13. Therefore, the first-source hiring programs
introduced by the Staples Center would be an all too fitting benefit for Detroit residents to gain.
This would not only employ Detroiters, but stimulate economic growth through the creation of a
large development, with the full support of resident’s and possible tax benefits behind it. The
second important benefit that can be applied to Detroit’s booming stadium development is that a
majority of those jobs created by stadiums are giving a living wage. Living wages offer
important opportunities for Detroiters to be outside of the working poor category, and by
offering enough money to enjoy a disposable income, Detroiters are better able to contribute
money into city economy, or take on projects that life not only themselves out of bad situations,
but create better communities. The Staples Center CBA created a completely new framework
under which residents and decision-makers can talk, build trust, and create opportunities for
citizens. When applied to Detroit, the Staple Center CBA gives examples of how stadium
development can be good for Detroiters, instead of just irrevocably changing their
neighborhoods.
Case Study 2: Atlantic Yards14
13 Social Explorer Tables(SE),Census 2000,U.S. Census Bureau and Social Explorer

Campbell 12
New York’s first Community Benefit Agreement was reached in 2005 after broad
resident disapproval to the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn. Atlantic Yards was to
become the home of the New Jersey Nets, and would include large high-rise buildings thought to
“radically alter Brooklyn’s skyline” (Salkin and Lavine 309). Developers sought a CBA to gain
neighborhood support, and negotiated with a coalition of neighborhood groups to reach a set of
benefits which included first source hiring provisions, basketball tickets for residents of the
affected area, and a pledge from the developer to build a day care center. This CBA offers
important lessons not in the benefits that were given to residents, but as a cautionary tale of how
a CBA must not be executed in Detroit.
Despite the success of a CBA at getting the neighborhood important programs and perks,
residents of Brooklyn were still widely opposed to both the development and the CBA itself. The
question must be asked: what did coalition in Brooklyn do to create such a poor CBA? Nathan
Markey15 defines a successful CBA as one that first, has an inclusive process- that is to say, a
broad base of residents is included in deciding what is to be included in a CBA. While they may
be represented by a coalition of organizations in actual negotiations, the residents are still spoken
with and listened to in deciding what is most important for the community. This keeps civic
engagement levels up, and is in the long run advantageous to the CBA process. If residents are
left feeling like they were left out, approval will likely be lower, as was the case with Atlantic
Yards. Second, a “Community Benefits Coalition” (Markey 380) must be formed to represent
large and diverse sets of the community. This will give the negotiations “an inclusive character
15 Markey, Nathan. "Atlantic Yards Community Benefit Agreement: A CaseStudy of OrganizingCommunity Support
for Development." Pace Enviornmental Law Review, vol. 27, no. 1, Sept. 2009,pp. 377-93.

Campbell 13
and a degree of democratic legitimacy” (Markey 380). Bockmeyer16 makes this even clearer
when she defines “anchor institutions” (37), which tends to be a nonprofit organization with
strong ties to the community and its interests, as well as an eye toward regional development.
Finally, once residents have been consulted, a diverse coalition formed, and negotiations
executed, the final CBA document must be clear and complete. Without a CBA being clear and
complete, developers have the ability to go back on their words, as they had done to the residents
of Figueroa Corridor.
Now one must ask: how did Brooklyn’s CBA fare against this criteria? The answer is that
it fare poorly, and it is precisely because of their failure to meet such criteria that the
development and CBA received so little resident input. Inclusivity was non-existent, as “a single
entity attempted to negotiate a CBA without taking the time to create a representative coalition”
(Markey 385). Without such a coalition, resident input was not heard nor considered in
negotiations and, according to Markey, the provisions “do not address the actual concerns of the
community” (Markey 387) Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards serves as an important lesson to Detroit in
its failures, and proves further the importance of citizen engagement in community decisions. It
is not the presence of benefits that allows a community to support a project, but rather the
democratic process of forming a representative coalition and feeling heard by those in power.
That is the only way in which developers may be able to gain support while residents build the
trust necessary to make revitalization work.
Case Study 3: Yale and New Haven
16 Bockmeyer, JaniceL. Schools and Urban Revitalization: Rethinking Institutions and Community Development,
2014,pp. 28-53.

Campbell 14
The story of the Yale-New Haven Community Benefit Agreement is a far more
successful and mutually -beneficial agreement than that reached by representatives of the
Atlantic Yards CBA. In 2006, Yale University and New Haven’s Community Organized for
Responsible Development (CORD) reached an agreement surrounding the development of a new
$430 million, 14-story cancer center in New Haven17. The broad-based support of the Yale-New
Haven CBA is one of its most important aspects. CORD comprised an incredibly diverse
coalition of 22 faith-based groups, local unions, and community groups, giving the people of
New Haven a strong group to fight for their desires. In addition to this strong, diverse coalition,
the Yale-New Haven CBA had another key supporter: the local government. New Haven’s
Board of Alderman “passed a resolution encouraging the hospital to enter into the agreement,”18
With this base of support from a well-represented population, a diverse and powerful coalition,
and from city government itself, it is clear that the Yale-New Haven CBA had a much better
chance of success than Atlantic Yards.
The Yale-New Haven CBA yielded many benefits to the community, some which have
already been discussed in this paper, such as traffic control and first-hire program for non-
healthcare positions. One of the most important benefits to look at in regards to Detroit is the
“Outreach Coordinators” provision, which states that the
Hospital shall make an annual investment of $140,000 before July 1 of each year, for a
minimum of five (5) years, to fund two (2) new City positions: an asthmas outreach
coordinators and an uninsured children’s outreach coordinator19
17 Gross,Julian."Community Benefit Agreements: MakingDevelopment Projects Accountable." Good Jobs First,
2005.
18 Community Benefit Agreements, 30 Jan. 2008,communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/yale-new-haven-
cba.html.
19 YALE NEW HAVEN CBA (8)

Campbell 15
The creation of such a provision, and the existence of this CBA itself, proves to be a valuable
example of future Detroit CBAs. First, the idea of residents coming to an agreement about
responsible development regarding a University is an important lesson for Detroit. Wayne State
University, located in Detroit’s midtown, continues to grow and become more essential to the
city’s revitalization. By using this CBA as a model, Detroiters can see not only the great value
that comes from striking a deal with a University, but fact that it can be done at all.
Second, the city government’s support of the Yale-New Haven CBA is one of the reasons
it was so successful- this should serve as an indication to city officials that to create amicable
revitalization and gain the trust of residents, they must be willing to support citizen’s efforts to
gain benefits. Finally, the provision stated above is another unique example of the kinds of
benefits Detroiters could ask for from developers. As Wayne State continues to grow, new
facilities will undoubtedly be built. By looking at the example set by CORD and New Haven
Residents, Detroiters can reach new deal with Wayne State asking them to prioritize Detroiters
along with their growth. Depending on the facility and needs of the community, this could mean
many different things. But the key to this provision and the lesson it provides is not the amount
of money or program itself, but the idea of a developer using their facility for both their own
benefit and as a way to provide outreach to populations in need of assistance.
IV: Detroit CBA’s
The discussion of Community Benefit Agreements thus far has addressed the civic
engagement advantages of these agreements, the various ways in which residents should
structure their own CBAs to be successful, what kinds of benefits are generally granted, and how
a CBA can go wrong if not executed properly. It is now time to turn to the applications that all of
this knowledge can have on Detroit, a city on the precipice of revitalization which is also in need

Campbell 16
of Community Benefit Agreements to protect long-time residents who may otherwise be
disenfranchised by urban renewal.
As was discussed in the example of the Yale-New Haven CBA, city support of its
resident’s empowerment is vitally important in allowing residents to gain benefits from new
developments. If city officials choose to stay silent or give their full, unyielding support to
developers, the mistrust amongst Detroit residents will continue to grow. Additionally,
development will be met with dissatisfaction while hurting residents who may be forced out of
their homes or see their neighborhood changing in an unhealthy or unfavorable way. In a
seemingly positive step, Detroit officials introduced what is known as the “Benson Ordinance”, a
CBA ordinance which seeks to “require community engagement and community benefit for
certain development projects seeking public support for investment above certain threshold
levels”20. From this excerpt it seems that Detroit city officials are making incredible strides in
supporting their citizens to be empowered in the face of development. It is true that this
ordinance would require developers to seek out residents and create a CBA with them, which
would undoubtedly allow Detroiters more power to ask for community improvements. Specific
clauses within the ordinance make clear that it would be an incredible win for Detroiters
everywhere, and that it should be quickly adopted to address the continued growth within
Detroit.
Public Support Provision
The first clause of the summary, which states that developers “seeking public support for
investment” will be required to enter into a CBA provides a far-reaching definition by which to
20 Benson ordinancesummary

Campbell 17
hold developers to task. In the final version of the ordinance, “public support for investment”
was defined as:
(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.
Having public support is clearly to the financial advantage of the developer, and gives them good
reason to reach out to residents of the impacted community. In the matter of how to classify
developments, however, there is room for improvement
Project Tiers Provision
Detroit’s Community Benefit Ordinance divides developments seeking public support
into two tiers. A Tier I project is defined as “development project in the City of Detroit that is
expected to incur the investment of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) or more during the
construction of facilities or plant”. In the scenario of a Tier I project being built, when seeking
public support, a developer would be required to enter into a Community Benefit Agreement
negotiation with the residents of the community impacted by their project. In a Tier II project,
however, this is not the case. Tier II projects are more than three million dollars, but less than
fifteen million dollars. Whether or not they seek public support, Tier II projects are not required
to enter into any sort of Community Benefit Agreement.

Campbell 18
Evaluation
Detroit’s new ordinance is a step toward a framework which allows city revitalization
and development while still recognizing the dangers of gentrification, resident mistrust, and
unregulated growth. The idea of requiring developers to enter CBA negotiations is an important
one, but the Tier I vs. Tier II classifications allows for significant projects to be created with
public support and without consulting residents about how developments will impact them. In an
ideal scenario, all large projects would be required to enter negotiations, whether or not public
support is desired. While the argument can also be made that right now, Detroit is a fairly cheap
place to develop, and to impose too many obstacles to growth and development could dampen
the revitalization of the city, the Benson ordinance is the best way Detroit can keep residents
interests in mind while working toward economic growth. Furthermore, it will be interesting to
see just how Detroit residents and coalitions of nonprofits use this ordinance. If organization
such as Detroit Future City and Focus: Hope, which are committed to meeting residents in their
neighborhoods on their terms, are able to embed themselves in the CBA process, I have no doubt
that CBA’s out of Detroit will be favorable for residents and developers alike.
V: Conclusion
Community Benefit Agreements, Detroit, resident mistrust, revitalization, ordinances.
These are all key components of the very complicated reality of CBAs, and their possibility in
Detroit. Detroit residents have a deep mistrust of a government and economic system that has
continually ignored them. What compacts this even further is that many Detroit residents remain
poor and lacking in the political clout to make their voices heard. These same people are set in a
city that is now rapidly evolving. Detroit continues to grow and investments continue to be
made. So how does on reconcile the situation of Detroiters with the political and economic

Campbell 19
moment of the city itself? I would argue that this reconciliation is best played out by Community
Benefit Agreements. That is because it is not development that residents oppose, but rather their
exclusion from the decisions that most affect their lives. When you include residents in decision-
making processes, trust is built and decisions are made in a way far more beneficial to all parties
involved. As was seen in the three case studies given, CBAs can give incredible programs and
perks to residents who may have otherwise opposed a project and hindered its completion. Also
in the case studies, it would appear that when residents and coalitions have their government
supporting their fight for a CBA, it is much more likely to be complete. That is why the Benson
Ordinance is of such importance for Detroit. Giving Detroiters the backing of their government
not only builds that trust, but empowers them to demand the responsible development that
MUST characterize Detroit’s revitalization.

Campbell 20
Works Cited
Arnstein, Sherry R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. , Journal of the American Institute of
Planners.
“Benson Ordinance”.
Bockmeyer, Janice L. "A Culture of Distrust: The Impact of Local Political Culture on
Participation in the Detroit EZ." Urban Studies Journal, vol. 37, no. 13, Dec. 2000, pp.
2417-40.
Bockmeyer, Janice L. Schools and Urban Revitalization: Rethinking Institutions and Community
Development, 2014, pp. 28-53.
Community Benefit Agreements, 30 Jan. 2008, communitybenefits.blogspot.com/2008/01/yale-
new-haven-cba.html.
“Enhanced Benson Ordinance”.
Ferretti, Christine. "Prop B wins, Prop A fails in Detroit community benefits." The Detroit News,
8 Nov. 2016, www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/08/detroit-
community-benefits-results/93507310/.
Gross, Julian. "Community Benefit Agreements: Making Development Projects Accountable."
Good Jobs First, 2005.
"Los Angeles Community Benefit Agreement Document." Partnership for Working Families.
“Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment District CBA." Partnership for Working Families,
www.forworkingfamilies.org/resources/staples-cba.
Marcello, David A. "Community Benefit Agreements: New Vehicle For Investment in America's
Neighborhoods." American Bar Association, vol. 39, no. 3, 2007, pp. 657-69.
Markey, Nathan. "Atlantic Yards Community Benefit Agreement: A Case Study of Organizing

Campbell 21
Community Support for Development." Pace Environmental Law Review, vol. 27, no. 1,
Sept. 2009, pp. 377-93.
Mogk, John E. "Understand the Opposition to Hantz Urban Farm Plan." Detroit Free Press, 6
Jan. 2013.
Musso, Juliet A. "Neighborhood Governance Reform and Networks of Community Power in Los
Angeles." American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36, no. 1, Mar. 2006, pp. 79-
97.
Salkin, Patricia E., and Amy Lavine. "Understanding Community Benefit Agreements: Equitable
Development, Social Justice and Other Considerations for Developers, Municipalities
and Community Organizations." UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 2008,
pp. 291-331.
Sobin, Dennis P. "Why Increase Citizen Participation Among Ghetto Residents?" Journal of
Black Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, Mar. 1972, pp. 359-70.
Social Explorer Tables(SE), Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau and Social Explorer
Sudjic, Deyan. The Edifice Complex: How the Rich and Powerful Shape the World. New York,
Penguin Group, 2005.
“Yale-New Haven Community Benefit Agreement Document”.

Community Benefit Agreement Research

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Similar to Community Benefit Agreement Research

Similar to Community Benefit Agreement Research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Community Benefit Agreement Research