Article ReviewCriteriaLevels of AchievementContent (70).docx

Article Review
Criteria
Levels of Achievement
Content
(70%)
Advanced
92-100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1-83%
Not Present
Total
Summary Content
25 to 27 points
· Each paragraph is written using clear and concise language.
· Student thoroughly discusses the important details from the
article, demonstrating comprehension.
22.5 to 24.5 points
· Student’s review cogently interacts with the article provided.
· A few details and/or examples are given.
1 to 22 points
The student’s review omits one of the key elements in the
article.
0 points
Not present
Key Elements
24 to 26 points
· Student demonstrates understanding of the intent of the article
· Student presents biblical/ethical issues associated with the

article.
· Discusses key elements in the review which are related back to
the concepts within the course.
21.5 to 23.5 points
Student addresses all elements of the assignment.
1 to 21 points
Student’s summary contains superfluous information that does
not reflect the ability to critically "weed-out" trivial content.
0 points
Not present
Structure (30%)
Advanced
92-100%
Proficient
84-91%
Developing
1-83%
Not present
Total
APA
Formatting
9.25 to 10 points
The review meets the length and formatting requirements.
Complete citation is formatted correctly.
Grammar and spelling are correct.
Formatting writing standards are implemented throughout the
essay.
8.5 to 9 points
Review does follow length requirements.
Essay meets the majority of formatting guidelines.
.
1 to 8.25 points
Review fall short of meeting length requirements and formatting
guidelines.
.

0 points
Not present
10
Grammar and Spelling
11 to 12 points
No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
10 to 10.75 points
Minimal grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
1 to 9.75 points
A few grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors
0 points
Not present
12
Professor Comments:
Total:
/75
Assignment Content
1.
Top of Form
Research an example of an intellectual property court case.
Provide a 4- to 6-sentence summary of the case, key players,
and the subsequent ruling.
Submit your assignment.
Bottom of Form
Ethics Implied-in-Fact Contract Prevents Unjust Result
“The appellants produced sufficient evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact regarding whether an implied-in-
fact contract existed between the parties.”
—Graham, Circuit Judge
Thomas Rinks and Joseph Shields created the Psycho Chihuahua

cartoon character, which they promote, market, and license
through their company, Wrench LLC. Psycho Chihuahua is a
clever, feisty cartoon character dog with an attitude, a self-
confident, edgy, cool dog who knows what he wants and will
not back down. Rinks and Shields attended a licensing trade
show in New York City, where they were approached by two
Taco Bell employees, Rudy Pollak, a vice president, and Ed
Alfaro, a creative services manager. Taco Bell owns and
operates a nationwide chain of fast-food Mexican restaurants.
Pollak and Alfaro expressed interest in the Psycho Chihuahua
character for Taco Bell advertisements because they thought his
character would appeal to Taco Bell’s core consumers, males
ages 18 to 24. Pollak and Alfaro obtained some Psycho
Chihuahua materials to take back with them to Taco Bell’s
headquarters.
Later, Alfaro contacted Rinks and asked him to create art boards
combining Psycho Chihuahua with the Taco Bell name and
image. Rinks and Shields prepared art boards and sent them to
Alfaro, along with Psycho Chihuahua T-shirts, hats, and
stickers. Rinks suggested to Alfaro that Taco Bell should use a
live Chihuahua dog manipulated by computer graphic imaging
that had the personality of Psycho Chihuahua and a love for
Taco Bell food. Rinks and Shields gave a formal presentation of
their concept of using an animated dog to Taco Bell’s marketing
department. Taco Bell would not enter into an express contract
with Wrench LLC, Rinks, or Shields.
Just after Rinks and Shields’s presentation, Taco Bell hired a
new outside advertising agency, Chiat/Day. Taco Bell gave
Chiat/Day materials received from Rinks and Shields regarding
Psycho Chihuahua. Three months later, Chiat/Day proposed
using a Chihuahua in Taco Bell commercials. Taco Bell aired its
Chihuahua commercials in the United States, and they became
an instant success and the basis of its advertising. Chiat/Day
says that it conceived the advertising idea by itself. Taco Bell
paid nothing to Wrench LLC or to Rinks and Shields. Plaintiffs
Wrench LLC, Rinks, and Shields sued defendant Taco Bell to

recover damages for breach of an implied-in-fact contract.
A federal court jury found that an implied-in-fact contract
existed and that Taco Bell stole the plaintiffs’ idea for the
commercial. The jury ordered Taco Bell to pay $42 million in
damages to the plaintiffs. Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell
Corporation, 256 F.3d 446, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 15097 (United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2001)Ethics
Questions
1. Did Taco Bell act ethically in this case? Did Chiat/Day act
ethically in this case?
Bottom of Form
Assignment Content
1.
Top of Form
Read the summary of the Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell
Corporation case in the "Ethics: Implied-in-Fact Contract
Prevents Unjust Result" section of Ch. 9 in Legal Environment
of Business. It is suggested that you also research and read the
full court opinion, using the summary in the textbook to aid
your understanding of the legal issues presented.
Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper using Microsoft® Word.
Address the following questions:
· What type of intellectual property was at issue in this case?
Were these ideas entitled to protection under the law?
· Explain the difference between an implied-in-law (quasi
contract) and an implied-in-fact contract. What type of contract
was at issue in this case?
· Explain what the parties could have done differently to protect
their rights and avoid this dispute.
· Explain how a properly written contract could have been
utilized for the licensing and use of the intellectual property to
prevent the issue, and provide terms you would recommend be
included in such a contract.

· Identify and explain each of the elements that would have
been necessary to form a valid contract.
Bottom of Form
A Brief History of Community Economic
Development
Clay, Roger A, Jr; Jones, Susan R . Journal of Affordable
Housing & Community Development Law ;
Chicago Vol. 18, Iss. 3, (Spring 2009): 257-267.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
There is no standard definition of community economic
development (CED). From theoretical and practical
perspectives, CED has been commonly described as a
quintessentially local project, one in which communities
reconstruct dysfunctional markets as a way of reconstituting
social relations and building political strength. As
social policy, CED emphasizes local participation in the design
and implementation of affordable housing, job
creation, and financing programs. Regardless of its

characterizations, the modern CED movement is making
strides to revitalize both urban and rural communities.
Significantly, community lawyers and others specializing in
CED have worked in partnership with community organizers
and other advocates. The Civil Rights era, from the
1950s to the 1970s, is another important juncture in the CED
movement. Community organizations and community
development corporations act as financial intermediaries,
providing technical assistance to local entrepreneurs
and developing shopping centers, supermarkets, and other real
estate projects. The history of CED is the history of
social movements.
FULL TEXT
Introduction: What Is CED?
There is no standard definition of community economic
development (CED). It has been described as a strategy
that includes a wide range of economic activities and programs
for developing low-income communities such as
affordable housing and small business development
from creation and expansion of neighborhood businesses to
larger commercial and retail services - and job
creation, some of which has been accomplished by financing

and operating shopping centers, industrial parks,
retail franchises, and other small businesses. CED also includes
many other initiatives and services to fight
homelessness, lack of jobs, drug abuse, violence and crime,1
and to provide quality child care and medical care as
well as homeownership opportunities.2
As a concept, economic development emerged in response to
tenacious poverty and the need for affordable
housing, good jobs, affordable health care, and other quality-of-
life matters needed for human existence. CED is
broader than economic development because it includes
community building and the improvement of community
life beyond the purely economic.3
From theoretical and practical perspectives, CED "has been
commonly described as a quintessentially local
project, one in which communities reconstruct dysfunctional
markets as a way of reconstituting social relations
and building political strength. As social policy, CED
emphasizes local participation in the design and
implementation of affordable housing, job creation, and
financing programs."4
Regardless of its characterizations, the modern CED movement
is making strides to revitalize both urban and rural

communities. Community development corporations (CDCs)
have been reported to be the largest producers of
affordable housing in the United States.5 At the same time, "for
a field that performs a significant function in our
society, we do not have much information regarding the
important aspects of how it functions."6 Moreover,
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com
/docview/218409794?accountid=12085
/docview/218409794?accountid=12085
"[rjecent community development research explains that this
lack of empirical knowledge is a by-product of a field
that is more art than science."7 And, today, the industry is
experiencing a number of challenges - a human capital
crisis that limits its organizational capacity; an aging
leadership; and pressure on CDCs to expand their reach while
responding to the demands of funders, intermediaries, and
neighborhood residents faster than they can respond.
Many industry observers view community organizing as the
primary hope for community revitalization
nationwide.8
CED emerged in the 1960s in response to calls by activists in
lowincome communities to incorporate local
residents into the process of revitalizing their own communities.

Supported primarily by the federal government
and the Ford Foundation, the movement expanded in the 1970s
to address further deterioration of urban and rural
communities. The deindustrialization of the 1970s and 1980s
intensified public antipoverty and social welfare
efforts, and community organizations became the major vehicles
for delivery of housing and job programs in
lowincome communities. The 1990s ushered in the demise of
welfare, devolution from federal to state
government, and a public policy emphasis on economic self-
sufficiency.9
While early legal representation focused primarily on such
activities as workforce development, business
development, manufacturing, and commercial and retail
services, legal advocacy expanded to embrace the
creation of affordable housing as well as microenterprises and
worker-owned cooperatives, affordable child care
and health care, and the creation of community development
banks and credit unions. Market-based CED
initiatives such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
have spurred new programs such as the New
Markets Tax Credit, one of the most recent economic
development initiatives designed to stimulate investments in
low-income rural and urban communities from commercial real

estate to small business development using tax
credits. At the same time, CED advocates promote economic
justice tools such as living wages; equitable
development; sector employment intervention; and other income
and asset accumulation and wealth-building
strategies, including individual development accounts. The
contemporary CED movement also highlights human
capital development; the importance of social networks; and
creative, environmentally prudent employment
options such as green jobs.
Throughout the evolution of the CED movement, lawyers have
worked with community residents to provide a wide
range of legal services from forming corporations for CDCs to
serving as general counsel for public and private
affordable housing developers. Significantly, community
lawyers and others specializing in CED have worked in
partnership with community organizers and other advocates.
A traditional discussion of the CED movement begins with the
redevelopment and community action programs of
the 1960s, but that discussion provides an inadequate account of
CED in the historical record. Similarly,
conventional critiques of CED fault the implementation of
federal antipoverty programs for narrowly excluding

community input and, hence, undermining community
control.10 In this chapter, we place CED within a larger
historical, political, and social-struggle framework.
The Pre-Civil Rights Era
The concept of CED had its roots early in thel900s in the
notorious historical dialogue between Booker T.
Washington and WE. B. DuBois over the best way to achieve
economic and political power for newly emancipated
African American slaves. Washington, the founder of the famed
Tuskegee Institute, advocated an economic
nationalist perspective urging blacks to seek economic self-
sufficiency, deemphasizing civil rights and social
equality. Arguing that black advancement would be created
through programs of industrial training and
entrepreneurship, along with pragmatic political views of the
existing legal and social order of the day he
advocated the importance of hard work, industry, thrift, and
property ownership. To implement these views,
Washington instituted a rigorous curriculum of vocational skills
training in trades that he believed would result in
black wealth accumulation. He established and presided over
the National Business League, promoting black
business networks to support black enterprise and organized
"buy black" campaigns and counseling services to

help black-owned small businesses. Washington's overarching
goal was to build a viable black economic
infrastructure as a foundation for political and civil rights.11
Publicly rejecting Washington's strategy, DuBois became most
prominently associated with the ideas of cultivating
college-educated black leaders, the "Talented Tenth," to lead
the charge for racial equality. But basically, DuBois
and Washington had very similar views on the importance of
economic independence and black entrepreneurship.
Later in his career, DuBois advocated black economic
development and the importance of strong black
communities in America and proposed the organization of
black-owned business cooperatives. Although
Washington is best remembered as the forefather of market-
based economic nationalism to uplift blacks, in reality,
Washington and Dubois both advocated the importance of black
business creation and expansion.12
Civil rights activism was also shaped in the 1920s by Marcus
Garvey leader of the United Negro Improvement
Association (UNIA), who advocated a "back to Africa"
migration of blacks and independence from white control
through expansion of black businesses and the creation of UNIA

cooperatives. Black business development
continued to be a central tenet of other groups, such as National
Urban League created in 1920(13) and the Nation
of Islam established in the early 1930s.14 Economic nationalist
principles continue to be espoused today by many
other activists and scholars. Significantly, economic
development public policy decisions continue to be based on
nationalist assumptions about the importance of creating viable
market-based structures in communities based
on geography and homogenous neighborhoods.
The Civil Rights Era
The Civil Rights era, from the 1950s to the 1970s, is another
important juncture in the CED movement.15 Although
economic nationalism remained an important component of the
movement, the 1960s marked the advent of mass-
based direct action, grassroots campaigns to achieve legal
equality and political enfranchisement. This period
reflected the complementary goals of civil rights activism and
large-scale political strategies, which embraced
local economic realities, to redress inequality.
Notwithstanding the success of the civil rights movement, by
the mid1960s many civil rights activists were
dissatisfied with the "mainstream integrationist strategies" that

they perceived as benefiting the black middle
class and inadequately addressing the needs of poor citizens.16
In response to this growing dissatisfaction, civil
rights organizations such as the South Christian Leadership
Conference (SCLC) devised strategies to explicitly
address economic disadvantage.17 To illustrate, in addition to
struggling for political equality in the South, SCLC
advocated for better economic conditions in urban ghettos. In
1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. launched the Poor
Peoples Movement, a hallmark of SCLC's strategy. Dr. King
demanded an economic bill of rights, including full
employment, decent pay and housing. Other civil rights
organizations, such as the Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE) started in 1942(18) and the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee, which operated from 1960 to
1966,19 also incorporated economic issues into their missions.
As a direct result of grassroots attention to poverty and
inequality, the federal government began social policy
programs that created the foundation for the CED movement.
Although urban renewal initiatives had taken place in
earlier decades, the 1950s and 1960s ushered in specific policy
frameworks targeted at geographically defined
communities, aimed to redress concentrated poverty and urban
disinvestment.20

The federal government's neighborhood-based approach was
inspired by Ford Foundation programs, specifically,
the Mobilization for Youth in New York City and the Gray
Areas Project in New Haven, Connecticut. Created in the
early 1960s, these programs sought to provide education, job
training, and family services to disadvantaged
communities.21
The Ford Foundation's approach to urban revitalization was
memorialized in President Lyndon B. Johnson's War
on Poverty. In 1964, that federal policy led to the enactment of
the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) and the
Community Action Program (CAP). CAP delegated authority to
local "community action agencies," which were
charged to conduct "education, health, job training, housing,
social services, and economic development"
programs. Its purpose was to create "maximum feasible
participation" in the programs by community residents,
thereby increasing community control over antipoverty
initiatives. Although EOA was criticized for being
ineffective in advancing political participation in local
economic development, it did lead to the creation of CDCs.
Specifically, the EOA was amended by the 1966 Special Impact
Program (SIP), which allocated federal funds to

support CDCs, nonprofit organizations designed to aid urban
redevelopment. As a direct result of the SIP, nearly
one hundred CDCs were organized to create jobs in low-income
communities.22 In addition, EOA funded the
Insight Center for Community Economic Development
(originally the National Housing and Development Law
Project) to assist the over 2,000 legal service attorneys around
the country working on CED matters and to provide
legal support for federally funded community development
corporations. Over the years, the Insight Center has
supported the creation of over 500 CDCs. In the 1972
amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act, Title VII
greatly increased the federal government's commitment to CDCs
as a vehicle of community-based development
and authorized a more comprehensive range of activities.
"If there is a 'ground zero' in the [modern] community
development field, it must be the events leading to the
formation of the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation in
Brooklyn, New York."23 In 1966, Senator Robert
Kennedy toured Bedford Stuyvesant, a predominantly African
American community undergoing civil unrest
because of race, poverty, and political exclusion. This
experience led Kennedy and his staff to pursue a strategy

that linked self-help to political power and capital structures
outside communities. The goal was to break
community isolation by linkages to communities of power and
prestige. The Brooklyn experiment captured
national attention, and it was used as the basis for supporting
other programs in urban and rural areas.24
The unifying thread in federal policies was devolution of
decision making from the federal government to the
states. Under the auspices of advancing local control and
inspired by civil rights advocacy, the Johnson
administration instituted the 1966 Model Cities Program to help
distressed communities while involving local
residents in the program. The Model Cities Program was
terminated in 1974 by the Ford administration, which then
created the Community Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG). CDBG funds are allocated to states and
municipalities through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Local jurisdictions then have
discretion to develop strategies appropriate for local needs.
Thereafter, the Carter administration continued the
concept of providing federal funding for discretionary spending
with the Urban Development Action Grants
Program.25

The next phase of the CED movement was characterized not by
a "neighborhood-based, self-sufficiency paradigm"
but an alternative antipoverty model that stimulated grassroots
political action and a "broad-based, redistributive
economic agenda." In this model, influenced by community
organizer Saul Alinsky, founder of the Industrial Areas
Foundation, advocates "worked to build local power, creative
indigenous leadership and mobilize the poor." This
phase of the movement represented a blend of new insights from
the civil rights movement along with community-
organizing principles to create "cross racial alliances for
economic justice."26
The community action agencies under CAP became laboratories
for welfare rights organizing that gained
momentum because thousands of qualified neighborhood
residents were not getting their benefits. Neighborhood-
based organizations worked to train welfare recipients to
become advocates, and "mass benefit campaigns"
followed. In 1967, the National Welfare Rights Organization
(NWRO) was created by George Wiley, CORE'S former
associate national director, and the idea of a national welfare
rights movement developed from collaborations
among Wiley, Frances Fox Piven, and Richard Coward. Piven
and Coward, famed authors of the book Poor People's

Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, argued that a
movement to expand welfare benefits to millions of
needy Americans would force the federal government to reform
the system and impose a national guaranteed
income. It was also hoped that increased welfare benefits would
led to a national NWRO membership base and a
foundation for meaningful political power.27
NWRO was governed by Wiley and the "founding mothers," a
group of welfare recipients. Acting as a coordinating
center for the welfare rights movement, NWRO had 22,000
dues-paying members at its peak. Collaborating with
SCLC, which organized the Poor People's Campaign, NWRO
challenged welfare policies forcing welfare offices to
pay grants for rent, food, clothing, and furniture (the
availability of which few recipients knew about). These
campaigns educated others and helped NWRO to grow to the
point that it was even able to defeat President
Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan, an inadequate
replacement for Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC).28
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, faced with opposition and
declining membership, welfare rights advocates

questioned the limited focus on welfare and sought a broader
reform agenda. Wiley started a new organization, the
Movement for Economic Justice, which created grassroots
coalitions of the working poor, middle class, and
welfare recipients. At the same time, the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was
founded by Wade Rathke, formerly of NWRO, after he moved to
Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1970. There, he worked on
a multiracial, multiclass organizing strategy. ACORN's goal as
an issue-based organizing group was to support the
poor and working class. It accomplished this goal by entering
electoral politics and advocating a poor people's
agenda that included free medical benefits, elimination of the
state income tax for low-income taxpayers, lifeline
electric rates and property taxes, and higher welfare benefits.29
By the end of the 1970s, ACORN had expanded into twenty
states, promoting public participation in the democratic
process by low- and moderate-income people. Remarkably, what
NWRO and ACORN accomplished was a shift
from a "nationalist emphasis on community-based business
ownership and the locally targeted revitalization
efforts of CDCs" to "the emergence of a distinct antipoverty
approach that used grassroots political action to
promote economic justice."30 The 1980s paved the way for yet

another shift away from political action to "a
localized, marketoriented" approach to CED characterized by
public-private partnerships.31
The 1970s-1990s
The end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s witnessed the
creation of community development
intermediaries such as the Local Initiatives Support Corporation
(LISC) and the Enterprise Foundation, now known
as Enterprise Community Partners, which "presaged a move
toward consolidation and institutionalizing the best of
the early programmatic experiments."32 Housing became a
major focus of CDCs in the late 1980s with the advent
of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and the Community
Reinvestment Act.33
The 1980s witnessed a strong backlash against the public
entitlement programs of earlier years, and the
administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
significantly cut back government sponsored antipoverty
programs. The efficacy of federal spending on AFDC and other
means-tested public assistance programs was
questioned given increases from $7.8 billion in 1960 to $40.7
billion in 1976.34 Fueled by a neoconservative
agenda, under the Reagan administration, welfare cutbacks were
the main target. Some of these benefits were

reduced or dramatically terminated when Reagan signed the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 during an
economic recession. The administration's program of supply-
side economics provided tax cuts to corporations
and upperincome individuals. Privatization and fiscal
conservatism, hallmarks of the Reagan years, created greater
income disparities. Many other benefits to the poor such as food
stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance were
also cut. At the same time, the decade witnessed structural
shifts to the economy, the exodus of high-paying
manufacturing jobs from urban areas, low-wage worker
insecurity, and the resulting "spatial concentration of
joblessness and poverty"35
Given the political and economic climate of the Reaganomics
era, CED advocates assimilated the dominant
market-based ideology into approaches to tackle urban poverty,
and CDCs became critical for implementing this
approach. Given the economic scarcity of the times, CDCs,
proven vehicles for dealing with local poverty, also
presented a politically viable self-help approach to antipoverty
through the promotion of public-private
partnerships.36
Although the inauguration of President Bill Clinton signaled a

renewed hope for social justice, his administration's
policies did not substantially improve conditions in low-income,
distressed communities. His neoliberal agenda
was characterized by international free trade, deregulation of
global financial and capital markets, and privatization
of public enterprises. Domestically, the Clinton administration
put an "end to welfare as we know it" by abolishing
AFDC and replacing it with Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF). This new regime imposed mandatory
work requirements and time limits on benefits. Between 1992
and 1998, federal spending on family supports
declined along with funding for food stamps and other nutrition
assistance programs. Transfer payments to
lowincome families through the expansion of the Earned Income
Tax Credit did not make up for reductions in
welfare. During the Clinton years, there were also large
spending cuts on education, income security, science, and
transportation while the wealthiest people benefited.37
Counterintuitively, Clinton's neoliberalism, which facilitated
the creation of flexible markets, ultimately made it
more difficult for low-income workers to secure living-wage
jobs. Expanded global markets and liberalized trade

drove down wages and impeded union organizing. Welfare
reform pushed more workers into an already crowded
labor market. The Clinton administration's response to poverty
represented another major political shift - the
Democratic Party's break from historic commitments to
traditional antipoverty programs and the emergence of a
neoliberal, probusiness agenda. Poverty-alleviation programs
became market-expansion programs. This is most
apparent with Clinton's 1993 Empowerment Zone Program, an
effort to expand business activities in certain low-
income communities by offering tax benefits to employers in
geographically defined zones. Toward the end of
Clinton's term, Congress passed his New Markets Tax Credit
Program, designed to spur private-sector equity
investments in businesses located in low-income
communities.38 Both New Markets Tax Credits and the creation
of the Community Development Financial Institution Fund of
the Treasury Department have been credited with
encouraging commercial real estate development and small
business loans in some low-income communities.
The administration of George W Bush largely diverted attention
from domestic matters to the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq, and the market-based focus of CED continued. That
administration's attention to faith-based initiatives

may have accounted for a renewed attention to strengthening
faithbased community development
organizations.39
The Contemporary CED Movement
The contemporary CED movement is focused on market-based
principles to remedy poverty. The premise is that
the markets in low-income communities do not work well;
accordingly, the remedy is to stimulate them. The
movement's goal is to "restructure market incentives to leverage
private investment for the development of
community-based-business, affordable housing, and financial
institutions."40 To that end, CED strategies promote
local business development as a way to create jobs for low-
income people. Community organizations and CDCs
act as financial intermediaries, providing technical assistance to
local entrepreneurs and developing shopping
centers, supermarkets, and other real estate projects. In addition
to affordable housing production, a mainstay in
the field, microenterprise and nonprofit business ventures have
become economic growth stimulants. Increasing
access to financial institutions is another CED tool that has
been anchored by the Community Development
Financial Institutions Act of 1994.

The focus of this work is on localism, also called a place-based
strategy. It involves the notion that bottom-up
social change involving active community participation must
take place within geographic areas. Community
empowerment is achieved by "exerting ongoing influence over
local decision-making in a way that ensures the
development efforts are responsive to community needs."41
Market-based CED is not without its critics, who caution that
this approach does not adequately address poverty.
They point to studies that show that CDCs not only fail to
alleviate poverty but help make conditions worse by "
'disorganizing' existing social and political structures and
facilitating gentrification." Another criticism is that
market-based CED depoliticizes antipoverty advocacy and
hinders progressive social movements by focusing on
capital inflow. Some of these CDCs have had to distance
themselves from the kind of political engagement that
addresses the problems associated with concentrated poverty.
Critics further lament that this focus on market-based CED
privileges local incrementalism over broad structural
reform. The focusing on localism does not change the structure
of poverty. Finally, critics assert that the market
focus of CED impedes the formation of cross-racial alliances.
Because the focus is on "enclaves of economic

distress,"42 this model relies on "existing spatial distribution of
poverty and does not address the nexus between
poverty concentration and residential segregation - leaving
unchallenged the racial cleavages that dissect urban
geographies."43 Providing a new lens on the contemporary CED
movement, this critique will, hopefully, help to
advance the field.
Conclusion
The history of CED is the history of social movements. At the
same time, it has matured into an "industry" complete
with internal supports in the form of CDCs; funding
intermediaries; and federal, state, and local agencies. Because
resources have been needed to support the industry's
revitalization work, few efforts have been devoted to
understanding the industry itself. Going forward, it will be
important to address leadership challenges as first-
phase CED practitioners, charismatic leaders who learned on the
job, are "aging out."44 Many CED leaders, after
the 1980s, "came to the field after careers in law, banking, the
foundation world, and other allied fields. Better
prepared for leadership, they possessed more career mobility
than did their predecessors."45 The industry may

hold steady with a stream of "career changers," but there is no
guarantee.46 Accordingly, the industry could benefit
from "a level of standardization and rationalization of training
efforts."
References
1. ROLAND V. ANGLIN, U.S. DEPT. OF HOUS. &URBAN
DEV., BUILDING THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT BUILD
COMMUNITIES: STRENGTHENING THE CAPACITY OF
COMMUNITYBASED DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS
(2004), available at www.huduser.org/Publi
cations/pdf/buldOrgCommunities.pdf.
2. Lauren Breen et al., An Annotated Bibliography of
Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, 13 J.
Affordable Housing &Community Dev. L. 324, 336 (2004). See
also Susan R. Jones, Small Business and
Community Economic Development: Transactional Lawyering
for Social Change and Economic Justice, 4
CLINICAL L. REV. 195, N.2 (CITING NAT'L ECON. DEV.
&L. CTR., LAWYERS MANUAL TO COMMUNITY-BASED
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, at 1-1 to -3 (rev. 1994); Rachel
D. Godsil &James S. Freeman, Jobs, Trees, and
Autonomy; The Convergence of the Environmental Justice
Movement and Community Economic Development, 5

MD. CONTEMP. L. ISSUES 25, 30 (1993-94); John Little,
Practicing Community Corporate Law, CLEARINGHOUSE
REV. 889 (Nov. 1989); Frank Pommersheim, Economic
Development in Indian Country, What Are the Questions? ,
12 AM. INDIAN L. REV. 195, 202 (1987); Anthony D. Taibi,
Banking, Finance and Community Economic
Empowerment; Structural Economic Theory, Procedural Civil
Rights and Substantive Racial Justice, 107 HARV. L.
REV. 1463 (1994) (examining the economic structures that
produce substantive injustices and supporting the
need for a populist community empowerment economic and
public policy discourse).
3. Supra note 2.
4. Scott L. Cummings, Global Local Linkages in the Community
Development Field, in PROGRESSIVE LAWYERING,
GLOBALIZATION AND MARKETS: RETHINKING
IDEOLOGY AND STRATEGY (Clare Dalton ed., 2006).
5. Roland V. Anglin &Rolando D. Herts, Limitations to
Organization and Leadership Progress in Community
Development: An Overview, in Building the Organizations That
Build Communities, supra note 1, at 12.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 13.

8. Id. at 14-15.
9. See generally Scott L. Cummings, Community Economic
Development As Progressive Politics: Toward a
Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice, 54 Stan. L. Rev.
399, 410 (2001).
10. Id.
11. id. at 410-11.
12. Id. at 411.
13. See www.nul.org. (last visited Mar. 14, 2009).
14. See www.noi.org. (last visited Mar. 14, 2009).
15. W. Sherman Rogers, The Black Quest for Economic Liberty:
Legal, Historical and Related Considerations, 48:1
How. LJ. 86-92 (2004).
16. Cummings, supra note 9, at 413-14.
17. Id. at 414; Susan R. Jones, An Economic Justice Imperative,
19 Wash. U. J.L. &Pol'y 39 (2005).
18. See www.sclcnational.org. (last visited Mar. 14, 2009).
19. See www.ibiblio.org./sncc (last visited Mar. 14, 2009).
20. Cummings, supra note 9, at 414.
21. Id. at 415.

22. Id.
23. Anglin, supra note 1, at 15.
24. Id., at 15-16.
25. Cummings, supra note 9, at 416-17.
26. Id.
27. Id. at 418.
28. Id. at 419. Information about the failed Family Assistance
Plan can be found at
www/pbs.org/wgbh/amer/presidents/37-nixon/Nixon-domestic/
html (last visited Mar. 16, 2009).
30. Id. at 421.
31. Id.
33. Id. at 17; see generally TIM IGLESIAS &ROCHELLE E.
LENTO, THE LEGAL GUIDE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT (ABA Publishing 2005).
35. Id. at 434-24; see also Rochelle E. Lento, Clinton's Last

Stand, 10 J. AFFORDABLE HOUSING &COMMUNITY
DEV. L. 113-16 (2001).
37. Id. at 422-29.
38. Id.
39. Anglin, supra note 1 .
41. Id. at 444.
42. Id. at 457.
43. Id.
45. Id.
46. Id.
AuthorAffiliation
Roger A. Clay Jr. is the president of the Insight Center for
Community Economic Development in Oakland,
California. Susan R. Jones is a professor of clinical law and the
director of the Small Business &Community
Economic Development Clinic at The George Washington
University Law School in Washington, D.C.

This article is from the ABA Forum on Affordable Housing
&Community Development Law's Building Stronger
Communities: A Guide to Community Economic Development
for Advocates, Lawyers and Policymakers, edited by
Roger A. Clay Jr. and Susan R. Jones. It will be available in
early August 2009 from ABA Book Publishing.
DETAILS
Subject: Social activism; Civil rights; Community development
corporations; Affordable
housing; Poverty
Location: United States--US
Classification: 9190: United States; 1200: Social policy; 8120:
Retail banking services
Publication title: Journal of Affordable Housing &Community
Development Law; Chicago
LINKS
Get It At Liberty
Volume: 18

Issue: 3
Pages: 257-267
Number of pages: 11
Publication year: 2009
Publication date: Spring 2009
Section: Articles
Publisher: American Bar Association
Place of publication: Chicago
Country of publication: United States, Chicago
Publication subject: Law, Housing And Urban Planning
ISSN: 10842268
Source type: Trade Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: References
ProQuest document ID: 218409794
Document URL:
/docview/2184097

94?accountid=12085
Copyright: Copyright American Bar Association Spring 2009
Last updated: 2012-09-12
Database: SciTech Premium Collection,Entrepreneurship
Database,Social Science Premium
Collection,ProQuest Central
https://liberty.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/01LIBU_INST/0
1LIBU_INST:Services??url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&
sid=ProQ:ProQ:abiglobal&atitle=A%20Brief%20History%20of
%20Community%20Economic%20Development&title=Journal%
20of%20Affordable%20Housing%20&%20Community%20Deve
lopment%20Law&issn=10842268&date=2009-04-
01&volume=18&issue=3&spage=257&au=Clay,%20Roger%20A
,%20Jr;Jones,%20Susan%20R&isbn=&jtitle=Journal%20of%20
Affordable%20Housing%20&%20Community%20Development
%20Law&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/
Database copyright
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://www.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontactA Brief History
of Community Economic Development

Article ReviewCriteriaLevels of AchievementContent (70).docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Article ReviewCriteriaLevels of AchievementContent (70).docx

Similar to Article ReviewCriteriaLevels of AchievementContent (70).docx (20)

More from rossskuddershamus

More from rossskuddershamus (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Article ReviewCriteriaLevels of AchievementContent (70).docx