Rethinking community benefits agreements

Abstract

Across the United States, conflicts often erupt when large-scale real estate development projects are proposed and executed in low-income neighborhoods of large cities. Communities increasingly ask for benefits to offset negative impacts caused by new development. These requests often take the form of negotiated contracts called Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs). CBAs are the subject of some debate, especially as regards their effectiveness, legality, and fairness. Community groups, developers, and city officials all have different views on this topic. In this thesis, the CBA debate is examined in light of five New York City-based case studies involving controversial benefits negotiations. While CBAs can lead to greater benefits for some communities, the ad hoc nature of the agreements and the ways in which they are negotiated pose serious risks. I offer a new process for managing public benefits negotiations.