2026-09-20T09:20:55Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/668022022-01-13T07:54:44Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Lawrence Susskind.
Economos, Rebecca (Rebecca Elizabeth)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning
n-us---
2011-11-01T19:46:36Z
2011-11-01T19:46:36Z
2011
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/66802
757142678
Thesis (M.C.P.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, June 2011.
"June 2011." Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 81-84).
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.
by Rebecca Economos.
M.C.P.
84 p.
eng
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.I.T. theses are protected by
copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but
reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written
permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
Urban Studies and Planning.
Rethinking community benefits agreements
Thesis
application/pdf
false
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="e31260b4-1f0c-41c9-bd6e-cf3410f5e6a5">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Language>eng</Language>
<Title>Rethinking community benefits agreements</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2011</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Economos, Rebecca (Rebecca Elizabeth)</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License>
<Keyword>Urban Studies and Planning.</Keyword>
<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.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>