Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Split Apart: How Regulations Designated Populations to Different Parts of the City Read chapter Read first chapter

2018 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Community Benefits Agreements: Flexibility and Inclusion in U.S. Zoning

Author : Gerald Korngold

Published in: One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Community benefits agreements (CBAs) have been recently introduced as adjuncts into the traditional U.S. zoning process. These agreements are executed by developers of major real estate projects and community groups representing the neighborhood where the development is to be built. Government often collaborates in CBAs to varying degrees, including participating in the CBA negotiations, or executing the document. CBA provisions usually bind developers in two ways: (1) CBAs impose requirements similar to those of typical land use regulation, focusing on reducing physical negative externalities of the project; (2) CBAs institute community development obligations, including providing jobs and support for community building. Community groups value CBAs because they give greater and more direct control over their neighborhoods and address community enhancement issues not covered by zoning. Many developers believe that neighborhood support through a CBA will help gain any needed governmental approvals. Public policy is served because CBAs bring inclusiveness and transparency to the land regulation process, even though there may be a loss in public planning on a municipal-wide basis.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Rethinking Zoning for People: Utilizing the Concept of the Village
next chapter Zoning in Reunified Berlin
Footnotes
1
Partnership for Working Families (2016) describes the parties to the LAX CBA as not including a private developer.
 
2
Janis (2007, pp. 17–18) provides the most comprehensive list.
 
3
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 336 A.22 713 (N.J.), app. dismissed and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 808 (1975).
 
4
Upholding large lot zoning: Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland Hills, 107 Ohio St. 3d 339 (2006); Manzo v. Township of Marlboro, 838 A.2d 534, aff’d, 838 A.2d 463 (N.J. App. Div. 2003). Striking down large lot zoning: C&M Developers v. Bedminster Township Zoning Hearing Bd., 820 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002).
 
5
See Hale v. Osborn Coal Enterprises, Inc., 729 So. 2d 853 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997); Mayor & Council v. Rylns Enterprises, 814 A.2d 469 (Md. 2002).
 
6
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922).
 
7
See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).
 
8
See Marcello (2007, p. 659) (describing Denver plan where city representatives participated in negotiations).
 
9
See Salkin and Lavine (2008, p. 119) (NoHo Commons CBA may have helped secure unanimous city council approval), p. 125 (government participation in Yale hospital expansion CBA); Partnership for Working Families (2016), http://​www.​forworkingfamili​es.​org/​page/​policy-tools-community-benefits-agreements-and-policies-effect (Knightsbridge Armory CBA in Bronx, NY: “Shortly after announcement of the CBA, the developer who had entered the agreement was selected by the City of New York to build the project”).
 
10
See, e.g., Dowerk v. Charter Township of Oxford, 592 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. App. 1999); Sparks v. Douglas Cty., 904 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1995).
 
11
483 U.S. 825 (1987).
 
12
512 U.S. 374 (1994).
 
13
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2595 (2013).
 
14
Professor Epstein’s praise is only partial as he would have preferred a more “robust critique of all exactions” and a finding that there had been a total taking if government had not rescinded its order (Epstein, 2013).
 
15
See Parks and Warren (2009, pp. 97–98) (contrasting robust California environmental review as providing important general transparency to the community with the limited process in Chicago and other cities and states).
 
16
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2595 (2013).
 
17
Ibid.
 
18
“Net benefits” are the municipal funds spent providing the service for the unit less charges for that service collected from the owner. Ellickson (1977, p. 467).
 
19
Sale of sustainable products represents 21% of revenues among a sample of the S & P Global 100 in 2013; this grew at least six-fold between 2010 and 2013 (Center for Effective Corporate Philanthropy, 2015, p. 8).
 
21
Consider just a few examples: Boston Properties, a leading real estate investment trust, discusses the importance of community engagement in its sustainability report. Boston Properties (2016, p. 18). Forest City, another major REIT, reviews the importance of community development, employment and apprenticeship programs, and women’s and minority businesses in its report. Forest City (2015).
 
Literature
Baxamusa, M. (2008). Empowering communities through deliberation: The model of community benefits agreements. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(3), 261–276.CrossRef
Been, V. (2010). Community benefits agreements: A new local government tool or another variation on the exactions theme? University of Chicago Law Review, 77(1), 5–35.
Byrne, J. B., & Zyla, K. A. (2016). Climate exactions. Maryland Law Review, 75(3), 758–786.
Cain, C. (2014). Negotiating with the growth machine: Community benefits agreements and value-conscious growth. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 937–958.CrossRef
Camacho, A. E. (2013). Community benefit agreements: A symptom, not the antidote, of bilateral land use regulation. Brooklyn Law Review, 78(2), 355–383.
Cardozo, M. A. (2007). The use of ADR involving local governments: The perspective of the New York City Corporation Counsel. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 34(2), 797–812.
DeBarbieri, E. W. (2016). Do community benefits agreements benefit communities? Cardozo Law Review, 37(5), 796–814.
Dougherty, C. (2016, July 4). How anti-growth sentiment, reflected in zoning laws, thwarts equality. New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2016, from http://​www.​nytimes.​com/​2016/​07/​04/​business/​how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts -equality.html?hpw&rref=business&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
Eagle, S. J. (2014). Koontz in the mansion and the gatehouse. The Urban Lawyer, 46(1), 1–31.
Echeverria, J. D. (2014). Koontz: The very worst takings decision ever? New York University Environmental Law Journal, 22(1), 1–55.
Ellickson, R. C. (1977). Suburban growth controls: An economic and legal analysis. Yale Law Journal, 86(3), 385–511.CrossRef
Epstein, R. A. (2015). The bundling problem in takings law: Where the exaction process goes off the rails. Property Rights Conference Journal, 4, 133–149.
Fennell, L. A. (2000). Hard bargains and real steals: Land use exactions revisited. Iowa Law Review, 86(1), 1–84.
Fennell, L. A., & Penalver, E. M. (2014). Exactions creep. Supreme Court Review, 2013(1), 287–358.CrossRef
Fischel, W. A. (1995). Regulatory takings: Law, economics, and politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Furman, J. (2015, November 15). Barriers to shared growth: The case of land use regulation and economic rents. Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisors, The White House.
Janis, M. (2007). Background on community benefits agreements: The process, projects, and the prospects for the future. In Community benefit agreements: The power, practice, and promise of a responsible redevelopment tool (pp. 10–20). Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Korngold, A. (2014). A Better World, Inc.: How companies profit by solving global problems…where governments cannot. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krasnowiecki, J. (1980). Abolish zoning. Syracuse Law Review, 31(3), 717–753.
Laing, B. Y. (2009). Organizing community and labor coalitions for community benefits agreements in African American communities: Ensuring successful partnerships. Journal of Community Practice, 17(1-2), 120–139.CrossRef
Lens, M. C., & Monkkonen, P. (2016). Do strict land use regulations make metropolitan areas more segregated by income? Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(1), 6–21.CrossRef
Mandelker, D. R. (2003). Land use law. Newark, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company.
Marantz, N. J. (2015). What do community benefits agreements deliver? Evidence from Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(4), 251–267.CrossRef
Marcello, D. A. (2007). Community benefit agreements: New vehicle for Investment in America’s neighborhoods. The Urban Lawyer, 39(3), 657–669.
McKean, A. (2015). Local government legislation: Community benefits, land banks, and politically engaged, economic development. Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, 24(1), 133–163.
Merrill, T. W. (1995). Dolan v. City of Tigard: Constitutional rights as public goods. Denver University Law Review, 72(4), 859–888.
Musil, T. A. (2012). The sleeping giant: Community benefit agreements and urban development. The Urban Lawyer, 44(4), 827–851.
Nadler, M. (2010). The constitutionality of community benefits agreements: Addressing the exaction problem. The Urban Lawyer, 43(1), 587–626.
Parks, V., & Warren, D. (2009). The politics and practice of economic justice: Community benefits agreements as tactic of new accountable development movement. Journal of Community Practice, 17(1–2), 88–106.CrossRef
Rose, C. M. (1983). Planning and dealing: Piecemeal land controls as a problem of local legitimacy. California Law Review, 71(3), 837–912.CrossRef
Rosenberg, R. H. (2006). The changing culture of American land use regulation: Paying for growth with impact fees. Southern Methodist University Law Review, 59(3), 177–263.
Saito, L. T. (2012). How low-income residents can benefit from urban development: The LA live community benefits agreement. City and Community, 11(2), 129–150.CrossRef
Salkin, P., & Lavine, A. (2008). Negotiating for social justice and the promise of community benefits agreements: Case studies of current and developing agreements. Journal of Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, 17(1–2), 113–128.
Salkin, P., & Lavine, A. (2009). Community benefits agreements and comprehensive planning: Balancing community empowerment and the policy power. Journal of Law and Policy, 18(1), 157–216.
Severin, C. (2013). We built this city: The legality of community benefit agreements for big box construction under title VII and the equal protection clause. Columbia Journal of Race and Law, 3(2), 215–251.
Siegel, D. L. (2009). Exactions after Lingle: How basing Nollan and Dolan on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine limits their scope. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 28(3), 577–612.
Wolf-Powers, L. (2010). Community benefits agreements and local government. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 141–159.CrossRef
Apple v. Atlantic Yards Development Corporation, LLC, 2014 WL 5450030 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
C&M Developers v. Bedminster Township Zoning Hearing Bd., 820 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002).
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).
Dowerk v. Charter Township of Oxford, 592 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. App. 1999).
Hale v. Osborn Coal Enterprises, Inc., 729 So. 2d 853 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).
Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland Hills, 107 Ohio St. 3d 339 (2006).
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013).
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).
Manzo v. Township of Marlboro, 838 A.2d 534, aff’d, 838 A.2d 463 (N.J. App. Div. 2003).
Mayor & Council v. Rylyns Enterprises, 814 A.2d 469 (Md. 2002).
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.22 713 (N.J.), app. dismissed and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 808 (1975).
Sparks v. Douglas County, 904 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1995).
Metadata
Title
Community Benefits Agreements: Flexibility and Inclusion in U.S. Zoning
Author
Gerald Korngold
Copyright Year
2018
Book
One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66868-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-66869-7

Copyright Year: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66869-7_5