In some cases, the community profit terms of a CBA may be included in an agreement between the local government and the developer, for example.B. in a development contract or lease. This agreement gives the local government the power to enforce the conditions of community benefits. Some local officials trying to promote the use of CBAs in their cities have considered guidelines requiring developers to negotiate CBAs. The Community Benefits Law Center generally advises against this approach for two reasons: (1) It is not clear who will negotiate in such circumstances on behalf of the “community” and the process could be co-opted by better-connected and well-equipped interests; and (2) In the case of projects that are not subsidized (or that are subject to a government agreement), the CBA may be subject to the same legal restrictions that govern the conditions of project approval, thereby limiting the types of community services that may be included. Columbia University signed a $150 million CBA with the West Harlem Local Development Corporation (WHDC) in 2009 as part of the expansion of its Manhattanville campus in West Harlem. The funds were raised as part of the university`s capital campaign and are managed by WHDC, an organization made up of local community representatives and the local city council mandated by the city for this area. The developer agreed to allocate $76 million in a social benefits fund for distribution by WHDC, $20 million for an affordable housing fund, and $4 million for mutual legal assistance for local residents. In mid-2017, WHDC led $12.6 million to 159 nonprofit organizations that provide neighborhood services in areas such as education, housing, human resource development, and the arts. In the absence of state intervention, private real estate developers and businesses generally see little economic incentive to pay a living wage or offer other benefits to local communities. A living wage is probably higher than the living wage on which Marx wrote ([1867] in 2004). Employers are encouraged to pay workers a living wage that allows them to guarantee a supply of labour. However, in modern urban environments with high unemployment rates, the oversupply of labour means that employers do not have to pay high wages to workers to maintain the level of full employment of their firms (Parker, 1994); Peck and Theodore 2001).
So are Community fund agreements beneficial for communities? Based on the Kingsbridge National Ice Centre`s CBA case study, the answer is yes: BCAs can benefit municipalities when an inclusive and representative community coalition negotiates with a developer to obtain a mandatory CBA without government as a party to the agreement. While the question of whether the Kingsbridge National Ice Centre will be developed and the conditions of the CBA will be implemented, the community coalition participation and developer negotiation model is a powerful model that has considerable potential for impact. There are many other examples of CBA campaigns that show how municipalities are working to share the economic benefits and avoid displacement of neighborhood residents. Social benefit agreements entered urban development at a time when the federal government cut funding for cities. Metropolitan governments have cracked down on redistributive policies and worried about the interests of businesses and higher-income residents. and severe economic distress has penetrated low-income urban communities, especially communities of color. In this historical-political context, community coalitions have organized themselves to fulfill functions that the government does not have. . . .
