Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Partnership for Working Families (2016) describes the parties to the LAX CBA as not including a private developer.

  2. 2.

    Janis (2007, pp. 17–18) provides the most comprehensive list.

  3. 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. 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. 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. 6.

    Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922).

  7. 7.

    See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).

  8. 8.

    See Marcello (2007, p. 659) (describing Denver plan where city representatives participated in negotiations).

  9. 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.forworkingfamilies.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. 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. 11.

    483 U.S. 825 (1987).

  12. 12.

    512 U.S. 374 (1994).

  13. 13.

    Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2595 (2013).

  14. 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. 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. 16.

    Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2595 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 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. 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).

  20. 20.

    United Nations, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc (Global Compact mission); https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/participants/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search%5Bkeywords%5D=&search%5Borganization_types%5D%5B%5D=2&search%5Borganization_types%5D%5B%5D=5&search%5Bper_page%5D=10&search%5Bsort_field%5D=&search%5Bsort_direction%5D=asc (9000 businesses).

  21. 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).

References

  • Baxamusa, M. (2008). Empowering communities through deliberation: The model of community benefits agreements. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(3), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston Properties. (2016). Sustainability report 2015. Retrieved June 7, 2016, from http://www.bostonproperties.com/pdf/2015BXPSustainabilityReport.pdf

  • Byrne, J. B., & Zyla, K. A. (2016). Climate exactions. Maryland Law Review, 75(3), 758–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, C. (2014). Negotiating with the growth machine: Community benefits agreements and value-conscious growth. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 937–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A. E. (2013). Community benefit agreements: A symptom, not the antidote, of bilateral land use regulation. Brooklyn Law Review, 78(2), 355–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Effective Corporate Philanthropy. (2015). Giving in numbers: 2015 edition. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from http://cecp.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GIN2015_FINAL_web-1.pdf?redirect=no

  • DeBarbieri, E. W. (2016). Do community benefits agreements benefit communities? Cardozo Law Review, 37(5), 796–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagle, S. J. (2014). Koontz in the mansion and the gatehouse. The Urban Lawyer, 46(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echeverria, J. D. (2014). Koontz: The very worst takings decision ever? New York University Environmental Law Journal, 22(1), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellickson, R. C. (1977). Suburban growth controls: An economic and legal analysis. Yale Law Journal, 86(3), 385–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. A. (2013, 25 June). Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District: Of issues resolved—And shoved under the table. Point of Law.com : Information and Opinion on the U.S. Litigation System. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://pointoflaw.com/columns/2013/06/

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, L. A. (2000). Hard bargains and real steals: Land use exactions revisited. Iowa Law Review, 86(1), 1–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, L. A., & Penalver, E. M. (2014). Exactions creep. Supreme Court Review, 2013(1), 287–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischel, W. A. (1995). Regulatory takings: Law, economics, and politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest City. (2015). Built on purpose: Corporate social responsibility report 2014. Retrieved June 7, 2016, from http://csr.forestcity.today/

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J., LeRoy, G. & Janis-Aparicio, M. (2005). Community benefits agreements: Making development projects accountable. Good Jobs First and the California Partnership for Working Families. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/publications/community-benefits-agreements-making-development-projects-accountable

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, L. (2016, May 24). Leaders applaud first-of-its-kind community benefits agreement with Milwaukee bucks. Shepherd Express. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from http://shepherdexpress.com/article-27871-leaders-applaud-first-of-its-kind-community-benefits-agreement-with-milwaukee-bucks-news-features.html

  • Korngold, A. (2014). A Better World, Inc.: How companies profit by solving global problems…where governments cannot. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2015). Currents of change, the KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Retrieved February 18, 2017, from https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/02/kpmg-international-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2015.pdf

  • Krasnowiecki, J. (1980). Abolish zoning. Syracuse Law Review, 31(3), 717–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandelker, D. R. (2003). Land use law. Newark, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, N. J. (2015). What do community benefits agreements deliver? Evidence from Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association, 81(4), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcello, D. A. (2007). Community benefit agreements: New vehicle for Investment in America’s neighborhoods. The Urban Lawyer, 39(3), 657–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, T. W. (1995). Dolan v. City of Tigard: Constitutional rights as public goods. Denver University Law Review, 72(4), 859–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, T. A. (2012). The sleeping giant: Community benefit agreements and urban development. The Urban Lawyer, 44(4), 827–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, M. (2010). The constitutionality of community benefits agreements: Addressing the exaction problem. The Urban Lawyer, 43(1), 587–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • New York City Bar. (2010). The role of community benefits agreements in New York City’s land use process. Retrieved January 20, 2017, from http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20071844-TheRoleofCommunityBenefitAgreementsinNYCLandUseProcess.pdf

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for Working Families. (2016). Policy and tools: Community benefits agreements and policies in effect. Retrieved January 13, 2017, from http://www.forworkingfamilies.org/page/policy-tools-community-benefits-agreements-and-policies-effect

  • Rose, C. M. (1983). Planning and dealing: Piecemeal land controls as a problem of local legitimacy. California Law Review, 71(3), 837–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulane Law School Public Law Center. (2011). Summary and index of community benefit agreements. Retrieved January 20, 2017, from http://www.law.tulane.edu/uploadedFiles/Institutes_and_Centers/Public_Law_Center/Summary%20and%20Index%20of%20%20Community%20Benefit%20Agreements.pdf

  • United Nations. (n.d.). Global compact. Retrieved from https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc

  • Wolf-Powers, L. (2010). Community benefits agreements and local government. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Cases

  • Apple v. Atlantic Yards Development Corporation, LLC, 2014 WL 5450030 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • C&M Developers v. Bedminster Township Zoning Hearing Bd., 820 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowerk v. Charter Township of Oxford, 592 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. App. 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale v. Osborn Coal Enterprises, Inc., 729 So. 2d 853 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Village of Moreland Hills, 107 Ohio St. 3d 339 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzo v. Township of Marlboro, 838 A.2d 534, aff’d, 838 A.2d 463 (N.J. App. Div. 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayor & Council v. Rylyns Enterprises, 814 A.2d 469 (Md. 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks v. Douglas County, 904 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York Law School, New York, NY, USA

    Gerald Korngold

Authors
  1. Gerald Korngold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald Korngold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Radzyner Law School, Gazit-Globe Real Estate Institute, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Amnon Lehavi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Korngold, G. (2018). Community Benefits Agreements: Flexibility and Inclusion in U.S. Zoning. In: Lehavi, A. (eds) One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66869-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation