Community Benefit Agreements: The presenters at today's brown bag introduced the idea of what they called "community benefit agreements," legally binding documents meant to push property developers into what the presenters termed "equitable revitalization" that benefits low-wage working families, as well as investors. When large property developments are announced, social justice organizations, environmental groups, labor unions, and affordable housing advocates form coalitions to pressure developers via contracts or a city's regulatory authority to pay living wages to construction workers for example, or set aside units for low-income people in the case of a housing development. The intent is to give local residents, particularly in low-income areas, a way to shape the impact of growth on a community. "It democratizes development," said John Goldstein, one of the presenters and a program director for the Partnership for Working Families.

CBAs have been tried in a number of cities, the presenters said, including Denver, San Diego, Milwaukie, and Atlanta. Most agreements address similar issues, including affordable housing, environmental remediation, a "living wage," and hiring local workers. Types of agreements range from simple private contracts between coalition groups and developers to embedding language on community benefits in financing legislation for projects with a public component.

Seven of the nine council members attended the brown bag; missing were Jan Drago and Richard Conlin. The city council chambers, where the presentation took place, was standing room only. All the council members asked questions, and there was some skepticism about the CBA idea. Tom Rasmussen asked whether the agreements were binding after a property was sold; the answer was that the strategy is too new to judge whether new owners were required to abide by an agreement. Peter Steinbrueck noted that some CBAs rely on "inclusionary zoning"--requirements for affordable housing in zoning rules--something that's not allowed under Washington State law. Sally Clark asked whether the agreements encourage developers to attract tenants who pay more than minimum wage; the answer was that CBA coalitions had to work with developers to make that happen. Council President Nick Licata seemed interested in pursuing CBAs as a strategy to counter-balance the political and economic power of Seattle developers.

It's unclear what Seattle developers might think of CBAs; there were no questions from the audience, and presumably some developers were there. But I can't imagine all would embrace the idea right away.

RE: Community Benefit Agreements: Great report. It'll be interesting to get feedback from the presenters on their reception. The Council seemed interested but skeptical, and one can only sympathize at the beating they've taken over recent years trying to wrangle the most meager of concessions from developers. Peter Steinbrueck's comment, "We're not California," (presumably in response to the L.A. case study) dripped with cynicism.

I actually thought David Della raised the most pertinent point: How do you ensure notice early enough on this stuff to actually have any negotiating leverage or impact? So many projects these days are halfway through DPD before anyone even finds out about them. The other issue I found interesting was that Seattle's economy is doing pretty well in comparison to others. This could be a disincentive to developers to negotiate (rising tide lifts all boats).

Several folks mentioned astonishment at the overflow attendance. And it was a pretty fair cross-section of folks, young and old, professional and working class. But I didn't get a sense of energy or commitment from the conversation, did you? Really, what struck me was the doubtfulness: How do you define a living wage? Affordable housing? Equal access? Those hardly seem to be the stepping off points of a dialogue over CBAs.

--Paul Andrews, Crosscut

RE: Community Benefit Agreements: Thanks for the compliment, Paul. I agree that there didn't seem to be a lot of excitement in the room about CBAs, although that might be a bit of that familiar Seattle reserve. It may take someone, perhaps a local coalition, to try the concept here and then we can observe the results. In other words, the reserve may be interpreted as "Let's wait and see."

The skepticism from Steinbrueck, however, was particularly pointed, as you observed. After all, he's worked for years to get the kind of affordable housing concessions from developers that CBAs are designed to get, and he knows the pitfalls and possibilities. He's also knows the process; one aspects of CBAs is the importance of community input, such as public forums, which could add another layer of process on an already cumbersome system. Perhaps that was another reason for the reserve; we're burned out on process, and the idea of yet more forums on practically anything controversial right now makes people groan.

Also, a small clarification: I just noticed that the handouts use the term "community benefits agreement" not "community benefit agreement" (note the missing "s") as I wrote. Apologies for the oversight.

Joe Follansbee