A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Early Lessons From Detroit’s Community Benefits Ordinance
In 2016, Detroiters (MI) voted to pass the first-ever community benefits ordinance (CBO), a law that requires developers to negotiate with a council of local residents to agree on a set of community benefits. Drawing from the goals and the structure of community benefits agreements that have become popular since the 1990s, this ordinance has won Detroit communities benefits like locally sourced jobs, affordable housing, green space, and streetscape improvements. Scholars have evaluated many cases of community benefits agreements, and some authors claim that codifying community benefits agreements through policy is the next step to ensuring their political viability and stability. Using Detroit’s CBO as a case, I aim to uncover the successes and challenges of implementing the ordinance. I answer this question through a qualitative analysis of policies and interviews with residents, planners, developers, and activists (n = 45). I find that the ordinance is successful in its establishment of agreements for 10 projects where communities have secured more than 160 distinct benefits. However, just as with traditional community benefits agreements, the formalization of community benefits through planning policy is still subject to several shortcomings. These include a negotiation timeline that often favors developers and uneven access to development and policy knowledge.
CBOs can be opportunities for inclusion in development decisions and can bring important resources to communities. However, cities should note the need to provide training to neighborhood advisory council members and allocate the resources to do so. They should also reconcile the timeline for negotiations preferred by communities with the often hurried timelines of developers.
Early Lessons From Detroit’s Community Benefits Ordinance
In 2016, Detroiters (MI) voted to pass the first-ever community benefits ordinance (CBO), a law that requires developers to negotiate with a council of local residents to agree on a set of community benefits. Drawing from the goals and the structure of community benefits agreements that have become popular since the 1990s, this ordinance has won Detroit communities benefits like locally sourced jobs, affordable housing, green space, and streetscape improvements. Scholars have evaluated many cases of community benefits agreements, and some authors claim that codifying community benefits agreements through policy is the next step to ensuring their political viability and stability. Using Detroit’s CBO as a case, I aim to uncover the successes and challenges of implementing the ordinance. I answer this question through a qualitative analysis of policies and interviews with residents, planners, developers, and activists (n = 45). I find that the ordinance is successful in its establishment of agreements for 10 projects where communities have secured more than 160 distinct benefits. However, just as with traditional community benefits agreements, the formalization of community benefits through planning policy is still subject to several shortcomings. These include a negotiation timeline that often favors developers and uneven access to development and policy knowledge.
CBOs can be opportunities for inclusion in development decisions and can bring important resources to communities. However, cities should note the need to provide training to neighborhood advisory council members and allocate the resources to do so. They should also reconcile the timeline for negotiations preferred by communities with the often hurried timelines of developers.
Early Lessons From Detroit’s Community Benefits Ordinance
Berglund, Lisa (author)
Journal of the American Planning Association ; 87 ; 254-265
2021-04-03
12 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
Unknown
Democratizing design: possibilities for Detroit’s community benefits ordinance
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2021
Engineering Index Backfile | 1914
| Engineering Index Backfile | 1930
Engineering Index Backfile | 1946