What Do Community Benefits Agreements Deliver? Evidence From Los Angeles

Nicholas J. Marantz

36 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the American Planning Association

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Urban Planning and Governance Local Governance and Planning Environmental Justice and Health Disparities

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Advocates of community benefits agreements (CBAs) between coalitions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and real estate developers contend that CBAs promote public accountability and responsiveness to community concerns. This study assesses the Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment District (LASED) CBA, which scholars and practitioners have described as a model for such agreements. I assess compliance with key provisions of the agreement related to jobs, affordable housing, and parks and recreational facilities. I also assess whether compliance with these provisions has yielded benefits beyond those required under existing laws and regulations. I find that the parties to the agreement have technically complied with many, although arguably not all, of its provisions. But some of the provisions in the CBA are not legally binding, other provisions overlap with requirements that the developer would have had to satisfy even without the CBA, and some reports required by the CBA are unavailable. As a result, outcomes such as living wage jobs and funding for affordable housing units are not clearly attributable to the CBA; other outcomes, such as targeted hiring, are unknown due to a lack of relevant information.Takeaway for practice: Although CBAs may not fulfill all the claims that advocates make on their behalf, they can play important roles in community development by directing public and private spending to underserved neighborhoods. But collecting and verifying the relevant data may be challenging, even if reporting requirements are clearly spelled out in the CBA. As the complexity of a CBA increases, so do the challenges of assessing outcomes and assigning responsibility for those outcomes.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences 2017The University of Chicago Law Review 2004Mega-projects: the changing politics of urban public investment 2004Megaprojects: the Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment 2010Community Benefits Agreements and Local Government 2014My Los Angeles 2009The Politics and Practice of Economic Justice: Community Benefits Agreements as Tactic of the New Accountable Development Movement 2012How Low–Income Residents Can Benefit from Urban Development: The LA Live Community Benefits Agreement

Cited by

2020Worker and Community Ownership as an Economic Development Strategy: Innovative Rebirth or Tired Retread of a Failed Idea?2020Early Lessons From Detroit’s Community Benefits Ordinance 2016Contracting communities: Conceptualizing Community Benefits Agreements to improve citizen involvement in urban development projects 2022Taking Stock of What We Know About Large-Scale Urban Development Projects: A Review of Existing Theoretical Frameworks and Case Studies 2019The Tensions of Transparency in Urban and Environmental Planning

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.