Skip to main content

Report on LA CBAs shows a huge contrast with the AY CBA

A new report from Environmental Defense, Everybody Wins: Lessons from Negotiating Community Benefits Agreements in Los Angeles, fleshes out some crucial differences between those pioneering CBAs and the "historic" CBA "negotiated" between Forest City Ratner and eight groups, most of them established after the Atlantic Yards project was announced.

Notably, the groups participating in the Staples Center and Los Angeles Airport CBAs based their negotiating position on responses to flaws in the environmental impact review (EIR). The Atlantic Yards CBA was signed on 6/27/05, three months before the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) even issued its Proposed Scope of Analysis for the Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and more than a year before the Draft EIS was issued.

Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York made this point in her 5/26/05 testimony to the New York City Council, testimony that was ignored by the media at the time:
Perhaps the most striking is that elsewhere CBAs are negotiated by one broad coalition of groups that would otherwise oppose a project, a coalition that includes labor and community organizations representing a variety of interests.... In the BAY case, several groups, all of which have publicly supported the project already, have each engaged in what seem to be separate negotiations on particular issues.

Responding to the environmental review

In Los Angeles, according to the report, local organizations--environmental, labor, and community groups--had the power to disturb the environmental impact review process:
All new developments in the state are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that a public agency, such as the City Planning Commission, evaluate a project’s environmental impact. A draft environmental impact report (EIR) contains this analysis and must be prepared and circulated for public comment before construction can be approved by the government body. This final approval may be challenged in court by groups on the grounds that it does not meet CEQA’s substantive and procedural requirements. A successful challenge forces the agency to repeat the EIR process to ensure that there is an adequate assessment of environmental impacts. The process is costly and time intensive for the agency.

In Los Angeles, the groups negotiating the CBAs cared about environmental impacts. In Brooklyn, well, ACORN's Bertha Lewis was candid: "But we decided if we could make one nudge, one impact, what we could do, what we could kick ass on, it would be housing. I can't kick ass on environment, just can't. Can't do it on density, just can't. It’s reality. Of all the things that are happening in central, downtown Brooklyn, throughout Brooklyn--this is like a goddamn tsunami... So if I could stop one iota of gentrification, I’ll do it. I can't do environment. I can’t do traffic."

Well, ACORN's expertise is housing; however, the group tasked with environmental guarantees, Brooklyn Endeavor Experience, doesn't have to do anything, since the developer is in compliance by following the state-mandated process.

The Staples Center CBA

The coalition of 29 groups, the Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice (FCCEJ), saw that the Staples Center’s EIR lacked an energy analysis:
The FCCEJ’s EIR comments, supplemented with 40 pages of additional analysis, clearly demonstrated that FCCEJ could threaten to disrupt the entitlement process. Because the project required public financing, public hearings were required by law. At the very least, FCCEJ could use the public hearing process to ensure that the EIR appropriately accounted for impacts on the community and offered mitigations if the community was to be negatively affected by the project. An inadequate EIR and/or unwise project could be delayed by the community or derailed entirely—which gave FCCEJ considerable power.

One of the five lessons learned from the Staples Center CBA regards challenging the review:
4. Research, data, and a willingness to use them count. FCCEJ was able to present a level of professionalism through extensive EIR comments—demonstrating to both the city and the developer that they were serious about fighting the project. The energy omission in the EIR was enough to convince the developer that FCCEJ could file a winnable lawsuit, and that was not a risk that they were willing to take. Instead, the developer chose to sit down at the table with FCCEJ.

In Brooklyn, the groups challenging the project have filed a lawsuit, but it may be harder in New York state to win in court.


The CBA for the airport expansion also revolved around responses to the EIR:
Between February and June of 2003, [attorney Jerilyn] Lopez Mendoza and LAANE [Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy] brought a breadth of knowledge about organizing and research to work by talking to churches, civic groups and school boards. “We looked at organizations that had previously fought against airport expansion and were traditional partners,” Reverend William D. Smart, Jr. of LAANE said. “We did our research on who had previously responded negatively on the EIR.”

The coalition had 25 members. The CBA grew out of comments on the EIR:
The LAX Coalition began by presenting a list of programs and studies that the airport could do in order to mitigate damage attributable to airport expansion. The initial list was comprised of the earlier EIR comments submitted by the groups. These composed the “wish list” of all of the mitigation measures and programmatic components that the groups wanted.

One of the eleven lessons learned:
10. Don’t narrow down your “wish list” too early. At the start of the process, the LAX Coalition walked in with a list of 80 items pulled out of EIR comments on the Master Plan. This was quickly narrowed down to a short list of 30 possible mitigation measures. In some respects the LAX Coalition gave up too soon.

Steps toward a successful CBA negotiation

A chapter titled "Steps toward a successful CBA negotiation" outlines a process far different than the developer-driven one that occured in Brooklyn. One piece of advice:
Get the facts to evaluate impacts and solutions. A clear list of impacts and potential solutions is needed on the community side. Sharing this information with project developers (particularly the effectiveness of specific solutions) is essential.

Another, on negotiations:
Don’t be afraid to play the “bad cop.” Utilize (or threaten to utilize) lawsuits and negative press as a way to slow down the development process. When groups flex their collective power, developers and government can be scared enough by the costs (both financial and political) of a slowed-down development to want to move the process forward.


Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…