Group Seeks Community Benefits Agreement for Webster Block

The Webster block is a unique site for one very big reason. It will either act as a wall or a gateway.

Build something that only benefits the developer, and it can easily turn into a barrier between development at Canalside and the empty parcels to the east.

Build something that enhances the area (through its design or tenant base) and it will help spread the area's potential for success into the surrounding neighborhood and downtown.

I'm not quite sure this group or their demands are exactly on target... but the city should have a certain amount of leverage over what gets built there. More leverage than simply deciding between two proposals, at least.

Both proposals have their merits, but both could be better.

Community development agreements make me feel uncomfortable.

You know they are going to stipulate hiring minorities and poor etc but what's really going to happen is the politics, patronage and inside minorities that don't need it. The friends of Brown, the friends of Pigeon, etc. That just makes me sick how they mamipulate the agreements

A Community Benefits Agreement sounds about right for the Peace Bridge Plaza area. Instead it sounds more like a "We're Gonna Poop On You" agreement there.

I felt like I'd have to eat my words when I heard the Sabre proposal sought public money. But asking for the City to pay for costs to relocate utilities, etc. seems reasonable. No?

"can't be bought through backdoor deals"

Sounds like what the Governor is trying with the Peace Bridge neighborhood.

local hiring- great idea, especially for construction. But how local is local? Downtown? Buffalo? Erie County? NYS?

minority hiring- nice, but isn't that covered by existing laws?

quality job creation- definitely, but let's be honest, there will need to be /some/ minimum wage jobs if there is retail or food service involved.

opportunities for locally-owned independent businesses- preferable if possible, but only if that doesn't exclude potential draws like our holy grail list of Dinosaur, Whole Foods, Trader Joes, etc.

green design and operations- again, preferable if at all possible... but a little flexibility is needed if the stipulations are too strict to allow tenants to operate. A large part of this requirement will need to be addressed in initial construction, not just continued operations.

This post makes me uncomfortable.

I would love to think everything works out positively but after decades of examples I wonder if this leads down the road of lawsuit after lawsuit until nothing happens at all or if it does, its been re-revised 25 times and finally gets under way in 25 years. I love all these special groups with their "demands"!

The Alliance should have raised this a few months ago, like when the City issued the RFP in the spring, or when the submission deadline passed, or at the public hearings. But now this is just stupid.

And it's not like there are dozens of developers ready to pump tens of millions of dollars into this site. If the Webster Block was such a great site there would have been more than 3 responses to the RFP (actually really only 2 because the 3rd response was apparently not feasible or financeable, and even admitted as such).

If these community agreements are non-binding and cant lead to lawsuits then it might be worth supporting but as others have said, there isnt alot of bids to pump millions of dollars into a project on this block. This agreement could kill the deal.

If the community agreement could be worded in such a way where no one affiliated with Pigeons Church or a member of the Common Council (past or present) or the Mayor were allowed...etc then it might be worth supporting

But we know how Buffalo works, we know how the mayors office and the common council work, we know how politics and patronage work, we know how racism and minority hiring can be used like extortion and blackmail for people who dont need it.

Racism and prejudice will never end as long as people can be rewarded for being victims....who arent really victims.

Hand it over to Pegula. Let's get this thing going... !

Someone made a comment on this blog about a week ago and I'd like to echo it, as I thought it was brilliant.

Look at the Harbor and when you only include "local local local" in your development ideas, you get 10 Adirondack chairs and a hot dog stand.

I don't mind a mix of chains and local. But to say "buy local be local" all the time is just narrow minded.

The Community Benefits Agreements are basically there to counter-attack the construction union friendly Project Labor Agreements. I don't blame the community for trying this approach. These communities are tired of seeing public money go towards projects in their neighborhood, and yet not one of their residents are working on it. Project Labor Agreements have different provisions attached to them (local-hiring and apprenticeships), but they almost always fall WAY short of the goals. A union person is always going to hire one of their friends or family from the union hall, rather than someone within the community. The unions are hurting and they need to put as many of their people to work. So Community Benefit Agreements are a new way to make sure the locals (not people that belong to a local) get hired.

People in Buffalo really need to STFU!!

How many 'activist' groups, protests, lawsuits can their be for people trying to make progress in regards to development?!?!

We take 2 steps forward and everyone is all giddy, then we take 5 steps back when some loser tries to halt our progress

i agree with leggomyeggo on here !!!can we get an article on how many projects were shot down because of people like this.

Really? The "Peoples' Block"?

LULZ.

When I read this I thought it was a joke:

"No public subsidies should be used to assist in the development of either project. Subsidy programs were not created to assist companies that can clearly afford to develop on their own."

Most sucessfully redeveloping cities give these benefits. I can name many good projects recently in the city that would NOT have been possible without them.

Maybe they should consider putting a fence around the city, turn off the lights and everyone leave. It'll be preserved as wild parkland. People will still complain nothing is getting done (hey - Buffalo has been trying to develop the water front for OVER 100 years now - whats another 100; the grand prize goes to the person who can name the famous consultant brought in who gave up a left in frustration back then!).

I'm also amused by the requirement to make it "Green" - which is entirely another hot bed of profit making by some large companies for a lot of things that are expensive, will never hold up long-term and are probably going to be a mistake we'll regret later. Define what part of it you want green? and to whose green standard (lots of entity and agencies to choose from these days including LEED, Green Enterprise, Energy Star, Etc.)Sorry kids - the LEED agencies are another layer of money-making bureacracy. We can Value Engineer the designs and cover the proposed buildings in Dryvit (EIFS) - after all it is LEED certified now as well (yes...it only takes $$$$ to get that designation). Good sensible community design input is an entirely different topic...

These agreements are nothing more than public extortion.

I would love for one of the developers to say I'll remove the public financing element from my bid but in doing so tell these folks to pound sand on the rest of their requests.

How about a Community Benefits Agreement for blocks on the East Side? Extortion not as appealing there I guess.

How in the heck can anyone take this serious when they list the Jamestown Central Labor Council-AFL-CIO as a member.

Not only is this group based outside of the COB...they are OUTSIDE OF ERIE COUNTY.

Just a union racket is all this is. Such a shame.

TOTAL BS!

I don't think there are any public subsidies involved in either of the proposals, other than brownfield remediation credits or street infrastructure changes surrounding the projects. The projects themselves are privately funded. So I guess they can ask the city if they can help laying new curbs on Washington. Beyond that it is total BS.

A community benefits agreement, or CBA, is a private contract between a developer and a community coalition that sets forth the benefits that the community will receive from a given development. Common benefits include living wages, local hiring and training programs, affordable housing, environmental remediation and funds for community programs. CBAs ensure that development is equitable and benefits all members of the community, eventually contributing to stronger local economies, livable neighborhoods and increased public participation in the planning process.

Oftentimes economic development projects are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. These projects do little to serve the communities most impacted by them – instead inner-city gentrification ensues, pushing out low-income residents as housing prices rise (Marine Drive Apartments), or they may create only low-wage retail and service sector jobs (think Bass Pro, the development at the Donovon Building, or the proposed ice rinks and pending development of a hotel on the Webster Block ). As a result, poverty and housing issues remain, despite major investments in “economic development.”

Responding and proactively addressing these issues, the CBA model was created in the late 1990s as a way for the communities most impacted by economic development projects to participate in the planning process and seek to ensure that development benefits will accrue to existing communities. For developers, negotiating with community representatives can be an attractive way to gain community support and help move their projects forward. Participating in CBA negotiations can eliminate surprises in the development approvals process and allow developers to work with a unified coalition rather than having to engage community organizations one by one.

The Canal Side Community Alliance (CSCA) has worked for over 4 years to negotiate a CBA with the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC) to ensure that there would be no subsidies to developers or corporations without the following benefits to the community:
quality jobs; an authentic community engagement process; environmentally friendly building and operations; prioritization of local independent businesses, mixed income housing; a building and site design appropriate to the location; and targeted hiring objectives for construction and permanent jobs.

A consensus agreement was reached August 4, 2011 – over one year ago.

The CSCA has been and continues to work with elected officials, Members of the Common Council, Office of Strategic Planning, and others to negotiate for the same. As was stated in the article, this is only fair and sensible as the City of Buffalo asked the ECHDC to apply these principles to any development that they would have undertaken at the Webster Block.

If citizens have any other questions concerning a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) or the work of the Canal Side Community Alliance (CSCA) they should feel free to visit http://www.canalsidealliance.org/blog/ or call the Chair of the Alliance, Micaela Shaprio-Shellaby at 716.892.5877.

A community benefits agreement, or CBA, is a private contract between a developer and a community coalition that sets forth the benefits that the community will receive from a given development. Common benefits include living wages, local hiring and training programs, affordable housing, environmental remediation and funds for community programs. CBAs ensure that development is equitable and benefits all members of the community, eventually contributing to stronger local economies, livable neighborhoods and increased public participation in the planning process.

Oftentimes economic development projects are heavily subsidized by taxpayer dollars. These projects do little to serve the communities most impacted by them – instead inner-city gentrification ensues, pushing out low-income residents as housing prices rise (Marine Drive Apartments), or they may create only low-wage retail and service sector jobs (think Bass Pro, the development at the Donovon Building, or the proposed ice rinks and pending development of a hotel on the Webster Block ). As a result, poverty and housing issues remain, despite major investments in “economic development.”

Responding and proactively addressing these issues, the CBA model was created in the late 1990s as a way for the communities most impacted by economic development projects to participate in the planning process and seek to ensure that development benefits will accrue to existing communities. For developers, negotiating with community representatives can be an attractive way to gain community support and help move their projects forward. Participating in CBA negotiations can eliminate surprises in the development approvals process and allow developers to work with a unified coalition rather than having to engage community organizations one by one.

The Canal Side Community Alliance (CSCA) has worked for over 4 years to negotiate a CBA with the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC) to ensure that there would be no subsidies to developers or corporations without the following benefits to the community:
quality jobs; an authentic community engagement process; environmentally friendly building and operations; prioritization of local independent businesses, mixed income housing; a building and site design appropriate to the location; and targeted hiring objectives for construction and permanent jobs.

A consensus agreement was reached August 4, 2011 – over one year ago.

The CSCA has been and continues to work with elected officials, Members of the Common Council, Office of Strategic Planning, and others to negotiate for the same. As was stated in the article, this is only fair and sensible as the City of Buffalo asked the ECHDC to apply these principles to any development that they would have undertaken at the Webster Block.

If citizens have any other questions concerning a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) or the work of the Canal Side Community Alliance (CSCA) they should feel free to visit http://www.canalsidealliance.org/blog/ or call the Chair of the Alliance, Micaela Shaprio-Shellaby at 716.892.5877.

CBA is a great idea. I think there has been a total of

I'll predict the demands will be smartly ignored by the city for the Webster block, but will be a future ongoing detriment to attracting medium or larger private sector businesses at Canalside land owned by NYS government agency ECHDC.

From the press release:
"In short, we want to ensure that the Webster Block redevelopment, like all of the Canal Side redevelopment, adheres to certain basic high road development principles: local and minority hiring, quality job creation, opportunities for locally-owned, independent businesses, and green design and operations."

The demands might not apply to non-profit orgs like a children's museum or to very small businesses like vendors who might sell at a government-owned public market building.

But why would larger for-profit companies want to choose a location which will subject them to these kinds of controversies (having to publicly debate which of their jobs are "quality jobs", which of their employees are considered by judgmental activists to count as local or minority, which of their operational practices count as "green", etc., etc,) - when they can simply choose to locate somewhere else instead of Canalside? Time will tell.

this is a scenario of the old saying...."too many cooks spoil the broth". It is IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone on any project. There will always be someone or some group that thinks their idea is better. But as we know, this kind of interference has only stalled and eliminated projects in the past. Let's hope this is not the same road we're going to head down (again).

I'm all for community input in these projects but just let the projects be. This sounds like more lawsuits and/or delays because some people can't be heard who think there opinions matter.