University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2015 What Will the Neighbors Say? How Differences in Planning Culture Yield Distinctive Outcomes in Urban Redevelopment: The Example of the Community Benefits Agreement Trend Ralph Rosado University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Economic Theory Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Rosado, Ralph, "What Will the Neighbors Say? How Differences in Planning Culture Yield Distinctive Outcomes in Urban Redevelopment: The Example of the Community Benefits Agreement Trend" (2015). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1125. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1125 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1125 For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Will the Neighbors Say? How Differences in Planning Culture Yield Distinctive Outcomes in Urban Redevelopment: The Example of the Community Benefits Agreement Trend Abstract Although taxpayer dollars often subsidize economic development projects, they sometimes produce mixed results for existing neighbors. Since 2001, in select localities, civic organizations have assumed the role of negotiator on behalf of local constituencies, espousing the view that economic development efforts should significantly improve residentsâ?? lives. Various organizations are entering into community benefits agreements (CBAs) with developers and/or governmental bodies in order to meet community needs. In return, the groups agree to support the projectsâ?? requests for governmental approvals and/or subsidies. Yet CBAs continue to emerge in relatively few communities. More importantly, they have taken markedly different forms in different places. This work compares major attempts by civic organizations to secure public benefits as part of real estate development project approval processes in California, New York, Wisconsin, and Florida. By comparing a range of CBAs, this study discerns which state- and local-level factors determine why and when CBAs emerge; which factors best account for the differences among the CBAs and benefits, if any, that result; what the impact of the phenomenon has been, and how it has shaped the field of urban political theory. The study finds: the CBA phenomenon eflectr the interplay of a number of market, governmental, and civic factors involved in land-use planning and real estate development; local-level factors are more influential than state-level factors, although both are important; the factor that best accounts for differences among CBAs is the archetypal relationship between civic organizations (and not simply â??neighborsâ?? in general) and the officials in whose district the ojectspr are to be sited, while differences in the resulting benefits best eflectr local market conditions; CBA campaigns remain relatively niche but appear to be shaping broader municipal policy efforts; and the CBA phenomenon is consistent with previous findings in urban political theory, providing the parties involved with a vehicle for defusing land use-related conflicts and securing both project approvals and community benefits in the process. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group City & Regional Planning First Advisor Eugenie L. Birch Keywords Development, Planning, Policy, Politics, Urban Subject Categories Economic Theory | Political Science | Urban Studies and Planning This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1125 WHAT WILL THE NEIGHBORS SAY? HOW DIFFERENCES IN PLANNING CULTURE YIELD DISTINCTIVE OUTCOMES IN URBAN REDEVELOPMENT: THE EXAMPLE OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT TREND Ralph Rosado A DISSERTATION in City and Regional Planning Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2015 Supervisor of Dissertation ____Signature__________ Eugenie L. Birch Lawrence C. Nussdorf Professor of Urban Education & Research Graduate Group Chairperson ______Signature___________ Eugenie L. Birch, Lawrence C. Nussdorf Professor of Urban Education & Research Dissertation Committee John D. Landis, Crossways Professor of City & Regional Planning Laura Wolf-Powers, Assistant Professor of City & Regional Planning WHAT WILL THE NEIGHBORS SAY? HOW DIFFERENCES IN PLANNING CULTURE YIELD DISTINCTIVE OUTCOMES IN URBAN REDEVELOPMENT: THE EXAMPLE OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT TREND COPYRIGHT 2015 Ralph Rosado This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ny-sa/2.0/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Genie Birch for her helpful guidance and editing advice, John Landis for his assistance in shaping the study, and Laura Wolf-Powers for her thoughtful and kind support. Thanks also to Professors Lynne Sagalyn, Wendell Pritchett, Susan Wachter, and Michael Larice, and my fellow students at the City and Regional Planning program at the University of Pennsylvania. I owe special thanks to the university for granting me a University Fellowship, making my studies possible. Finally, thanks to my parents, in-laws, my wife Maria, and our three wonderful children for their love, patience, and support. iii ABSTRACT WHAT WILL THE NEIGHBORS SAY? HOW DIFFERENCES IN PLANNING CULTURE YIELD DISTINCTIVE OUTCOMES IN URBAN REDEVELOPMENT: THE EXAMPLE OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT TREND Ralph Rosado Eugenie L. Birch Although taxpayer dollars often subsidize economic development projects, they sometimes produce mixed results for existing neighbors. Since 2001, in select localities, civic organizations have assumed the role of negotiator on behalf of local constituencies, espousing the view that economic development efforts should significantly improve residents’ lives. Various organizations are entering into community benefits agreements (CBAs) with developers and/or governmental bodies in order to meet community needs. In return, the groups agree to support the projects’ requests for governmental approvals and/or subsidies. Yet CBAs continue to emerge in relatively few communities. More importantly, they have taken markedly different forms in different places. This work compares major attempts by civic organizations to secure public benefits as part of real estate development project approval processes in California, New York, Wisconsin, and Florida. By comparing a range of CBAs, this study discerns which state- and local-level factors determine why and when CBAs emerge; which factors best account for the differences among the CBAs and benefits, if any, that result; what the impact of the phenomenon has been, and how it has shaped the field of urban political iv theory. The study finds: the CBA phenomenon reflect the interplay of a number of market, governmental, and civic factors involved in land-use planning and real estate development; local-level factors are more influential than state-level factors, although both are important; the factor that best accounts for differences among CBAs is the archetypal relationship between civic organizations (and not simply “neighbors” in general) and the officials in whose district the projects are to be sited, while differences in the resulting benefits best reflect local market conditions; CBA campaigns remain relatively niche but appear to be shaping broader municipal policy efforts; and the CBA phenomenon is consistent with previous findings in urban political theory, providing the parties involved with a vehicle for defusing land use-related conflicts and securing both project approvals and community benefits in the process. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Illustrations………………………………………………………………………...x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 1 Contribution to the Literature ................................................................................. 2 Significance ............................................................................................................. 3 The Concept of Planning Culture ........................................................................... 5 Urban Political Theory ............................................................................................ 6 Origins of the CBA Phenomenon ........................................................................... 9 Review of Related Research ................................................................................. 10 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 11 Organization