Category Archives

61 Articles

Posted on

Prop “A” Supporters Remain Committed to Economic and Social Justice

Prop “A” Supporters Remain Committed to Economic and Social Justice

Nearly 100,000 voters stepped up to support real community benefits

DETROIT – The grassroots community coalition Rise Together Detroit, managed to get almost 100,000 Detroiters to defend their right to negotiate community benefits when billionaires get massive public subsidies.

“We are emboldened knowing that more than 96,000 people said ‘yes’ to real community benefits and by the fact that we made community benefits part of the public conversation,” said Linda Campbell of Rise Together Detroit. “By definition, real community benefits means the community that is affected by a development project and that helps subsidize the developers has right to be at the table to negotiate a legal agreement for community benefits, a fair exchange.”

With few resources, the coalition relied on volunteers going door-to-door, social media and Election Day poll work to spread the message: “If we have to pay, we get a say. Vote yes on Proposal ‘A’.” There was no Proposal ‘B’ opposition ballot measure until the community gathered more than 5,000 signatures to an authentic community benefits measure on the ballot. It was then that Councilmember Scott Benson drafted an opposition proposal which required no vetting by Detroit voters. What Benson’s proposal did attract was corporate dark money.

“Our corporate opposition had deep pockets and used dark money to a fund signature challenges and expensive TV ads. But, we have deep and serious support in the community,” said Nicole Small of Rise Together Detroit. “Even though Prop A didn’t receive the majority votes to pass, our 46% share of the vote still represents a win. Our win was voter engagement and mobilization which is at the heart of the issue of community benefits. We look forward to working with Detroit City Council and our allies at UAW Region 1 and 1A and AFSCME Council 25 on supporting the needs of Detroiters and we will engage developers more determined to ensure that there is accountability and access.”

i-voted-cba

Posted on

Vote SI a la Propuesta A y NO a la Propuesta B, Vote Yes on Proposal A and No on B

Vote SI a la Propuesta A y NO a la Propuesta B, Vote Yes on Proposal A and No on B

Vote SI a la Propuesta A y NO a la Propuesta B

Gloria Rivera

La ciudad de Detroit es el epicentro de desarrollo urbano y nuestros ciudadanos merecen ejercitar su voz referente a la manera como este desarrollo los impacta y como se beneficia por medio de los dólares de nuestros impuestos. Ya hay planes de construir un puente a Canadá que costara 2 billones. Ahorita una nueva arena de hockey está en construcción. Además se están desarrollando 157 acres en la zona de Michigan State Fairgrounds, y el hospital Henry Ford tiene un plan de expansión para desarrollar 300 acres a un costo de $500 millones. Desde luego que le damos la bienvenida al desarrollo, sabiendo que Detroit no se recuperará de la banca rota si nuestros vecindarios no se desarrollan también.

Por primera vez los ciudadanos de Detroit están participando en proyectos de desarrollo en sus vecindarios que incluyen un subsidio de impuestos. Queremos un lugar en la mesa de planeación de estos proyectos y al mismo tiempo pedimos que se hagan por medio de un acuerdo legal. Tenemos experiencias de muchas promesas que no se cumplieron cuando los que estaban a cargo de los proyectos no cumplieron con darnos trabajos, mejorar nuestros vecindarios u otros beneficios críticos. Por esto queremos un procesos de beneficios comunitarios legal.

Recaudamos las firmas requeridas para poner la Propuesta A en las próximas elecciones en Noviembre. Pedimos a los grupos comunitarios locales, los trabajadores y otras instituciones que voten SI a la Propuesta A porque será un beneficio para nuestra comunidad y que voten NO a la otra propuesta B que no resultará en beneficios para el pueblo.

YES on Proposal A, N0 on Proposal B

Detroit is the epicenter for development and neighborhoods deserve to have a say in how it will impact their community if their tax dollars are being used. There are already plans to build a new $2 billion bridge to Canada. A new $650 million entertainment complex and hockey stadium is under construction. In addition plans are on the way for development of 157-acre Michigan State Fairgrounds, and Henry Ford Health Systems’ $500 million/300-acre expansion. Although land development is welcomed, Detroit will not truly recover from bankruptcy if its neighborhoods are not thriving.

For the first time, Detroiters are more engaged on future development projects in their neighborhoods that include a tax subsidy. We are advocating for a real seat at the table and a legally binding agreement that ensures accountability on processes made in exchange for the tax break. Too many broken promises by developers of promised jobs, neighborhood improvements and other critical benefits, has led us to require a community benefits process.

After collecting the required signatures to place Proposal A on the November ballot, we are asking local community groups, labor and other institutions to VOTE YES on PROPOSAL A, the People’s community benefits version, and vote no on the fake CBA proposal that does not result in any accountability.

For REAL Community Benefits vote YES on A and NO on B.
“If we have to pay we get a say!”

Read both proposals:
http://detroitpeoplesplatform.org/2016/08/read-the-competing-ordinances-that-will-be-on-the-nov-ballot/

Learn more – volunteer – donate
http://risetogetherdetroit.com/

#YESonA #NOonB #Detroit

lawnsigns

Posted on

Who Benefits? Proposal A will give Detroiters a seat at the table

Who Benefits? Proposal A will give Detroiters a seat at the table

Thinking for ourselves
By Shea Howell

from the http://boggscenter.org/ newsletter

Who benefits?

October 16, 2016
As Election Day approaches Detroiters are being flooded with high priced, deceptive appeals for our vote.  Expensive TV and radio commercials, slick flyers, and glossy mailers are all urging us to vote against the one proposal that could actually make a difference in how development happens in our city.  Proposition A holds the real promise of equitable, thoughtful, and neighborhood based development.  It is this possibility that is driving the business community and its friends in the Mayor’s office to near panic.
Developers, the Mayor and their shadow surrogates have pulled every trick they could think of to stop this proposal. They tried to bury it in committees. They tried to prevent an open City Council vote. They tried to block the petitions to have this put before the public. Then they introduced a competing watered down version of the bill to confuse voters. Now they have launched an expensive campaign to tell us “A is Awful.” Yes awful for the business interest that have been making millions off Detroiters, pulling in lucrative tax breaks for themselves, and getting cheap land, without giving anything back to the community.
If the stakes were not so serious, the effort to attack Proposal A would border on the comic. A newly formed “dark money” group calling itself Detroit Jobs First, held a press conference at the site of the new Red Wings/Ilitch stadium to launch its slogan Proposal A is awful.  Awful for whom seems a good question.
Just days after the launch of the attack on A, news accounts surfaced that the Red Wings/Ilitch gang are facing $500,000 in fines because they have not been able to uphold their promise of hiring 51% of Detroiters for construction jobs.  This deal, usually touted by the Mayor as an example of his successful negotiating skills, is exactly why we need a strong community benefits agreement.
Billionaire Mike Ilitch received more than $250 million in tax-backed bonds to build this stadium. He has received breaks in land acquisition around the stadium and displaced hundreds of local residents, many of them elders who had lived in the Cass Corridor for years. In exchange, he promised 51% of the jobs would go to Detroiters.  Thus far we are at 40%. Not only is the percentage less than what he promised, the actual number of people involved is minimal. Currently, we are talking about work for 300 people. Ilitch has the money, the land, the tax breaks and will soon have the stadium. Forever.
Community groups, progressive labor leaders, and Council President Brenda Jones have fought for Proposal A for years.  They had done this openly, publicly and on the record. They have argued Proposal A would require developers of projects costing $15 million or more or with more than $300,000 in public subsidies to enter into legally enforceable agreements with communities most affected by the development.
Those against A, and backing B are hiding in the shadows. Maybe they are embarrassed by the failure of the Ilitch deal. Maybe they are embarrassed by the Marathon Petroleum deal.  In 2014 Marathon got a $175 million tax break, expanded it refinery to further pollute our air and Detroit got 15 jobs.
For far too long s developers have said, support us and we will give you jobs.  Repeating the lie on glossy paper does not make it true.
Detroiters have long experience with where the interests of developers really are. It’s time to put an end to the exploitation of our people, our resources, and our city by those who promise jobs, pocket tax money and don’t have the courage to publicly stand for their convictions. Enough is enough.  Spread the word to vote Yes on A and No on Business Backed B.

Proposal A Will Give Detroiters a Seat at the Table
Cindy Estrada


In November, Detroit voters will decide whether to give themselves a seat at the community benefits bargaining table when they choose between Proposals A and B: competing community benefits agreement ordinances.

For those who haven’t followed the story, Proposal A is on Detroit’s ballot because community members and grassroots organizations mobilized a successful petition signature drive. They were motivated by the chance to create a structure that would allow developers seeking public assets for major construction projects to sit with impacted communities and negotiate an enforceable agreement that could include jobs, affordable housing, educational opportunities and community programs.

Proposal B does not give the community a seat at the table. Nor does it allow communities and developers to negotiate an enforceable agreement. Instead, it calls for a toothless process that the city can already authorize. Proposal B got on the ballot in a last minute maneuver by those who fear that Proposal A will win in November. It’s widely understood that Proposal B is on the same ballot as Proposal A to confuse voters.

The debate over Proposals A and B reminds me of what happens during a typical workplace organizing campaign. Detroit voters are now going through the same challenges.

Workers organize when management ignores or dismisses their demands for workplace fairness. Community members organized to put Proposal A on the ballot because they were tired of seeing major publicly funded developers build in their neighborhood, create adverse conditions, promise to address community concerns and renege, or take taxpayer resources without a requirement to discuss giving back to the impacted community in a meaningful way.

Workers face swift backlash when they successfully join together to demand union representation. A classic way to erode union support is for the employer and its allies to tell workers that if they form a union, the business will suffer or close. Immediately after Proposal A’s ballot signatures were certified, anti-Proposal A interests framed Proposal A as dangerous to Detroit’s financial stability and scary for developers – contrary to the community benefits agreement experience in other communities.

Workers fighting for a voice in their workplace are often vilified for being selfish, reckless and even un-American for inviting a ‘third party” into the employer-employee relationship. Proposal A’s backers were accused of seeking “entitlements” by Gov. Rick Snyder’s senior advisor for economic growth, and adding a layer of “bureaucracy” to Detroit’s property development process by the president and CEO of the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation.

Workers win their union rights when they stand together against the inevitable fierce backlash by their employer and its allies. It will be the same with Proposal A. In November, Detroit voters will have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to win a seat at the community benefits bargaining table and try to negotiate good things for their community with developers who are benefiting from valuable public assets. That’s not selfish. That’s not reckless. That’s not un-American. That’s what democracy should look like.

proposalarackcardpg2

Posted on

Detroit WITHOUT REAL Community Benefits – Loss of Economic Opportunity

Detroit WITHOUT REAL Community Benefits – Loss of Economic Opportunity

What Detroit looks like WITHOUT REAL Community Benefit Agreements:
Loss of Economic Opportunity

The North End and the M-1 Light Rail/Q-Line

Public Funds for transportation used for private real estate development. Proposal A, the People’s Community Benefits Ordinance came out of the struggle for benefits around the M1 Light Rail.

This is just one of the many reasons why we need REAL Community Benefit Agreements. Vote YES on A and NO on B! Vote on Both for your vote to count! In order for the People’s CBO to become adopted Proposal A must win and Proposal B must be defeated.

#YESonA #NOonB #Detroit
#RiseTogetherDetroit #DetroitPeoples

Learn More – Volunteer – Donate
http://risetogetherdetroit.com/

Taken from the Detroit People’s Platform NEWS, #9, September 2016
http://detroitpeoplesplatform.org/

Posted on

Detroit WITHOUT REAL Community Benefits – Displacement of Detroiters

Detroit WITHOUT REAL Community Benefits – Displacement of Detroiters

What Detroit looks like WITHOUT REAL Community Benefits: Displacement of Detroiters

Senior Housing to “The Albert”

Senior Housing throughout the city is threatened by development. Community Benefits can include negotiations for affordable housing. VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/89583583

This is just one of the many reasons why we need REAL Community Benefit Agreements. Vote YES on A and NO on B! Vote on Both for your vote to count! In order for the People’s CBO to become adopted Proposal A must win and Proposal B must be defeated.

#YESonA #NOonB #Detroit
#RiseTogetherDetroit #DetroitPeoples

Learn More – Volunteer – Donate
http://risetogetherdetroit.com/

Taken from the Detroit People’s Platform NEWS, #9, September 2016
http://detroitpeoplesplatform.org/

 

 

Posted on

Read the competing ordinances that will be on the Nov. ballot

 Tuesday, August 16 the Detroit Elections Commission, Council President Brenda Jones, Corporate Council Melvin “Butch” Hallowell and City Clerk Janice Winfrey, moved forward the People’s Community Benefits Ordinance along with the ‘Enhanced’ Ordinance.

Both will be on the ballot in November. The People’s CBO was designated as Proposal A and the ‘Enhanced’ Ordinance will appear as Proposal B.

Detroiters in support of the People’s CBO packed the Election Commission Meeting and spoke passionately about the importance of following the Democratic process and moving the People’s CBO forward.

We want to thank and congratulate those who have supported and worked relentlessly for real Community Benefits in Detroit! Moving the People’s CBO toward the ballot has been a tremendous effort and an important act of citizen-led democracy on display with over 5000 Detroiters signing the petition over an 8 week period. In the face of voter suppression and suspension of democracy, the right of community to organize around an issue and move it to the ballot has become one of the last vestiges of the democratic process accessible to everyday Detroiters.

Read them for yourself!

http://detroitpeoplesplatform.org/read-the-peoples-cbo-proposal-a-on-the-november-ballot/

 

http://detroitpeoplesplatform.org/read-the-enhanced-ordinance-proposal-b-on-the-november-ballot/

Watch and Share the People’s CBO VIDEO

Visit Rise Together Detroit to learn more, get involved and support this grassroots effort.

Social Media: #RiseTogetherDetroit #CBO #DetroitPeoples

Posted on

Read the People’s CBO – Proposal A on the November ballot

BY COUNCIL MEMBER ­­­­­­­­­________________________,

AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 14 of the 1984 Detroit City Code, Community Development, by adding Article XII, titled Community Benefits, which consists of Sections 14-12-1 through 14-12-7, to provide for the purpose and applicability of this article; to provide for definitions of terms used in this article; to require provision of Community Benefits and executed Community Benefits Agreements for certain development projects seeking public support for investments above certain threshold levels; to provide for exemptions for applicability of the article, and to provide for penalties and enforcement of the article.

IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF DETROIT THAT:

Section 1.  Chapter 14 of the 1984 Detroit City Code, Community Development, is amended by adding Article XII, Community Benefits, which consists of Sections 14-12-1 through 14-12-7, to read as follows:

CHAPTER 14.  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ARTICLE XII. Community Benefits

Sec. 14-12-1. Purpose; Title

(a) It shall be the policy of the City of Detroit to require, wherever feasible, proportional community benefits as a condition of significant public support for development in the form of subsidies, tax abatements, below-market priced land, or other enhanced public resources.

(b) This article shall be known as the “Detroit Community Benefits Ordinance.”

Sec. 14-12-2. Definitions

(a) “Community Benefits” means the amenities, benefits, commitments, or promises described in Section 14-12-3(a)(1)b. and in Section 14-12-4.

(b) “Community Benefits Agreement” means the legally enforceable contract negotiated and agreed to as set forth in Section 14-12-3(a)(1).

(c) “Contractor” means any person, firm, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, joint venture, proprietorship, or other entity that enters into a contract for performance of construction work on the development project within the Host Community, including subcontractors of any tier.

(d) “Detroit Business” shall mean any of the following businesses, as defined in Section 18-5-1 of this code:

(1)  Detroit-based business

(2)  Detroit-headquartered business

(3)  Detroit-resident owned business

(e) “Development Agreement” means, for the purposes of this Article, the agreement or agreements between the City and the developer pursuant to which the City provides or commits Public Support for Investment for a Tier 1 Development Project, Tier 2 Development Project, or High Impact Development Project, regardless of the label or title affixed to such agreement.

(f) “High Impact Development Project” means any development project that, because of the nature of the development and/or the Host Community, is reasonably expected to produce disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts, including social, esthetic, economic, physical, chemical, or biological impacts, in the Host Community. Determination  of whether a project is a High Impact Development Project shall be made by City Council as set forth in Section 14-12-3(a)(3).

(g) “Host Community” means the community within the census tract(s) where the development project is physically located and may also include communities within adjacent census tracts that may be adversely affected by the activities of the development project, as determined by the agreement among members of the Host Community representative organization to a Community Benefits Agreement, but shall in no case be smaller than the census tract where the development project is physically located.

(h) “Public Support For Investment” means either or both of:

(1)  direct or indirect transfer to the developer of city-owned land parcels that have a cumulative market value of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) or more (as determined by the City Assessor or independent appraisal), without open bidding or priced below market rates (where allowed by law); or

(2)  Provision or approval by the City of other forms of public subsidies to the developer, including but not limited to tax abatements or grants, that are cumulatively valued at Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) or more, but not including Neighborhood Enterprise Zones.

(i) “Tier 1 Development Project” means a development project in the City of Detroit that is expected to incur the investment of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) or more during the construction of facilities or plant, or to begin or expand operations or renovate structures.

(j) “Tier 2 Development Project” means a development project in the City of Detroit that is expected to incur the investment of more than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), but less than Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000), during the construction of facilities or plant, or to begin or expand operations or renovate structures.

Sec. 14-12-3. Providing Community Benefits; Community Benefits Agreements; when required.

(a) Upon submission of a site plan for a Tier 1 Development Project to the Planning and Development Department or its successor, if the developer intends to seek Public Support for Investment in the project it shall notify the department, and the department shall then forthwith request that a written notice be generated by the City Clerk’s office, informing the Host Community of the proposed project and of a scheduled organizational meeting.  The first organizational meeting for purposes of forming the Host Community representative organization to negotiate and execute a Community Benefits Agreement shall be called by the City Council Member or Members in whose district(s) the project is located.  The Council Member(s) shall schedule and call the first organizational meeting of the Host Community for purposes of forming the Host Community representative organization within twenty-one (21) days of the date of notice informing the Host Community of the proposed project.  Other than hosting the meeting, Council members and other City officials shall have no direct involvement in the processes of forming the Host Community representative or negotiating the Community Benefits Agreement.  The following standards and requirements shall apply to providing Community Benefits as a condition of receiving Public Support for Investment:

(1)   Tier 1 Development Project.

  1. For any proposed Tier 1 Development Project that requests or proposes the receipt of Public Support For Investment, the developer shall engage Host Community residents for purposes of entering into a legally enforceable Community Benefits Agreement between the developer and representative residents, businesses and nonprofit organizations, collectively comprising the Host Community representative party to the Community Benefits Agreement.
  2. The Community Benefits Agreement shall provide for Community Benefits as negotiated by the parties, and shall specifically address each of the following:

(1)  targeted benefits

(2)  low- and moderate-income housing,

(3)  quality of life or environmental mitigations,

(4)  neighborhood, infrastructure and amenities, and

(5)  community representation for the benefit of the Host Community in the development and post-development processes.

Although the Community Benefits Agreement shall specifically address each of the above issues, that does not mean that the parties are required to reach an agreement providing any particular benefit, only that each of the above subjects must be recognized in the written agreement using language agreed upon by the parties.

  1.  Unless good cause is shown by a developer that it should receive an exemption as provided in Section 14-12-5, the developer shall include a copy of the executed Community Benefits Agreement with the request for City Council approval for the Public Support For Investment.  Violation without good cause shown by a developer shall result in denial of approval for any such Public Support for Investment.

(2)  Tier 2 Development Project.  For any proposed Tier 2 Development Project that requests or proposes the receipt of Public Support For Investment, the developer may but is not required to engage the Host Community residents to execute a Community Benefits Agreement describing the Community Benefits to be provided by the developer in the manner described by Section 14-12-3(1).  If no Community Benefits Agreement is executed, however, the developer shall adopt and implement a Community Benefits Package, the terms of which shall be included in the Development Agreement.

(3)  High Impact Development Project.  For any proposed High Impact Development Project that requests or proposes the receipt of Public Support For Investment, Detroit City Council may determine that the requirements of Section 14-12-3(a)(1) shall apply.  Determination of whether a project is a High Impact Development Project shall be made by finding of City Council expressed in a resolution, after a public hearing requested by a resident of the Host Community and duly noticed and conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether the projects meets the definition of a High Impact Development Project.  City Council may call on the assistance of the City Planning Commission, the Planning Department, and other resources to assist in its determination.  The developer and residents of the Host Community shall be entitled to speak at the public hearing.

Sec. 14-12-4. Community Benefits

(a) The following is a non-exclusive list of examples of Community Benefits that may be considered on a voluntary basis for inclusion in a Community Benefits Agreement, or in a Development Agreement:

(1)  Educational Programs, such as:

  1. Education in the City’s high schools, community colleges and other educational programs.

b. One or more adult education programs operated by one or more qualified administration or an administrative collaboration comprised of organizations that benefit residents of the Host Community, including but not limited to agencies such as the Partnership fro Diversity and Opportunity in Transportation.

  1. Actively supporting educational activities that provide employment opportunities for residents of the Host Community, including but not limited to programs through federal funds received annually and allocated by agencies such as the State’s Michigan Works! Partner, Detroit Employment Solutions Corporation, or another appropriate agency or entity.
  2. Providing annual Contractor readiness training for Detroit Businesses, through the United States Department of Transportation Bonding Education Program or other relevant training opportunities.
  3. Hosting annual Contractor information and networking sessions about upcoming contracting opportunities with the Michigan Department of Transportation in the City of Detroit.
    1. Providing program materials, training and support for Detroit Public Schools/CTE (DPS) or other educational institutions in the Host Community.
    2. Providing employment and career mentoring opportunities for youths who reside in the Host Community, including but not limited to the Michigan Department of Transportation’s Youth Development and Mentoring Program.

(2)  Land Use Programs:

  1. Actively promoting City real estate and investment opportunities in the Host Community through agencies such as the Michigan Prospectus or another appropriate real estate investment agency or entity.
  2. Providing additional recreational activities, parks, educational services, environmental amenities, housing capacity or other benefits in the Host Community.
  3. Providing funds for demolition of abandoned homes or other structures in the Host Community.

 

 

(3)Small Business Inclusion and Participation:

  1. Targeted outreach within the Host Community for Detroit-based small businesses, minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises and relevant business organizations and chambers.
  2. Inclusion of Host Community Detroit-based small businesses, minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises and relevant business organizations in pre-bid meetings and conferences with advance notice.
  3. Hosting annual procurement, contracting and hiring forums with information and networking sessions about upcoming procurement, contracting and hiring opportunities with the procurement department and Detroit Economic Growth Corporation in the City of Detroit.
  4. Meet with Host Community Detroit-based small businesses, minority-owned business enterprises, women-owned business enterprises and relevant business organizations to train, develop and prepare for potential contractual opportunities.
  5. Unbundling of construction work into bid sizes that will allow Detroit-based small businesses level competition, without restricting the project timelines.Assistance with access to bonding, lending, insurance, access to capital, procurement and other types of capacity-related assistance where necessary and available.

 

(4)  Provisions that require periodic reporting, the frequency to be determined by the parties, of activities and ongoing monitoring of compliance by the parties throughout the course of the project.

a. Provisions that require the parties to periodically meet and confer, the frequency to be determined by the parties, and disclose the parties’ activities and the status of compliance to the Host Community residents, and that require periodic public meetings with the opportunity for input and comments by Host Community stakeholders.

b. A community needs assessment regarding the Host Community at the developer’s expense.

c. An environmental and/or public health assessment of the impacts of the proposed development at the developer’s expense.

  1. Specified remedies for violation of the Community Benefits Agreement, which unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, may include, without limitation specific performance, liquidated damages, claw backs, or revocation or withdrawal of tax abatement and public subsidies, either directly by the City of Detroit, or by application to the Michigan Tax Tribunal or Michigan Tax Commission, as provided by law.

Sec. 14-12-5. Exemptions

(a)   The developer may request from the City Council a resolution exempting it from the requirement of entering a Community Benefits Agreement by demonstrating that:

(1)  Identifying a Host Community representative organization to negotiate with on behalf of the Host Community is infeasible or impractical; or

(2)  Good faith negotiations have occurred for a reasonable time period, but negotiations have reached an intractable impasse; or

(3)  Other exigencies make entering a Community Benefits Agreement infeasible in the particular instance.

(b)  To request an exemption, the developer shall

(1)  Provide to the City Council in writing the basis of its request,

(2)  State with particularity the efforts made by the developer to engage the Host Community and the efforts to reach accord on a Community Benefits Agreement, and

(3)  Document how it will otherwise seek to implement the purpose of this Article to provide Community Benefits.

Sec. 14-12-6. City as Third-Party Beneficiary; Development Agreement.

(1)  A Community Benefits Agreement under this Section shall include a provision that the City is an intended Third Party Beneficiary and as such the City may, in its discretion, enforce the Community Benefits Agreement.  Any Development Agreement shall not preclude, prevent, or otherwise limit the Host Community representative party or its successors from having standing to enforce a Community Benefits Agreement.  This subsection shall not be interpreted to change, alter, or diminish the legal and equitable duties, rights, and remedies of the parties to the Community Benefits Agreement.

Sec. 14-12-7. Penalties for Noncompliance; Enforcement;

(1)  The provisions of this Article are prescriptive in nature, and are set forth as required conditions to request, provision, and receipt of Public Support For Investment for Tier 1 Development Projects, Tier 2 Development Projects, and High Impact Development Projects.  Material failure to comply with the provisions of this Article may result in denial, suspension, terminate, and revocation, or withdrawal of Public Support For Investment, but shall not be subject to the penalties set forth in Sec 1-1-9 of this code.  Except, when obtained through substantial and material misrepresentation or fraud, the resolution of City Council approving the Public Support For Investment shall be  evidence of compliance with the provisions of this Article, and thereafter remedies shall be limited to enforcement of the Community Benefits Agreement and/or Development Agreement.

Section 2.  This ordinance is hereby declared necessary to preserve the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the People of the City of Detroit.

Section 3.  All ordinances or parts of ordinances that conflict with this ordinance are repealed.

Section 4.  In the event this ordinance is passed by two-thirds (2/3) majority of City Council Members serving, it shall be given immediate effect and become effective upon publication in accordance with Section 4-118 of the 2012 Detroit City Charter.  Where this ordinance is passed by less than a two-thirds (2/3) majority of City Council Members serving, it shall become effective on the thirtieth (30) day after enactment or on the first business day thereafter in accordance with Section 4-118 of the 2012 Detroit City Charter.

#END

Read the “Enhanced” Ordinance
http://detroitpeoplesplatform.org/read-the-enhanced-ordinance-proposal-b-on-the-november-ballot/

Posted on

Thinking for ourselves By Shea Howell: Community wisdom #CBO #RiseTogetherDetroit

Thinking for ourselves
By Shea Howell

Community wisdom

July 26, 2016
 
Last week a majority of the Detroit City Council voted to place an anti-community proposal on the November ballot.  The intent of this proposal is to confuse voters and protect the interests of big business. Council members Benson, Leland, Tate, Spivey, Cushingberry, and Ayers voted to support the proposal. It was developed hastily by Scott Benson in an effort to destroy a people’s initiative to legally mandate a community voice in major, publicly supported developments.
 
With this decision, Detroit voters are likely to have two competing proposals with the same name on the ballot. One, supported by the people, would use the force of law to ensure that communities have a voice and receive agreed upon benefits from developments that use public money or get tax breaks.  The other, sponsored by Benson, only mandates a public meeting, where developers get to tell citizens what they plan to do.
 
 Mayor Duggan and the business elite oppose a meaningful Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). They argue that a real CBA would limit development and jeopardize job growth. These claims are nonsense. And they are not the core of the objections. The sad truth is that the Mayor, Councilman Benson, the majority of the Council and the business elite fear democracy. They distrust the wisdom of people. They see a CBA only as something that takes away from profits and control. They cannot imagine that a real CBA, with a true collaborative process, would result in better decisions and better development.
 
This anti democratic thrust and fear of the people is actually written into the ordinance proposed by Benson. The one public meeting in the ordinance is orchestrated and designed to tell residents what will happen to them. These “impacts” are universally described in negative terms throughout the ordinance. Citizens are allowed to suggest ways to soften the blows. Nothing is binding.  The philosophy reflected in the Benson Ordinance cast people as complainers. Once we get a chance to grip a little, developers go ahead as planned. This is the track record of development, especially under emergency management and Mayor Duggan. Developers don’t live up to even minimal agreements.
 
In measured support for the Benson Ordinance, Crains says that a real CBA “opens the door to project management by people who may or may not have the subject matter expertise to give guidance and set the rules of play for developers.” The power of the community to “micro-manage specific investments may bring growth to a screeching halt,” they warn.
 
It does not occur to these folks that there is wisdom and creativity in the community. Community knowledge means better development. Community engagement need not be antagonistic.
 
The reality is that communities are complex and multi layered. Developers see only one small slice of that reality.  For example, last March, a Detroit icon, Faygo, faced a community picket over a closed road. The leadership of Faygo was stunned at being picketed, but wisely decided to engage with the community. They learned that in an effort to make their truck deliveries more efficient they had blocked off essential community pathways for children to get to buses and for emergency vehicles to enter the neighborhood quickly.  Before long a compromise was reached so kids could pass safely and emergency vehicles could reach distant streets.
 
Community Development is about more than jobs or limiting “negative impacts.” A true CBA rests on the belief that community wisdom makes for better decisions for everyone.
We owe thanks to Council President Jones and members Castaneda-Lopez and Sheffield for upholding the democratic wisdom of a CBA. Now we need to organize to win the November vote. Detroiters are not so easily fooled.
Posted on

Update: Community Benefits Ordinance Signatures Qualified for November Ballot and Immediately Challenged

Update: Community Benefits Ordinance Signatures Qualified for November Ballot and Immediately Challenged

attention.jpg
Successful grassroots Community Benefits Movement in Detroit threatened by anonymous legal challenge.

On Monday June 27, 2016, the City of Detroit Department of Elections certified the Community benefits Agreement Coalition had collected enough signatures to place the long-sought Community Benefits Ordinance on the ballot in November. As required by law, a letter was sent to City Council thereby giving them 60 days to pass the ordinance as written or refer it to the Election Commission for placement on the ballot in November.

Within 48 hours efforts to challenge the Community Benefit Ordinance were underway.  On Wednesday, CBA Coalition members learned of a legal challenge filed against the ballot initiative. One of Detroit’s leading corporate law firms, working on behalf of an unidentified, anonymous client, has challenged the validity of signatures collected.

CBA Coalition partners will be working today to confirm the details of this challenge and will share more information as it becomes available.

This has been a tremendous effort and an important act of citizen-led democracy on display. The CBA Coalition partners want to thank the members who have supported and made this all-volunteer grassroots effort possible. Detroiters from every corner of the city have stepped up to help move the CBA Ordinance to a vote by the people, and we will continue the fight.

Please visit http://risetogetherdetroit.com/ for more information and updates on the efforts to gain a Community Benefits Ordinance for all Detroiters.

More: http://detroitpeoplesplatform.org/cba-ordinance-signatures-qualified-for-nov-ballot/

“If we have to pay, we get a say!”

#RiseTogether #DetroitCBA

Posted on

CBA Ordinance Signatures Qualified for Nov Ballot

CBA Ordinance Signatures Qualified for Nov Ballot
The CBA Coalition learned yesterday that they met the required number of signatures for qualifying the CBA ordinance to be placed on the November 2016 ballot.  This was a tremendous effort and an important act of citizen led democracy on display!

DSC_0017

L to R – Bill Hickey, Brightmoor Community CBA Coalition, Tommy Robbins, West Grand Boulevard Collaborative, Linda Campbell, Equitable Detroit Coalition, Mildred Robbins, West Grand Boulevard Collaborative, Angy Webb, Revive CDC.

Thanks to all of the Detroit Peoples Platform network members and supporters who supported this volunteer grassroots effort – and citizens stepped up and met the challenge.   The election department will notify the City Council that the petitions have been certified and council will have 60 days to vote on the ordinance or to decide to put it on the ballot.  
DSC_0052

L to R – Bill Hickey, Brightmoor Community CBA Coalition, Tommy and Mildred Robbins, West Grand Boulevard Collaborative, Angy Webb, Revive CDC.

We will provide regular updates as the campaign moves into the second phase along with  information how you can become a volunteer for the next phase of the campaign.
#RiseTogether
#DetroitCBA