Fixing Community Benefits Agreements: A Rights-based Approach to Urban Renewal

• In Event: Corporatism and Its Effect on Cities

Abstract

The earliest adherents of liberal political thought have advocated decentralized authority and dispersed social and political conflict. They argued that pluralism is instrumental in order to nurture a culture that promotes the values of negotiation and compromise among divergent interests in order to accomplish any desired political goal. Here, I wish to apply these fundamental insights to real-world conflict over resources in American cities. Redevelopment projects have often been criticized for being insufficiently sensitive to the wishes and welfare of those most likely to be adversely affected by them. In the face of mounting insecurities, low-income residents have sought to protect themselves by organizing community benefits agreements. These are private agreements negotiated by developers along with representatives of the community designed to assuage these concerns. While some agreements have been lauded for promoting more equitable ends, others have been scrutinized for being little more than facades that elevate the interests of elites who push for them. In this paper, I contend that elite interests have been overrepresented when it comes to crucial decisions regarding the built environment. In light of this, although community benefits agreements have been rightly scrutinized, I argue in favor of a rights-based liberalism that is grounded in the Principle of Affected Interest to improve them. For their shortcomings, the democratic potential of community benefits agreements can be instrumental in promoting a more just city.

Author

• Nicholas Adam Robinson, Temple University