On Tuesday, November 30, 2010, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report of an eighteen year study it conducted from 1990-2008. The report evaluated the affect of living wage laws on economic development and job growth. The study entitled “Creating Good Jobs in Our Communities: How Higher Wage Standards Affect Economic Development and Employment,” compared 15 cities that were successful in the implementation of a business assistance living wage law to 16 control cities that tried and were unsuccessful in the passage and execution of such laws. To date there are 140 local governments that have enforced some form of living wage laws within their jurisdictions.
The report noted that local governments spend more than $50 billion in policies which aim to draw private investors into areas to increase investments and jobs through avenues such as direct subsidies, tax exemptions, and infrastructure improvements. These dollars often come from public funding which are tax-payer dollars. The success of these avenues is not often victorious with businesses relocating to other cities leaving individuals searching for jobs once again.
Several key findings were revealed in CAP’s report putting to rest opponents’ arguments about the negative impact living wage laws have on business venture and job growth in areas that have enacted these laws. For instance, it is argued that cities with living wage laws scare away potential investors due to higher employee costs forced upon them. Additionally, there is the argument that businesses will not hire additional employees due to these stipulations. However, it was found that cities with these laws have the same level of economic growth as cities with comparable attributes but no living wage laws enforcing labor standards. Furthermore, these laws were found to have no negative effects on low-wage workers or low-wage worker industries.
As noted in the report, Living wage laws allow for local governments to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not subsidize poverty wages. Various ways have been developed in order to connect labor standards to public development projects; such as Community Benefit Agreements and prevailing wage and living wage laws, with living wage laws at the forefront of establishing these connections.
To read the Center for American Progress’s full report please click link below: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/11/pdf/living_wage.pdf.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Heartened by Amendments to MGPP, But We Still Need a CBA
On Monday (11/29/10) afternoon the ECHDC Board of Directors voted to approve the Modified General Project Plan (MGPP) for Canal Side. CEJ and the Canal Side Alliance, as well as several of our members listened to Chairman Jordan Levy discuss amendments to the MGPP, and then presented over 1,000 post cards from Buffalo residents in support of a Community Benefits Agreement for the development project.
For the most part, we were heartened by the steps made by the ECHDC in amending the MGPP. One of our top priorities has always been to create a more accountable and transparent process with increased community engagement. The incorporation of some community ideas into the MGPP makes us cautiously optimistic that the ECHDC is more willing to work with and listen to the community.
Specifically, the hiring of Fred Kent, of the Project for Public Spaces to assist Canal Side architects shows a commitment to embracing the notion of “lighter, quicker, cheaper” which the public has been calling for. This stands in contrast with large-scale private business subsidies and infrastructure designed to accommodate them, which had been a mainstay of the previous plan. An example of this is the decision to table the construction of a major parking garage on the old Aud site. On the whole, it appears there has been a shift in focus towards public infrastructure. Our hope is that they may be realizing what we’ve been saying all along, that spending tax money on public goods is a much smarter investment than giving it away to private businesses and hoping that the public benefits.
In addition, ECHDC announced on Monday the creation of three subcommittees to study the Historic District, the Buffalo River, and the Outer Harbor. The committees will be made up of community members and chaired by Jordan Levy, with assistance from Fred Kent, and will issue their first reports to the board in February. This is another sign of doors opening to authentic community engagement and participation.
While this is encouraging, as we move forward on this project, the ECHDC needs to take the next step and negotiate a Community Benefits Agreement. This would lay out guiding principles for the development project, and make sure the public benefit from this investment is maximized. Absent at Monday’s meeting was the discussion by board members of a CBA, despite the fact that the Common Council passed in March a unanimous resolution conditioning the sale of city land on the successful negotiation of a CBA.
To that end, CEJ hosted meeting of faith leaders and Common Council members on Tuesday, November 30th, in discussion on the need for a CBA. Faith leaders re-iterated their support of a CBA and how the agreement would help the members of their congregations, and Common Council members Rivera, LoCurto, and Haynes explained the history and progress of the fight for a CBA in the Common Council. Break-out groups allowed faith leaders to converse with each other and with their councilmember, each sharing their knowledge and insight as well as concerns moving forward. This allowed faith leaders to learn more about the process of the CBA and understand how they can most effectively lend support to that process on behalf of their congregations.
While amended and somewhat improved, passing the MGPP puts a plan in motion, which is essentially placing the cart before the horse. We still don’t fundamentally understand what will be going down there. For instance, how much money will still be spent on private development? Buffalo faces many challenges including poverty, lack of community control over resources, underemployment and unemployment. A CBA would also address these challenges. A CBA would also set a precedent for future development and establish WNY as a business, community, and people friendly region.
For the most part, we were heartened by the steps made by the ECHDC in amending the MGPP. One of our top priorities has always been to create a more accountable and transparent process with increased community engagement. The incorporation of some community ideas into the MGPP makes us cautiously optimistic that the ECHDC is more willing to work with and listen to the community.
Specifically, the hiring of Fred Kent, of the Project for Public Spaces to assist Canal Side architects shows a commitment to embracing the notion of “lighter, quicker, cheaper” which the public has been calling for. This stands in contrast with large-scale private business subsidies and infrastructure designed to accommodate them, which had been a mainstay of the previous plan. An example of this is the decision to table the construction of a major parking garage on the old Aud site. On the whole, it appears there has been a shift in focus towards public infrastructure. Our hope is that they may be realizing what we’ve been saying all along, that spending tax money on public goods is a much smarter investment than giving it away to private businesses and hoping that the public benefits.
In addition, ECHDC announced on Monday the creation of three subcommittees to study the Historic District, the Buffalo River, and the Outer Harbor. The committees will be made up of community members and chaired by Jordan Levy, with assistance from Fred Kent, and will issue their first reports to the board in February. This is another sign of doors opening to authentic community engagement and participation.
While this is encouraging, as we move forward on this project, the ECHDC needs to take the next step and negotiate a Community Benefits Agreement. This would lay out guiding principles for the development project, and make sure the public benefit from this investment is maximized. Absent at Monday’s meeting was the discussion by board members of a CBA, despite the fact that the Common Council passed in March a unanimous resolution conditioning the sale of city land on the successful negotiation of a CBA.
To that end, CEJ hosted meeting of faith leaders and Common Council members on Tuesday, November 30th, in discussion on the need for a CBA. Faith leaders re-iterated their support of a CBA and how the agreement would help the members of their congregations, and Common Council members Rivera, LoCurto, and Haynes explained the history and progress of the fight for a CBA in the Common Council. Break-out groups allowed faith leaders to converse with each other and with their councilmember, each sharing their knowledge and insight as well as concerns moving forward. This allowed faith leaders to learn more about the process of the CBA and understand how they can most effectively lend support to that process on behalf of their congregations.
While amended and somewhat improved, passing the MGPP puts a plan in motion, which is essentially placing the cart before the horse. We still don’t fundamentally understand what will be going down there. For instance, how much money will still be spent on private development? Buffalo faces many challenges including poverty, lack of community control over resources, underemployment and unemployment. A CBA would also address these challenges. A CBA would also set a precedent for future development and establish WNY as a business, community, and people friendly region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
