A Seat at the Table

The Coalition for Economic Justice and our allies recognize the importance and significance of the Canal Side Project to plans to revitalize our city, and revision an historic site. A Community Benefits Agreement is an innovative economic development tool that when applied to the Canal Side Project will only improve the final product. Our Coalition remains as hopeful as ever, and views the Common Council resolution as a unique opportunity to give community voices a seat at the table as plans move forward. Community Benefits Agreements have been negotiated across the nation with benefit to both communities and developers, CEJ and our allies at PUSH Buffalo, Partnership for the Public Good, and the Buffalo Urban League, and across Western New York look forward to forging an agreement which benefits our community and realizes the potential for economic growth the Canal Side Project promises our city.

Community Benefits Agreements have acted to mitigate for community interests in development projects from coast to coast since the close of the 20th Century. The use of CBA's provides a new model for community input in public development projects, rather than delaying projects or driving costs up, these agreements have acted as conduits for a two-way exchange between Capital and Community. As the Coalition for Economic Justice and our allies prepare to enter negotiations with the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC), it has been integral to examine the victories and success communities across the nation have had in protecting their taxpayers' investments.

NON-STARTER? Last week in comments to the Buffalo News, a representative of the ECHDC described the proposed Community Benefits Agreement's living wage provision as a "non-starter," indicating that retailers would never pay the higher wage rate. However, in the ECHDC's Generic Environmental Impact Study, creating living wage jobs is listed among the goals the organization has set for the Canal Side Development. Furthermore, in the past decade, communities in California have secured living wage provisions for five major development projects, most notably the Staples Center CBA in 2001, the Noho Commons CBA in 2001, Marlton Square CBA in 2003, Hollywood and Vine CBA in 2004 and the CIM Project CBA in 2003. It would seem that when massive subsidies are involved, paying a living wage isn't necessarily a red flag for developers or tenant businesses.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that Community Benefits Agreements are not a West Coast phenomenon. Closer to home, The Connecticut Center for a New Economy negotiated the Yale-New Haven Hospital CBA in 2006. The CBA incorporated funding for housing, economic development, job training, and youth development programs. Likewise, the agreement held strong environmental standards and local hiring provisions. Finally, CEJ has looked into the Hill District CBA in Pittsburgh.

Pittsburgh's Community Benefits Agreement sets an important precedent for former manufacturing centers scattered throughout the Rustbelt. Hill District proves that CBA's are viable economic tools for boom towns and cities working towards recovery alike, with Pittsburgh's economic conditions providing a valuable comparison to Buffalo, NY. Pittsburgh's CBA provided tangible goods to the community in the form of community control of the project, local hiring standards, affordable shopping centers, and a multi-purpose public space for that community.

The history of Community Benefits Agreements in the 21st century has not been one of obstructionism, but rather a story of progress, compromise, and a redress of grievances. Municipalities and their constituents throughout the nation no longer believe massive corporate subsidies should be given without strings attached. CBA's are creating a new way of doing business in which the public has a voice in deciding how their tax dollars are spent.

The question we should be asking, "Why should Buffalo settle for less than our neighbors?" Before we trade away our region's greatest natural resource, shouldn't we ensure that the people of Western New York are getting their money's worth? In the nation's 3rd-poorest urban center, it seems Buffalonians need to be especially mindful of the way in which our limited development monies are utilized...We need to make sure that ECHDC, and the Canal Side Project works for us.

With the common council's courageous action, CEJ and our allies have been promised a seat at the table as plans move forward with Canal Side. We look forward to working alongside our community allies in negotiating an agreement that both the ECHDC and the people of Western New York can live with, and everyone can work with...


The Coalition for Economic Justice would like to thank the Partnership for Working Families for their diligent research on Community Benefits Agreements.

Responding to the Poverty Research Forum

Last Friday, The Homeless Alliance of WNY, Partnership for the Public Good, the University at Buffalo Civic Engagement and Public Policy research initiative, and the Western New York Service Learning Coalition sponsored a Buffalo Poverty Research Workshop.

Findings from Friday's Forum reinforce the necessity for CEJ's work in Buffalo. A look at the precarious position occupied by WNY's workers highlights the need for CEJ's campaigns focused on Living Wages and accountable economic development. As we delve into friday's findings, we'll see just how important a CBA (Community Benefits Agreement) can be in addressing the need for GOOD JOBS in our city.

The workshop featured presentations from prominent local scholars, including presentations from:

• Dr. Kathryn Foster, Regional Institute of Buffalo, University at Buffalo
• Dr. Wende Mix, Geography, Buffalo State
• Dr. Samina Raja, Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo
• Dr. Erin Robinson, Sociology, Canisius College
• Dr. Henry Taylor, Center for Urban Studies, University at Buffalo

Findings presented at Friday's forum present both challenges facing WNY as well as possible solutions for a more secure future...

Dr. Foster of the Regional Institute, highlighting findings found in Regional Institute's February 2010 Policy Brief; "Playing an Insecure Hand: Low-Wage Workers in the New Economy," presented on the new landscape in WNY for job-seekers, and what can be done to alleviate such strains on workers...

Between 2004 and 2008,

• WNY saw a 17% increase in low-wage jobs (0-$30,000)
• WNY saw a 6% increase in high-paying jobs ($70,000+)
• WNY saw a 10% decline in middle-wage occupations. ($30,000-$70,000)

As manufacturing jobs have left western New York, the region has seen an obvious decline inrelative wealth, in 1969 Buffalo ranked 31st in average wage per job at $41,629, almost forty years later in 2008, Buffalo has dropped to 155 in average wage per job at $39,214. In 2009, 46% of all jobs in Western New York earned less than 30,000 per year...

As a result of the limited opportunities available to WNY workers, more families have taken to working multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Buffalo has seen a rise in the number of households with multiple workers- up to 60%. While employement levels in Western New York mirror national averages, it is the level of under-employment which most threatens today's workers.

___________________________________________________________

Dr. Wende Mix, a geography professor at Buffalo State College presented his findings on "The Geography of Urban Poverty." Dr. Mix's analysis of Poverty in Western New York have presented some interesting statistics on the economic landscape here in Buffalo, and how Buffalo measures up across the nation.

Described as the 3rd Poorest Metropolitan Area in the United States, Dr. Mix presents a different look at Buffalo as it compares with other Urban areas:

• 50% of Metro Areas in the United States have the same, or greater proportion of families below the federal poverty line.
• 10% of Buffalo Families currently live below the federal poverty line.
• 69% of all Families in Western New York living below the federal poverty line are Female Householder with no husband present. (31% of all Female Householder, no husband families live below the poverty line.)
• Less than 10% of urban areas have the same or greater proportion of Hispanic/Latino persons living under the poverty line.
• Buffalo, NY has African-Americans living below the poverty level than 55% of US Urban Areas.

What does this mean? Buffalo, NY has similar poverty levels as those reported across the nation. However, African Americans, Hispanic/Latino, and Single-mother households are being hit the hardest!!! What can Buffalo do to address these issues?_________________________________________________________

Looking at the landscape for WNY's future, What can we do to address these issues?

The Regional Institute of Buffalo has suggested government-mandated Living Wage policies as a proven method for lifitng people out of poverty. The Coalition for Economic Justice has supported Living Wages since our founding, and have won Living Wage resolutions at the City, County, and School Board levels over the past decade.

Furthermore, The Institute recommends other pro-work policies such as subsidies for healthcare, childcare, utilities and trasportation. Sliding scales for eligibility must be introduced as poverty-level indicators are often out of touch with reality, and families earning $1 over threshholds have negative incentives to continue working.

These recommendations are timely, as CEJ fights for full-compliance of a Living Wage resolution supported by the Buffalo School Board to extend coverage to over 1,000 workers. Furthermore, childcare subsidies have recently come under attack, with CEJ, VOICE-Buffalo, and numerous community organizations and leaders pushing for the County Executive to extend benefits to nearly 1,500 families whose income, while barely over the poverty-line, disqualifies them for assistance.

After looking at both the recommendations of the Regional Institute, as well as, Dr. Mix's geographical breakdown of WNY it seems now, more than ever, we need a Community Benefits Agreement to ensure the Canalside Project brings the types of jobs we need for Western New York!

The Canalside development, as is, would bring another 1400 Low-wage jobs to WNY, with an average annual salary of $22,000- WNY doesn't need more low-wage jobs!!!!

Our CBA would:

• mandate living wages for all businesses with more than 20 employees
• mandate minority hiring (a necessity in a region with African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos hit harder than other demographics)
• include affordable housing- Canalside's wage-laborers must be able to afford to live where they work
• Local Independent Business Development- 75% of commercial space must be reserved for local businesses, with special consideration for women and minority-owned businesses (also a necessity with single-mother households hit especially hard in WNY)

There are challenging issues facing the workers of Western New York. Friday's forum was an opportunity for those around the region to share insights on the future of our city. With WNY inundated with an ever-growing class of low-wage laborers, and losses in middle-income positions it seems the Coalition for Economic Justice's fight for Living Wages, and a Community Benefits Agreement for our Waterfront are more pressing than ever in shaping the vision for our economic future.

A Community-Based Survey on Economic Development of Buffalo

Waterfront Development on the Canal Side

A Community-Based Survey on Economic Development of Buffalo

February 10, 2010
by
M.S.W. Intern,
SUNY Buffalo
Coalition for Economic Justice

Goals of the Survey:
The survey was conducted to assess the community’s knowledge of the on-going planning of Waterfront Development at the Canal Side. The survey assessed residents’ knowledge by posing questions about the involved officials such as specific companies, corporations, and stakeholders involved in the project.
In addition to answering the questions, survey participants shared their views of the project’s progress and pros and cons associated with the progress.
Another goal of the survey was to assess residents’ own needs and expectations from the project. Respondents showed their support for application of certain standards in return for tax incentives provided to corporations.
The survey has 3 sections devoted to meeting its proposed goals:
1. A section asking residents about their knowledge about the construction companies, corporations, decision makers, and planners of the Waterfront Development. This section notes arguments for and against companies, corporations, decision makers, and planners involved in the project.
2. A section asking residents’ opinions and suggestions on specific outcome(s) on the standards they expect to be applied.
3. A section assessing the level of trust residents have of appointed officials responsible for the Waterfront Development and their general ideas about providing corporations tax breaks as an incentive for establishing business(es) in Buffalo.
Data & Methods:
· Survey of 159 residents in Buffalo
· Conducted in fall of 2009
· Areas targeted for collection:
o Elmwood Village
o Various areas of East Side Buffalo
o Downtown (Main Street)
o UB – North Campus
o West Side Area
o Buffalo Subway Line (Seneca Station, Lafayette Station, Church Station, Theatre Station, Utica Station)
· Resulting sample represents wide participation of residents in terms of age, race/ethnicity, and region.
Overview of Sample:
· Surveys were mostly conducted/collected during lunch time around noon till 3:00 pm. The residents were randomly approached and were asked questions from the survey. Some residents stopped curiously to participate when saw an exchange of dialogue between the collector and (other) participants. The conversation(s) generated from the surveys usually lasted 10 – 15 minutes, approximately. Some residents engaged in detailed conversation and expressed great concerns on the current economic conditions of Buffalo. Other residents expressed their ideas and suggested strategies to improve current economic conditions in the area.
*Note: Survey participants were approached randomly based on their openness to discuss and part-take in filling out the survey. The participants were diverse members of the community from different races and ages. Many refused to participate in the survey questionnaire and their decisions were respected.
*On various instances, survey participants engaged in detailed conversations about Buffalo’s economic conditions, however only the points pertaining to the survey questionnaire were documented.

Secondary gain: The survey was able to achieve its intended goal during the process of conducting surveys. It enabled participants to get engaged and get information about their community’s social and economic conditions. The interest was sparked through an exchange of dialogue. Most of the participants seemed unaware of the on-going development plans for the Waterfront. Some of the participants addressed the issue of the city’s poor planning strategies. Numerous residents acknowledged their lack of involvement and awareness about the subject matter and shared their desire to become involved, gain knowledge, and participate in Buffalo’s revitalization plan.
1). The following questions were asked to assess residents’ knowledge on the corporations, developers, planners involved in the Waterfront Development Project. The residents also provided us with their perception of developers, planners, and corporations and their overall sentiments on their involvement in the project.
a). Have you heard of Bass Pro?

b). Have you heard of Benderson Development?

In addition to answering the above question, respondents made the following remarks that are divided in following categories.
Positive remarks:
· They are good
· Fair company
Negative remarks:
· Not favorable, they are into politics
· Never trusted them, they do a lot of cheap buildings and shady deals.
· Control freak, anti-worker, all about them.
· Build empty buildings that stay unoccupied
· They are selfish and greedy, charge too high rent. A lot of empty store-fronts.
· Do a lot of large projects in the area. Rents too high for small businesses.

c). Have you heard of Erie Canal Harbor Development?

In addition to answering the survey question, respondents also gave their following remarks.
Positive Remarks:
· Appreciate the owners are willing to invest in Buffalo
· Instrumental in restoring historic area of waterfront
Negative Remarks:
· Trying to improve the harbor, they are not getting anything done.
· Controlled by local politicians
· Private developers should not have such massive control of what happens at our waterfront.
a). Should Bass Pro get tax breaks?

The following reasons were provided, in addition to answering the question.
Why Yes:
· Job providers
· To encourage them to come in
· Otherwise they will go to Ohio
· As long as they give it back to the city
· They will bring a lot of growth to the area
· Businesses that provide jobs should get tax breaks

Why Not:
· Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for this
· Should give tax breaks to small businesses (3 respondents shared same remarks)
· They got enough money
· We need the money for other things
· Big companies should pay, they have enough resources
· Everyone should have to pay taxes
· “why are these big corporations getting big tax breaks”
· Absolutely not, its thriving $ 67 million
· They are big corporation, they don’t need it
· More help should go to tax payers
Other:
· A small one in return for breaks to the city’s businesses
· If necessary to bring them here
· Depends if they are doing inner-city hiring, local hiring
· If it helps the city then
· Depends how much break, some incentives should be given
· Small tax breaks, they are big corporations so they do not need a big break
· Conditional, in exchange for good paying jobs, with benefits, commitment to community
b). Is it fair to ask companies to meet certain community standards when they receive tax breaks?

The following community standards were recommended by the respondents in return for tax subsidies to corporations.

a). What would you like to see on the Waterfront?

Canal Side Project

The Project:

According to the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC), the Canal Side project will likely cost $315 million in public and private investments- more than $155 million in subsidies for this massive development will be provided through public sources. ECHDC plans to use nearly 20 acres of our waterfront to facilitate the development of over 1 million square feet for mixed-use retail, hospitality, commercial, cultural, and residential space in downtown Buffalo.

The project plan includes Bass Pro as the anchor tenant, a major-destination retailer, and sets aside 35 million in taxpayer dollars to directly subsidize the construction of the Bass Pro Outdoor World. The public has already provided millions in subsidies to Bass Pro, footing the nearly $10 million dollar cost associated with the demolition of the Aud. Further public contributions include $4 million+ in subsidies to Benderson Development, as well as funding parking structures and DOT signs for Bass Pro.

CEJ understands the necessity of developing Buffalo's waterfront, but despite our public support, ECHDC is unwilling to require anything in return from Bass Pro or Benderson Development, the project's Master Developer. It is up to us, WNY's taxpayers, to see to it that this project works for us!

Making Canal Side Work for Workers:

WNY's taxpayers must see a return on the nearly $160 Million dollar investment we have made in Buffalo's future. The best way to ensure that Canal Side provides tangible benefits for the community is through a Community Benefits Agreement(CBA). A CBA is a legally enforceable contract between a community group and a developer that guarantees various standards that the developer agrees to provide in exchange for support for the project from the community.

For the Canal Side Project, CEJ would like to see a CBA that;

• Includes a green building and green infrastructure requirement so that all buildings meet the equivalent of LEED-Silver and include effective storm water management and water conservation plans;
• Accommodates and nurtures small and local businesses, as opposed to big box retailers, so that more money re-circulates in our immediate community by setting aside appropriately sized commercial spaces for local, independent businesses;
• Ensures the creation of quality permanent jobs that pay a Living Wage;
• Prioritizes and sets legally binding goals for local and minority hiring;
• Requires prevailing rate be paid on all construction jobs, with minority, local hiring, and apprenticeship goals;
• Focuses on mixed use development; and
• Maintains existing moderate income housing while making new residential units affordable and available to low and moderate income residents.

Community organizations throughout the city have endorsed CEJ’s call for a CBA, including the Buffalo Urban League, PUSH-Buffalo, Citizen Action of WNY, and Sustainable Earth Solutions.

CEJ will continue to meet with ECHDC to ensure a Community Benefits Agreement protects our investment in Buffalo's greatest natural resource, our Waterfront.

United States Social Forum 2010

Call to Action!

What: USSF 2010
When: June 22-26, 2010
Where: Detroit, Michigan
(Cobo Hall and Hart Plaza)

Jobs with Justice is a member of the National Planning Committee for the USSF 2010- and JwJ Coalitions from around the nation, including Coaliton for Economic Justice, will be sending delegations to the forum in June!

The USSF will provide space to build relationships, learn from each other's experiences, share our analysis of the problems our communities face, and bring renewed insight and inspiration. It will help develop leadership and develop consciousness, vision, and strategy needed to realize another world

Some Goals for USSF 2010:

• Create a space for social movement convergence and strategic discussio
• Advance social movements agenda for action and transformation
• Build stronger relationships and collaboration between movement
• Deepen our commitment to international solidarity and common struggle

It will create an open space and a process for creating movement convergence and coordination, raise awareness of social justice issues, provide opportunities to share experiences, and discuss strategies that create social change and solutions to the daunting challenges of a new Decade.

CEJ is planning to send a delegation of 20 individuals, including affected workers, organizational representatives, staff, and individual members to the 2010 USSF...It's time to start thinking about our delegation...

for more information on USSF 2010, or to donate, visit: http://www.ussf2010.org/