Communities deserve to be heard on development, but not like this
Simply stated, there has to be a better way to get there from here. A significant portion of that pathway goes through the elected members of Detroit City Council, whose job it already is to intercede and advocate on behalf of their constituents.
Much of the reason that voters rightfully decided to return to a mostly district model for their City Council as opposed to the complete at-large model that Detroit struggled under for years is that districts are supposed to make councilmembers more easily and directly accountable. So adding a separate, brand new decision-making body, which is what the proposed community benefits ordinance would do, takes the decision-making responsibility off the shoulders of the people we elected to do this work. It places it in the hands of yet another group of citizens who, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, are simply another layer of bureaucracy where one should not be needed.
In short, city council’s job is to represent the citizens with elected leaders whom the citizens have designated as qualified to get the job done. If, for some reason, it becomes apparent that they aren’t so qualified, adding yet another group of non-elected citizens to balance the ship isn’t the best way to achieve the goal. Either hold those councilmembers accountable or elect new councilmembers.
Secondly, as currently written, the proposed ordinance has some notable shortcomings, not the least of which is its apparent intention to exclude members of City Council from having any say-so in negotiating the Community Benefits Agreement with the developer, or in choosing members of that committee. To exclude the city’s elected representatives from participating in such significant decisions that affect so many of their constituents is problematic at best.
None of this is to say, however, that the sentiments that gave rise to the call for a community benefits ordinance are completely unreasonable. No one should oppose the idea that community residents deserve a say-so in how their neighborhoods might be affected by any proposed development. The history of lower income communities being ripped apart by freeways (which is what happened to Paradise Valley and Black Bottom), or targeted as locations for the highest polluting factories (Southwest Detroit, Flint) is indisputable, and it is ugly.
And that’s just for starters when it comes to what happens to “our” neighborhoods as opposed to what happens to “theirs,” which is how this is being viewed in more than a few Detroit neighborhoods outside the bustling downtown. There is a not-so-paranoid-as-you-might-think fear that Detroit is being sold off to the highest bidders, which means the lowest bidders — meaning many longtime Detroiters — will be swept off the field. That sentiment largely explains the recent lawsuit filed against the Wayne County Treasurer’s Office and the City of Detroit to halt property tax foreclosures.
However ill-advised that lawsuit may be in some respects (and not so ill-advised in others), it’s hard to ignore the fear that Detroiters are losing their homes at an alarming rate at a time when the city is booming and perceived “outsiders” are moving in to take advantage of that misfortune.
In other words, those quick to dismiss the movement supporting a community benefits ordinance as nothing more than crazy and outlandish need to reconsider those sentiments and think a little longer and harder before rephrasing. Because rephrasing how opponents characterize this movement, and re-examining the very real concerns behind it, is what will be required before any significant progress can be made toward resolving this issue.
And the issue, just to be clear, is how to do a better job of factoring community input into the city’s development decisions, because it is those communities that are at risk of being adversely impacted by someone else’s idea of forward progress.
As unbelievable as it may seem to some, not everyone is thrilled with the bright and shiny new downtown and Midtown. There is an angry, bubbling undercurrent fueled by the belief that the development of this New (rich and white) Detroit we hear so much about depends on erasing the Old (poor and black) Detroit. One person’s revitalization can easily be read as someone else’s eviction notice.
Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones says the ordinance will increase citizens’ influence in Detroit development, but Detroit union leaders say it will “simply send investment north of 8 Mile.”
Two weeks ago, those leaders stood in front of the Spirit of Detroit to denounce an ordinance they feel is a danger to the city’s future. Speakers at the press conference included Mike Jackson, executive secretary-treasurer for the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters and Millwrights; Derrick Sanders of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324; and Michael Aaron of the Laborers’ Local 1191.
They all expressed concern regarding the language in the ordinance. Jackson emphasized that the group does not denounce community benefits agreements as a concept.
“We strongly support a Community Benefits Agreement, but this ordinance is not what we need. As it is written, it will be a jobs killer in the city of Detroit and simply send investment north of 8 Mile.”
Jones has a very different view.
“If Detroiters have to pay, then they should have a say,” she said. In a letter to the Detroit Free Press, Jones expressed her support for the ordinance, making note of the rapid changes taking place in the city.
“Since money is still required to run the city, it is only fair that if a project is getting a tax break for virtually free land, it should provide some benefit to those who are still paying to make up the difference,” she said.
Councilman Scott Benson submitted an alternative ordinance that is more palatable to the business community but has drawn significant fire from supporters of the original version, which City Council voted unanimously last week to forward to the Detroit Election Commission whose job it is to decide whether or not to put it on the ballot in November. Opponents of the Benson’s version claim he is trying to undermine the petition, which Benson strongly denies.
The community benefits ordinance was first introduced to City Council two years ago and was designed to give Detroit citizens more say-so in the development process. The ordinance would require that all $15 million development projects with at least $300,000 in subsidy be reviewed by host committees within Detroit communities.
The ordinance grew from a petition by a grassroots campaign, Rise Together Detroit. The campaign believes that the ordinance will help ensure that “those within ‘old Detroit’ are not left out” as the city continues to be developed. Rashida Tlaib, former Michigan House representative, is a leader in the push of the ordinance. In an interview with Michigan Radio, Tlaib suggested that the ordinance requires more of a burden for Detroit communities.
“The burden is on the community to be organized,” she said.
Tlaib said that if communities don’t do their part in establishing host committees to review developments, developers may go to City Council and get the review waived. Tlaib believes that more public conversation regarding upcoming developments will discourage corruption. She said the ordinance will ensure that issues such as public health, noise barriers, quality of life and blight aren’t overlooked by developers.
Tlaib was not available to the Chronicle for comment.
Community Benefits Agreements are not a new concept, and have proven to be effective in many U.S. cities. In areas of Washington and Pittsburgh, these agreements have ensured jobs and the overall welfare of communities surrounding new developments. Aaron stated that the lack of clarity in this ordinance will do the opposite.
“The ordinance may have admirable goals, but unfortunately, it has unclear and unfair guidelines for achieving them. This so-called community benefits ordinance would stop Detroit’s economic growth dead in its tracks,” he said.
About Post Author
