Cbta Case Study Summary

AEG exceeded the number of required housing units that they funded, worked closely with community partners to establish an effective local hiring program, and helped fund a newly created land trust. Despite critics noting problems with the wording in the CBA, AEG has met the CBA goals. This was probably motivated in part by AEG’s need for continued coalition support since it needed over $200 million in rebates for hotel bed taxes. Another issue is that monitoring and coordinating job and housing programs add to the workload of community organizations, and studies of the implementation of CBAs suggest that funding for staff should be a part of such agreements. For example, while there was some L.A. Live CBA funding to help set up the initial worker education program, this covered only a fraction
Negotiating CBAs is extremely resource-intensive, both for developers and community coalitions, and project-by-project negotiation is a costly long-term strategy. Los Angeles and New York City are demonstrating the next step, going from CBAs with individual projects, to incorporating some of the major aspects of CBAs involving wages and hiring practices in their policies in projects involving significant public subsidies and/or large contracts. In Los Angeles, this CBA marks a shift in city agencies’ earlier “condemn-and-clear approach” that destroyed neighborhoods, to a “sustainable growth with equity”. Making government expectations clear helps developers as they plan and calculate the fiscal feasibility of projects. Individual CBAs and city policies covering major projects are significant steps toward improving the lives of low-income and working-class residents, and CBAs can be effective tools for creating benefits that fit the local circumstances. Considering, however, the growing number of the working poor, and the shortage of affordable housing, these steps need to be part of comprehensive public