Chair Ung Q&A: Mangin on community benefits agreements and trade-offs

You have stated that the community benefits agreement involves trade-offs.

Can you please expand on those trade-offs and in view of your view, when are those trade-offs justified and when they are not?

Thank you for the question.

Yes, community benefits agreements, I firmly believe.

that they are a very useful tool to get projects to yes.

I want to get that out of the open.

The trade-offs that I've referred to in the past are at times, when crafting community benefits agreements, we all have to be careful.

That we are enabling feasibility for that project and that the community benefits agreements aren't, for instance, so costly that it prevents projects from happening.

I think that we've all seen instances of this in New York City.

Happily, we've also seen instances, large and small,

of approvals, you know, like City of Yes for Housing Opportunity at the biggest end, $5 billion of community benefits in order to support that new housing.

You know, $413 million as part of the Jamaican neighborhood rezoning.

Or even smaller scales, individual projects in districts that have open space constraints that are underserved by open space, where new projects get approved along with new publicly accessible open space in order to support that housing.

Those are all huge win-win situations that help to

demonstrate how these approvals benefit not just the people who move into the housing, but also the broader community.

And again, I think community benefits agreements are an incredibly useful tool to get there.

So when are they not justified?

It's not a matter, thank you for the question, it's not a matter of justified or not justified.

It's just maintaining consciousness of making sure that projects remain feasible and that the community benefits are not so costly that it prevents the project itself and those community benefits from coming to fruition.

That's what I was referring to.

Can you give us an example of that, just in the past?

Thank you for the question.

I think I'd want to get back to you on that.

Okay.

To do a little more research on that.

Thank you.

Okay, sure.

Community benefits grievance also often negotiate to address local concerns about development.

What role, if any, do you believe the agreement should play in ensuring that communities share in the benefits of the new development?

Thank you for the question.

I think that they can play an incredibly important role in a range of applications.

We mentioned at the highest end, the $5 billion intended to support the additional 80,000 units created by, enabled by City of Yes for Housing Opportunity.

You know, the $400 million of improvements to, for instance, the sewer systems in Jamaica in order to make those work.

And then, you know, through environmental review, identifying when projects may have impacts, for instance, on school seats.

Publicly accessible open space, on transportation, and then ensuring that those projects come along with, you know, the new entrance to the subway necessary for that project to make planning sense,

or the additional publicly accessible open space necessary in order for that project to have a land use rationale, or the millions of dollars in payments to create new school seats to support the children that will be brought to the neighborhood for those projects.