Thinking about proffers/community benefits

I submitted a letter yesterday about two cases before the Zoning Commission, Cases 06-11 & 06-12, concerning the Campus Plan for George Washington University and the creation of a campus-wide Planned Unit Development.

This provided the context to communicate to the Zoning Commission serious reservations about the entire PUD negotiating process. This is something I've written about before, in:

-- The Agony of Defeat
-- If the carcass is the DC Government property portfolio, are eager developers merely "The Carrion Eaters?".

Here's what I wrote yesterday (slightly edited):

While it is in fact the case that the DC economy rests upon real estate and development, it should not be forgotten that the PUD process is intended to provide developers more flexibility in return for proffers-public benefits.

Parenthetical Statement on Proffers/Community Benefits with implications broader than this specific matter

Variable treatment of communities, based either upon the extranormal market and political power of the applicant, or the power and resources (or lack thereof) able to be commanded by community organizations, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, and other stakeholders given party status, is a matter of great distress to the Citizens Planning Coalition.

To the average citizen participant in such processes, it appears that the processes of defining benefits and negotiating the benefits are for the most part unstructured. And citizens do not have access to many of the meetings conducted by various DC Government agencies in relation to such matters.

CPC believes that this is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which provides to all citizens "equal protection under the law."

Note that the attorneys with whom we have communicated about this argument state that such cases are difficult to prove. However, there is no question that the process is easily gamed and for the most part, citizens and neighborhoods are the poorer for it.

See attachment A for an extended discussion of this issue, and a suggested framework for approaching negotiations. Note that the suggested typology of three types of benefits as laid out in the document:

a. City-wide
b. Neighborhood
c. Micro-area (the area immediately impacted by the project);

has since been modified but has not been recodified into a new document. The typology would now be:

a. National or broad policy objectives (such as green architecture, which the CPC believes should be considered basic good business practices undeserving of extra consideration during review within the Zoning process)
b. City-wide (such as DC resident employment targets)
c. Neighborhood (such as donations to public space and facilities, neighborhood organizations)
d. Micro-area (benefits proferred in the immediate area of the project).

CPC does not see public benefit in proffers to individuals, such as the "famed" Health Club memberships awarded to certain residents with regard to a PUD matter in Friendship Heights.
------------------
Today's blog entries seem to share a common theme: the interaction between government and similar institutions (like Gallaudet) and citizens; the appropriate role and power of both; and trust. Trust, trust, trust, trust, trust.

PUDs and community amenities are an example of where most of the time, neighborhoods get negotiated out of their underwear, without even knowing it.

And since there is no structured development of a list of neighborhood or city-wide priorities (well, the Comp Plan, but who looks at documents like that day-in, day-out--more about this in a future blog entry), other than affordable housing at the level of city-wide proffers. As a result, for the most part neighborhoods don't get anything of lasting value from Community Amenities Agreements.

This isn't always the case, here and there are companies that do the right thing. But they are exceptional (Rocky Gorge Development's Fort Totten development is one such example).

Other jurisdictions handle this process much differently, going into negotiations with a set of priorities.

You know my line--

When you ask for nothing, that's what you get. When you ask for the world, you don't get it, but you get a lot more than nothing!

In this case, here's another line--

When you don't know what you want or need, for the most part, you'll take anything.

For example, green architecture benefits the property owner. So why should that be considered a benefit to the community worthy of even $1 worth of consideration?

Similarly, the law requires the hiring of DC residents. So developers should have to hire DC residents without patting themselves on the backs for it.

Getting neighborhood and/or city-wide benefits in perpetuity is something different altogether, and that's what should be sought, in each and every PUD matter.

Also see the handbook Community Benefits Agreements: Making Development Projects Accountable.

Index Keywords: civic-engagement