No, it’s not baseball, it’s NYC’s land use process. This week, the New York City Department of City Planning voted 8 to 4 in favor of a plan to develop the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx into a mall, even though the deal lacks a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). So why are supporters of creating a CBA optimistic?

In New York City, where heads of commissions and board leaders are predominantly mayoral appointees, rarely is there dissent or even serious questions raised about proposed projects. But years of organizing and learning the ins and outs of development policy by members of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) have put officials on a bumpy ride. “No” votes from Planning Commission members representing Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx and the city’s Public Advocate (there was one recusal from a Mayoral appointee) opens up significant leverage for organizers as the project needs final approval from City Council members in those boroughs.

With the strong backing of the relatively new Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz and a unique showing of labor support – including the retail workers, building trades, Central Labor Council, teachers and SEIU 32BJ – KARA is in a strong position to push for CBA negotiations with Related Companies even though the developer is not required to participate in such talks.

“We are not asking for anything radical or extreme. We are simply asking that, in a borough that has the highest poverty rate in the nation and has consistently seen the highest unemployment numbers in New York State, Related and their future tenants provide living wage jobs with benefits that allow Bronxites a chance to provide for their families and to build a better life,” said Diaz.

As the project winds its way through the City Council for the final phase of approvals, KARA and the Bronx Borough President hope that the developer who wants to develop “Shops at the Armory” (with tens of millions of dollars of subsidies, a rock-bottom purchase price of $5 million for the landmarked building and the benefit of a $30 million new roof thanks to New York City taxpayers) will come to the negotiating table.

Considering that massive development projects in New York City, and the Bronx in particular (think Yankee Stadium, Gateway Mall, Croton Water Filtration Plant), have been easily approved without real community benefits, KARA is ahead of the curve and could shepherd in the first real CBA in the Big Apple.

In a move rarely seen in The Bronx lately, an elected official is standing up for the creation of good jobs and accountable development. Newly elected Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. has voted no on a land use proposal to build a subsidized mall inside the Kingsbridge Armory because the developer refused to sign a community benefits agreement.

This must come as a shock to Related Companies, which plans to develop the mall and has gotten subsidies and sweetheart real estate deals from the city in the past. Related was awarded the contract to purchase the armory from the mayoral-controlled Economic Development Corporation for the bargain basement price of $5 million. The armory is a landmarked building that spans an entire city block, has a new roof, and is directly across the street from a subway and bus lines. 

The city seemed to move in the right direction in 2006 by involving community leaders in developing a Request for Proposal and including language that applicants supporting a living wage provision for the permanent jobs associated with the project will be viewed favorably. But after that the community hasn’t been involved.

Diaz’s vote doesn’t mean the proposal can’t happen; the project now moves through the city’s 60-day labyrinthine land-use approval process that includes hearings and votes by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. If other elected officials follow Diaz’s lead, the city could leverage the subsidies to bring Related back to table with the community and still hammer out an agreement.

For nearly a decade the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition advocated for community use of the armory. In 2005 the group joined with the Retail, Wholesale, Department Store Union to create the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA), which called for a project that creates living wage jobs,  promotes retail that doesn’t compete with long-time businesses and builds much-needed community, educational and recreational space for neighborhood youth.

The Borough President’s stance comes not a moment too soon. Unfettered, subsidized development has grown rampant in The Bronx: Gateway Mall (developed by Related) near Yankee Stadium and the Water Filtration Plant have not brought promised jobs, have run far over budget and/or have moved forward in the land use process under the guise of fake Community Benefit Agreements.

Kudos to Diaz for standing up for his constituents and hopefully setting a new standard that won’t allow subsidizing mega developments to come at the expense of locally owned stores and diminished wages, taxes and jobs.

In May 2008, Connecticut Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the State’s first environmental justice law.  The law took effect January 1, 2009.  Definitions are provided for “environmental justice community,” “affecting facility,” “meaningful public participation,” and “community environmental benefit agreement.” By the statutory definition, 25 low income towns (called distressed municipalities) and low income neighborhoods in 34 other Connecticut towns are identified as environmental justice communities.  The law requires that applicants who propose to locate an affected facility in an environmental justice community must file a meaningful public participation plan with the department of environmental protection or the Connecticut Siting Council. Measures to facilitate meaningful public participation in the regulatory process are described. A municipality, owner or developer may enter into a community environmental benefit agreement which provides mitigation, such as environmental education, diesel pollution reduction, construction of biking and walking trails, staffing for parks, urban forestry, community gardens, and other things.  The Act defines  “Community environmental benefit agreement” as “a written agreement entered into by a municipality and an owner or developer of real property whereby the owner or developer agrees to develop real property that is to be used for any new or expanded affecting facility and to provide financial resources for the purpose of the mitigation, in whole or in part, of impacts reasonably related to the facility, including, but not limited to, impacts on the environment, traffic, parking and noise.”  This may be the first statutory definition of a community benefit agreement.

CT Public Act 08-94, HB 5145

The new law can be accessed at:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/ACT/PA/2008PA-00094-R00HB-05145-PA.htm

For more information, visit the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice at:

http://www.environmental-justice.org/EJ%20Bill%20Passed.htm

To learn more about community benefit agreements download articles at:

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1025724

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1117681

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1157613

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1272795

To read about the intersection of environmental justice and land use see:

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1029861

Community benefits agreements are changing the power dynamics of local economic development in many parts of the country. Among the most important of the benefits that these agreements can bring about are high-quality jobs for low-income workers. The Partnership for Working Families (PWF), which is spearheading the CBA movement, recently published a report, Making Development Work for Local Residents, that describes the gains that have been made with local hiring programs.

Written by Kathleen Mulligan-Hansel, the study finds that “the best local hire programs create first source referral systems to coordinate worker recruitment and screening, liaise with developers and employers, refer workers and support them as they navigate the hiring process, and link workers with support services that can help them stay on the job.” The report emphasizes the need to recognize the significant differences between the hiring process for temporary construction jobs and for permanent positions at the development site.

The findings in the report are based on nine case studies, mostly in California. One of the most successful was the Hollywood and Highland Center project, which included construction of the Kodak Theatre, now home to the Academy Awards. In the project, completed in 2001, 19 percent of the construction hours were worked by local residents, and 36 percent of the permanent jobs went to locals.

PWF is using the release of the report to kick off a broader effort to use local hiring programs to transform regional economies. That effort includes the launch, in cooperation with Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, of the Construction Career Opportunities Project. Its goal is “to identify, study, support and promote promising approaches to elevating union density in the construction industry and increasing access to building trades careers for low-income urban residents.” That’s real development.

Pittsburgh has joined the list of cities with community benefits agreements. The plan is moving forward after the Pittsburgh City Council gave its blessing to the agreement, which was signed by several public entities as well as community groups and a private company. The One Hill CBA Coalition negotiated the deal with the owners of Pittsburgh Penguins hockey team, as well as the City of Pittsburgh, AlleghenyCounty and the county Sports and Exhibition Authority. The $750 million project includes a new arena for the Penguins and redevelopment of the arena where the team currently plays.

The One Hill CBA Coalition was formed in April 2007 when city and county officially agreed to subsidize a new arena for the team in the city’s Hill District. The Coalition consists of 97 community groups, church groups, small businesses and historic preservation groups. Carl Redwood, Jr., Chairman of the Coalition, told me he wanted to make sure the development was beneficial to Hill residents: “We needed to determine our community’s future and development projects that fit into our plan.”

Pittsburgh UNITED, a chapter of the Partnership for Working Families, played a crucial role in the coalition’s success by mobilizing allies from around the city. For instance, the group organized a bus tour for progressive allies and for members of the media to show them areas of the Hill that would benefit from a CBA. Ultimately, the media started talking about the importance of family-sustaining jobs, community involvement and giving workers freedom to organize.

Local elected officials and the owners of the Penguins were originally resistant to the idea of a signed CBA. After months of public actions and press coverage, the Penguins and the elected officials had no choice but to bargain with One Hill. Subsequently, the final negotiations involved community leaders, County Executive Dan Oronato, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Penguins President David Morehouse.

The CBA will involve the people who live in the Hill District in numerous ways and help to rebuild their infrastructure and economy. First, the Penguins and the city’s Urban Redevelopment Authority will each provide $1 million for a locally-owned full-service grocery store in the district. Additionally, residents will have access to a local employment center that gives district residents access to jobs created at the new arena and the redevelopment project that will pay $12 to $30 an hour. The CBA also calls for the creation of the master planning committee which sets forth development guidelines. Along with the construction of a community center for youth, families and seniors, the Hill District will also see the creation of a Neighborhood Partnership Program centered on social services for the neighborhood.

While the CBA is seen as a victory, Redwood admits that there are some people in the community who feel the agreement did not go far enough given the $290 million subsidy. Redwood emphasized the need to continue community involvement: “To have a victory like this is important but we need to build upon it.”

The redevelopment of the Military Ocean Terminal in Bayonne will now promote good jobs and affordable housing in northern New Jersey. Much of the credit for this goes to the Garden State Alliance for a New Economy (GANE), which persuaded local officials to include job quality and housing affordability language in a Request for Proposals (RFP)to redevelop the decommissioned army facility.

The $10 billion 16 million-square-foot mixed-use redevelopment project—which is expected to create some 3,000 waterfront residential units, up to 1,000 hotel rooms and commercial and light industrial space—is eagerly anticipated in the community. Kate Atkins, executive director of GANE—a recently formed affiliate of the Partnership for Working Families —said involvement in the project was too important to pass up: “It will have a major impact on the region’s economy for many years to come.”

Representing a coalition of five unions and four community groups, GANE testified at local redevelopment authority meetings and held meetings with Mayor Terrence Malloy and other local officials. According to Atkins, “The coalition has been united on making sure that throughout the project the larger public benefit is really kept in mind–for example, making sure that construction jobs are good union jobs, and the permanent jobs are also high quality jobs.”

GANE’s goals are not only to educate public officials about their capacity to set high standards for developers, but also to send the message that it is possible to promote economic development that is financially beneficial to the community both in the short-term and in the long-term.

While GANE is pleased with its impact on the RFP, its job is not done. The group will monitor the process of selecting the developer to make sure that the project continues to promote equitable economic development.

Members of the Prevailing Wage Committee

The Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) took a big step forward this month in helping to ensure that TIF-funded projects are built by construction workers employed in high quality jobs. The adoption of two policies linking job quality standards to subsidized development projects represents a key economic development reform for Denver. The credit for this shift goes to the Prevailing Wage Committee, a grassroots organization composed of representatives of the building trades, and FRESC (formerly known as the Front Range Economic Strategy Center) who have been working toward this achievement for more than a year.

For over 50 years, Denver has had a law requiring the payment of prevailing wages for construction and other site maintenance work performed by private contractors and subcontractors on projects that are publicly owned or “financed in whole or part” by the city. This law wasn’t applied consistently, however, and the city spent nearly a half of a billion dollars on TIF projects over the last decade, many of which didn’t require the payment of family-supporting wages.

DURA’s new rule applies Denver’s Prevailing Wage Policy to trunk infrastructure construction on TIF-funded development. Trunk infrastructure includes any work done on roads, public utilities, parks, police stations, libraries and more. The policy includes provisions for regular and overtime pay, fringe benefits and timely payment of employees. DURA further adopted the Enhanced Training Opportunity Policy, which requires all projects to dedicate one percent of their TIF allocation towards workforce training of existing and potential workers as well as small or disadvantaged construction business owners.

Though there are numerous types of development subsidies to which reforms such as job quality standards may be attached, there are not many specific to TIF projects. Denver joins Maine; West Virginia; Davenport and Des Moines, Iowa; Hartford, Connecticut; Missoula, Montana; and Los Angeles as jurisdictions that mandate such standards.

As one of the largest purchasers of construction services, government has significant power to bolster wages in the industry. The move by DURA toward guaranteeing good jobs in TIF projects represents a solid investment in stronger communities and more accountable development.

Three grassroots organizations have released a new report, “Boom for Whom? How the Resurgence of the Bronx is Leaving Residents Behind” (PDF) documenting the current conditions in the “booming” Northwest Bronx, and the desperate need for jobs for local residents there. The Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition (NBCCC), its Sistas and Brothas United Youth Leadership Program, and the Urban Justice Center’s Community Development Project collaborated on the report, which states, “While the borough has recently emerged from a long period of racism-fuelled disinvestment to become a site of major investment, this has done little to improve the lives of those who reside, work, worship, and attend school in the area.”

The report explores how to address such concerns by, “raising industry standards, enforcing workers’ rights, and connecting living-wage job opportunities to the local Bronx workforce so that residents benefit from development projects.”

The NBCCC is helping make this vision a reality with the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory. As part of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA), they are seeking, “living wages and union protections for local residents in the construction and permanent jobs, community space, an affordable recreation center, and environmental protections through the negotiation of a Community Benefits Agreement, a Labor Peace Agreement and a Project Labor Agreement with the developer of the Armory.”

Photo of KARA protest at City Hall via the Daily News.

Big Victories for Partnership for Working Families and Affiliates

Over the next two Saturdays, two events in Harlem offer the opportunity for public participation.

The West Harlem Local Development Corporation is a group of community representatives, including local residents, businesses, elected officials and members of Community Board 9, that is negotiating the Community Benefits Agreement with Columbia University. This Saturday, June 14, they are hosting a community meeting, addressing the following:

• Your priorities for community development
• How will Columbia’s expansion plans affect you?
• Learn about the LDC activities to date.

When: Sat., June 14, 10 am. Where: Manhattanville Community Center, 530 West 133rd Street

Next Saturday, June 21, the Harlem Tenants Council is sponsoring a rally against displacement and gentrification. More info from the organizers after the jump.

Time & Location: 10 AM – Main Gathering: Marcus Garvey Park: Enter at 124th and Fifth Avenue.

10 AM Feeder March in East Harlem: Gather at 116th & 3rd Avenue: northbound on Third Avenue to 125th Street. Proceed westbound on 125th to Madison Avenue southbound to 124th into Marcus Garvey Park at approximately 11 AM.

11 AM Main March begins: Leave Marcus Garvey at 124th and Madison Avenue northbound to 125th – proceed westbound to Broadway- northbound to 145th- eastbound to Frederick Douglass Blvd – southbound to 116th Street – westbound to Morningside Avenue to Morningside Park.

Route distance: approximately 70 blocks equivalent to 3 and ½ miles.

Sites to join march: 125th Street/Old Broadway; 135th Street/Broadway in front of 3333 Broadway; 145th Street & Broadway; 145th Street & Frederick Douglass; 135th & Frederick Douglass; 116th Street & Frederick Douglass Blvd.

2 PM: Rally begins in Morningside Park with speakers and performances.

Background: After decades of public policy neglect, redlining and disinvestment Harlem now stand at the brink of losing its historic status as Black America’s cultural Mecca for more than a century. Although development is a welcome relief from abandoned buildings, neglected open, few service amenities and crime the ‘revitalization’ of Harlem is displacing tenants, driving out local businesses and will impact Harlem’s ethnic, political and socio-economic makeup. Projected developments will create nearly 5,000 units of mostly luxury housing within Harlem’s 125th Street commercial corridor from river to river. The scheme includes high rise office tower, hotels and space for giant retails, in some cases with millions in public subsidies such as Columbia University, the city’s second largest landlord, that was given city streets, sidewalks and the below surface land.

Our Demands: Build and Preserve Low income housing; Protect Public Housing; Fund legal & anti-evictions services; Protect Local businesses: Re-establish Mart 125th for Local businesses & Street Merchants; Re-establish NYC Youth Boards for jobs for youth in crisis; Enforce Executive Order 50-provide equal access in construction industry jobs; No Eminent Domain; Moratorium on zoning/rezoning; Conflict of interest investigations on EIS Studies; Landmark & monument for African Burial Ground in East Harlem; No skyscrapers in Harlem; Landmark historic resources in Harlem; and inclusion of local community as vital stakeholders in a transparent and accountable public review process on development.

The man without a plan? That would be Uncle Sam!

It has been 20 years since cities started adopting clawbacks, often in the wake of plant closings, and they are everywhere today.

It has been 14 years since the living wage movement took off and today Job Quality Standards are found in most states’ development code and many cities’ and counties= contracts.

It has been 13 years since Minnesota enacted what was then a terrific disclosure law and half the states now disclose to varying degrees.

It has been 10 years since the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy won its first Community Benefits Agreements, that model has spread across the nation.

We are way past any dogma that these reforms are going to somehow “poison the business climate.”

Yet look at the pathetic state of the federal government=s main economic development agencies and programs:

HUD is in shambles, not just because of Secretary Jackson’s departure under an ethics cloud, but because its funding has been repeatedly cut and its staff demoralized so that it has grown irrelevant on the big issues of the day.

Did HUD avert the subprime scandal? Is HUD weatherizing millions of homes to curb global warming and help people deal with soaring energy prices?

Community Development Block Grants C HUD’s biggest urban aid program C lack basic safeguards, and they don’t require Community Benefits.

It is because of cutbacks in programs like Block Grants that city officials claim they must mortgage our future C that they must create TIF districts that impoverish our tax base and our schools for 15, 23, even 35 years.

The Department of Labor’s Workforce Investment Act also spreads money everywhere, but it lacks a firm Job Quality Standards requirement (although some local WIBs have attached them).

The same structural accountability problems exist with major Department of Commerce programs.

And as one newspaper exposé revealed, even the Agriculture Department spends billions for economic development, much of it fueling sprawl or favoring big businesses over small ones or subsidizing projects in wealthy areas that don=t need help.

There is one tiny office of the Environmental Protection Agency doing some terrific work on smart growth, but it is just one tiny office.

It is a big issue that Uncle Sam Has No Plan. According to estimates made in the mid-1990s, the federal government spends two and a half times more on “corporate welfare” than do all 50 states combined — about $125 billion per year C versus $50 billion for all the states.

As in the states, most of those federal dollars are uncollected taxes: tax credits, tax exemptions, bonus depreciation, and so forth. But we still don’t have specific details about who got what.

In my next blog: how Uncle Sam’s incomplete disclosure systems reveals only the tip of the iceberg.

If you are a researcher or campaigner concerned about economic development accountability, the place to be this week is the national conference of Good Jobs First outside Baltimore. Gathered here are activists who are seeking to remake the relationship between the public and the private sectors.

Some of the most impressive presentations came this morning in a plenary session put together by the Partnership for Working Families (PWF). Madeline Janis, head of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, and Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, who runs the South Bay AFL-CIO and Working Partnerships USA, described remarkable changes that have taken place in parts of California. Union-sponsored non-profit organizations, working with community allies, are turning the tables on developers who used to have the red carpet rolled out for them. Now the right to build large subsidized projects is being made contingent on providing benefits to the community ranging from apprenticeship programs and living-wage jobs to affordable housing, more green space and air pollution abatement. Janis and Ellis-Lamkins seemed to be describing a parallel universe in which the common good takes precedence over monied interests.

Their themes were echoed later in a presentation by Cecilia Estolano, chief executive of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, a remarkable public official who is converting the agency from what she said was a “cookie jar” for developers into a promoter of projects that bring about broad improvements in living standards.

The good news comes not only from California. For example, Deborah Scott of Georgia Stand Up recounted how her group cajoled local officials in Atlanta to provide for community participation in major development projects taking place adjacent to an old rail line ringing the city.

I was unable to attend the PWF workshops (one of five tracks) because I was giving presentations of my own — in my capacity as research director of Good Jobs First — in workshops on advanced research techniques relating to subsidies and corporate taxes. Joining me in the latter were Matt Gardner of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, who told us how to unearth the real tax rates of major corporations (which are often well below what the company claims), and Michael Mazerov of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who described his proposal to compel corporations to disclose abbreviated versions of their state tax returns.

This is only a sample of the provocative ideas swirling around this conference. Wish you could be here.

(This item is being crossposted on Dirt Diggers Digest.)

This Saturday, opponents of Atlantic Yards held a community meeting focused on creating an expanded alternative plan for the Atlantic Yards footprint to accompany the UNITY Plan. Since Friday, Atlantic Yards Report has been all over some big news related to the site.

First, we learned that developer Bruce Ratner’s request for an expedited hearing of a pending lawsuit in state appellate court involving the project’s environmental impact statement was denied — the case will be heard in September. This delays the project further, with AY’s Norman Oder speculating that the earliest the arena could now open would be the 2011-2012 season.

Next, Oder reports that a Brooklyn woman who signed a lease to open a daycare center in the AY footprint, apparently unaware that the property was slated for demolition, received a $103k settlement from Ratner.

And finally, AYR has an in-depth look at a new flyer touting the projects very controversial community benefits agreement. This points in particular to the promised benefit of affordable housing, with no mention of the recent news that creation of the promised 2250 subsidized rentals and 600 to 1000 affordable for-sale units has been jeopardized by the current crisis in availability of affordable housing bonds.

Did anyone attend Saturday’s meeting? We would love to hear a report…

Today’s Metro examines the ongoing problems with Community Benefits Agreements in New York City.  According to the article, both the CBA that accompanied the new Yankee Stadium development (seen in a rendering here), and the Memorandum of Understanding between Columbia and the Manhattanville community, lack the binding power of traditional CBAs.  What with the delay in community benefits from the Yankee Stadium agreement and recent controversy over the Columbia deal, Metro wonders if NYC is setting a bad example for the rest of the country:

“This New York style of deal making worries California attorney Julian Gross. ‘The entire future of the community-benefits movement could be threatened by CBAs being sidetracked and taken over by developers and electeds who want to steer and channel the community participation,’ he said.”

Read the full article here.

Coming Thursday: Downtown Brooklyn Transportation Blueprint Study Open House (Streetsblog)

Brooklyn writers have produced a book of essays to benefit the anti-Atlantic Yards effort (Develop, Don’t Destroy Brooklyn)

Recap of last night’s Coney Island Info meeting (Kinetic Carnival)

The South Bronx has yet to receive any money from the community benefits agreement for the new Yankee Stadium (NY Times)

The Independent Budget Office predicts a major job slump in NYC in 2008 (Daily News)

The last day to register to vote before New York’s primary is Friday. You can download a registration form here.

While we’re talking about mega-projects, let’s catch up with the news on Columbia’s expansion into Manhattanville.  Somehow we missed Nick Sprayregen’s editorial in last week’s Post.  Sprayregen is a Manhattanville business owner whose property is threatned by Columbia’s plan.  He explores Columbia’s potential use of eminent domain, and pledges, “I remain steadfast that Columbia has met its match in me. I will not back down; I’ll do everything I can to show the ESDC and the courts why eminent domain should not be used here. If need be, I will litigate this matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Meanwhile, The Eminent Domain reports that Columbia and the West Harlem Local Development Corporation (minus the three members who resigned) have reached an agreement on $150 million in unspecified community benefits, of which $76 million will be devoted to “a flexible benefit fund to be overseen by a committee of community and Columbia representatives.”  They write, “Think about that $76 million for a moment. That’s equivalent to Yankee Stadium’s $800,000 annual ‘community’ pledge to Bronx elected officials — for 95 years. We’ll have to wait to see the language of the agreement, of course, but unless the promised body overseeing this thing is a paragon of democracy, what we have here is essentially a long-term purchase of elected officials’ compliance, long after Borough President Scott Stringer, Councilmember Robert Jackson and other parties to this deal will have been term-limited out of office.” 

Do you agree?  Comments welcome…

(UPDATE: Our post on how Council Members voted on the Columbia expansion was not entirely complete at the time it was written.  For the record, the five who opposed the Columbia 197-c were: Avella, Barron, Ignizio, Fidler, and James; while the 6 Abstentions were Mendez, Gioia, Foster, Monserrate, Vallone, and White.)

No word yet on whether/how the City Council has voted on the Columbia expansion vs. CB9’s 197-A Plan.  We have learned today, however, that the West Harlem LDC has asked for $247 million as part of the Community Benefits Agreement (though they’re calling it a “community partnership agreement” – anyone know the reason behind this semantic change?).  The Real Estate has the details.