According to Markey, a community benefit agreement is an enforceable contract negotiated between a developer and a collation of neighborhood groups (378). The community benefits agreement (CBA) of the Atlantic Yards Project was signed on June 27, 2005. The agreement was entered into by the Atlantic Yard Development company, Metrotech Center North, Brooklyn Arena LLC, and eight community groups. Some of the community organizations in the CBA include the Downtown Brooklyn Educational Consortium (DBEC), All-Faith Council of Brooklyn, Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance, among others. According to Markey, the purpose of the CBA was to help community members shape the outcomes of the Atlantic Yard Project (377). The CBA was meant to give the community members a platform to press for benefits that would meet the community’s needs. Markey observes that the Atlantic Yard Project CBA outlined seven distinct categories of benefits for the community, including jobs and development, housing, small business development, community amenities, educational initiatives, public housing, and environmental assurances (384). Similar to other aspects of the Atlantic Yard Project, the process of developing a CBA raised several controversies. For instance, Markey asserts that successful CBAs wait for the formation of a complete community coalition (385). However, Marker observes that in the Atlantic Yard Project, a single entity tried to negotiate the CBA without creating a representative coalition (385). Even worse, the single entity pursued individual concerns rather than the community’s concerns. Moreover, Markey maintains that the groups that signed the Atlantic Yard CBA never formed a coalition representing the collective community needs (386). Therefore, the Atlantic Yard CBA defeated the fundamental purpose of a CBA. The lack of an all-inclusive CBA was one of the reasons why the Atlantic Yard Project received strong opposition from the public.
Furthermore, Markey observes that the Atlantic Yard Project CBA did not accurately reflect the community’s needs and concerns. Specifically, Markey observes that residents living in the neighborhoods expressed concerns about the project’s impact on traffic, housing, public safety, and schools (388). Additionally, Markey posits that the Atlantic Yard Project CBA did not address the public’s concerns with the displacement of residents and business, eminent domain, and increased real estate prices. Overall, the Atlantic Yard Project CBA denied the residents of Brooklyn procedural justice, which ultimately increased the resident’s opposition to the project.
As soon as the Atlantic Yards Project was announced, several organization filed lawsuits against the commencement of the project. However, in 2009, a 6-to-1 decision by the New York Court of Appeal ruled against opponents of the project and maintained that the state could seize private property for the Atlantic Yards Project (Goldstein). Accordingly, the New York State government could exercise eminent domain to claim businesses and public property for the Atlantic Yards economic development project. The judges ruled that the area was sufficiently blighted to justify the use of eminent domain. According to the judges, the project would be a significant public benefit because it would transform the neighborhoods. However, after the court’s ruling, a legal complaint was filed in the U.S District Court in Brooklyn, alleging that the ruling was a conscious effort by the private developers and the state to circumvent community input (Goldstein). Furthermore, the suit alleged that the use of eminent domain in the project was a betrayal of public trust by the state to serve the interests of a private developer (Goldstein). According to Goldstein, the complaint said that the use of eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards Project was not driven by the needs of the public but by the interests of a private developer. Moreover, the complaint argued that the Court of Appeals’ rationale that any underdeveloped property is subject to eminent domain was a broad definition of blight that might condemn most Brooklyn neighborhoods as blighted
The Atlantic Yards Project will consist includes six thousand apartments, of which two thousand will be affordable to low and middle-income households. Although the Atlantic Yards Project promises to deliver affordable houses, critics argue that the affordable houses are offset by the displacement of neighborhoods within the project’s site. Oder observes that the project will not offer as many affordable units as was initially proposed. Oder maintains that the first housing tower in the project will have fewer family-sized units for low-income families. Specifically, only nine of the thirty-five subsidized two-bedroom units will go to low-income families earning less than $35,000. Therefore, most of the two- and three-bedroom units will not be affordable to those making between 60 and 80 percent of Brooklyn’s Area Median Income. Additionally, the developers failed to honor the project’s promise to devote 50 percent of square footage to two- and three-bedroom units.
When the Atlantic Yards Project was announced in December 2003, the developers promised jobs to thousands of Americans. According to Oder, Forest City promised seventeen thousand construction jobs and eight thousand permanent jobs. Unfortunately, the project has not delivered the promised construction jobs and permanent jobs that it promised. For instance, by 2011, a Forest City representative reported that there were only 430 construction workers on site. However, Forest City had initially promised that by that stage of the project there would be 1600 construction jobs on site