The second installment of the Workshop of Democracy series, hosted by the University of Michigan Detroit Center and funded by the UM Initiative on Democracy and Empowerment, focused on role of Community Benefits Agreements and Community Land Trusts in promoting equitable economic development in Detroit.
The wide-ranging panel discussion, moderated by BridgeDetroit’s Malachi Barrett, featured Jeanine Hatcher of Genesis HOPE, Aaron Goodman of the City of Detroit, Andrew Newman, professor of anthropology at Wayne State University, and Sam Boyd-Scardefield of Freedom Dreams CLT. Panelists illuminated the fine distinctions between the two strategies while also highlighting their strengths and limitations.
As outlined in the “Crash Course” video presented by BridgeDetroit Engagement Editor Bryce Huffman, Community Benefits Ordinances (CBOs) and Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are sometimes conflated and not always understood by members of the broader public.
While the passing of the Detroit CBO in 2016 was seen as a victory for community advocates, implementation issues – related to both process and outcomes – show where these agreements can fall short.
Hatcher noted the positive impact of home repair programs, but wished more robust benefits had materialized. Goodman emphasized Detroit’s unique place as one of the first cities to institute a CBO, putting residents at the table with developers through Neighborhood Advisory Councils (NACs), stating, “This is a form of direct democracy.” He described the process as intense and sometimes quick-moving, with its success hinging on the dedication and preparedness of the NAC.
As Newman pointed out, the difficulty of reviewing extensive documents on tight deadlines threatened to undermine the potential for sustained engagement and often handicapped the results. Boyd-Scardefield, the youngest panelist, drew attention to the reactive nature of CBAs, stating that they typically respond to developments only after they have been initiated. He suggested that more proactive planning and visioning are needed to avoid the repetition of generational harm, rather than just negotiating remediations after the fact.
Flexibility, limits to CBAs
Detroit’s CBO is intended to address the negative impacts of large scale developments on communities beyond what’s legally required. Resulting Community Benefits Agreements, or CBAs, are contracts between developers and the city. However, most projects in Detroit do not trigger the CBO; which requires an investment of at least $75 million plus $1 million in property tax abatements or city land transfer.
Once the CBO is triggered, a NAC must be formed of local residents to negotiate the terms of the CBA with the developers and the city, on a tight timeline of three months.
A vital concern voiced throughout was the burden placed on unpaid residents in this process. Both Hatcher and Goodman agreed that CBAs gave genuine local voices a seat at the table, but stressed the need to improve how council members are chosen and supported. The paradox, as Newman described, is that deeper engagement can risk overtaxing volunteers.
Building power and trust
The conversation shifted to CLTs, which are gaining ground as a way to secure affordable housing and resist speculative land grabs.
Hatcher highlighted the importance of organizing, trust, and partnership – particularly with Detroit’s Land Bank Authority, which has historically viewed CLTs as a potential rival, though they have different purposes and goals. The land bank is intended to hold land temporarily, while CLTs are designed to steward land over the long term.
As with CBAs, transparency and community involvement are critical.
“First and foremost it’s organizing,organizing,organizing — CLTs are new here, so people aren’t used to the idea that they can control land forever,” Hatcher said.
Boyd-Scardefield described the Freedom Dreams CLT’s organic development, with youth and neighbors raising structures and tending land. Success depends on nurturing trust and helping skeptical community members feel empowered.
Panelists emphasized that CLTs build both financial and relational equity, aiming to pass down assets and community ties for generations. They also acknowledged policy hurdles (slow acquisitions from the land bank, confusing rules, and speculation from big developers) but pointed to developments like CLT funds and new ordinances as signs of progress.
Interested in future workshops?
Join us for the following events with UM Detroit Center and BridgeDetroit from 10 a.m. to noon. Lunch will be served after.
- Thurs. Feb. 19: Air quality, water affordability and environmental justice
- Thurs. March 19: Police reform and community violence interventions
- Thurs. April 16: Democracy, equity and inclusion
Catch up on December’s event here.
Future threats and solutions
Questions from attendees and online participants focused on looming threats like tech-industry-driven development and persistent gentrification. Panelists called for sustained, proactive organizing – not just reactive opposition. They also urged communities to develop their own plans, so negotiations with developers start from local priorities. On technical points, Goodman clarified that CBAs can flex to address any agreed impact, but defining fair benefit zones and guarding against loopholes matter. Hatcher reinforced that CLTs can work with non-contiguous properties, citing national examples.
Key themes and takeaways
CBAs:
- Useful for mitigating development harm but uneven in delivery and often reactive
- Some CBAs, such as the one associated with Stellantis on the East Side, have been critized, while others, such as the Future of Health project at Henry Ford Hospital, were cited as producing some innovative results – including funding for a CLT.
CLTs:
- Offer permanent affordability and place-based equity, but demand deep local trust and face policy challenges, especially related to the land bank.
Resident engagement and city leadership:
- Resident involvement is essential but burdensome
- Better support is needed, and the city needs to play an active role
- Both CBAs and CLTs must evolve to address inequality and remain responsive, panelists urged communities urged to set their own visions, not just “stand in the way.”
- Detroit’s experiments with community control demonstrate democracy in action – ongoing, imperfect, and always in need of engagement. Sustained organizing and education will be needed to counter speculative interest
This deep dive into Detroit’s Community Benefits Ordinance is fascinating, especially the intersection of CBAs and Community Land Trusts. I’m curious how the panel addressed the practical challenges of enforcing accountability once these agreements are signed. Are there specific metrics being prioritized for success?