Community Development Agreements - The Need for Vision!
Community Development Agreements allow developers to negotiate with permitting agencies to build more than the current zoning restrictions allow for their developments. Apparently, these agreements are conspicuously prevelant and may be a issue in the City of Seattle's Mayoral race - as evidenced by today's Chamber of Commerce sponsored debate between mayoral candidates Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan - where the issue was among many discussed.
Certainly, at a minimum, the agreements are a possible symptom of the potential need for a grander vision for the City of Seattle that is consistent with its zoning code. And without question, the City should not use them to extract concessions from developers seeking to develop, if those concessions could reasonably lead to the development not penciling out! If you're curious about what one looks like, here's an example of one currently under consideration by Seattle's City Council.
Since the agreements are contracts, the question is what "must" a City like Seattle require developers to include in the agreements as a predicate to building outside the current zoning requirements. Must labor issues be addressed? Should developers be required to provide more below market housing in exchange? What other improvements should be required, if any? Should there be basic legislative guidlines on what can and cannot be in them? Traditional contract law would say - - leave it to the parties! But is that the right choice here, given the impact to City residents on the whole?
Ultimately, given the myriad of issues these agreements could address, issues that have a direct impact on the City's residents, the central question is "How does the City advance progressive and visionary development that improves the lives of City residents and our economy, if such agreements are not the direct function of a larger and comprehensive vision for the City?" Students of city development history would say, it cannot.
