IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v9y2019i1p25-d217180.html

Cui Bono? Assessing Community Engagement in San Francisco Community Benefit Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Madeline Streiff Buitelaar

    (UC Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA 94012, USA)

Abstract

A community benefit agreement (CBA) that provides tax breaks to a company often has provisions to help uplift the area where the business resides. A number of San Francisco companies, especially those in the technology sector, have received tax relief, a tangible benefit granted in exchange for operating in designated blighted areas, the details of which are delineated in publicly available CBAs. One CBA requirement for the tax break—community engagement—defies easy measurement. This paper assesses whether San Francisco companies were held accountable for fulfilling this unclear but core CBA requirement, namely, engagement with disenfranchised community members, an important part of their corporate social responsibility. To assess the community engagement stipulation of CBAs, this paper presents background on CBAs followed by interview data from two anonymous community liaisons who were formerly or are currently responsible for community engagement at companies that received the tax break. Themes found in the interview data highlight the limitations of CBAs that result from the unequal social exchange between companies and the indigent residents of blighted areas where the businesses are located. The study concludes that the benefits of the vague and unenforceable community engagement provision of CBAs do not justify the companies’ payroll tax exclusion. The disproportionality of this quid pro quo risks aggravating impoverished residents’ resentment of companies and their employees. The relevance of this study’s low participation rate among community liaisons is also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Madeline Streiff Buitelaar, 2019. "Cui Bono? Assessing Community Engagement in San Francisco Community Benefit Agreements," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:25-:d:217180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/9/1/25/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/9/1/25/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kemeny, Tom & Osman, Taner, 2018. "The wider impacts of high-technology employment: Evidence from U.S. cities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1729-1740.
    2. Sheridan Tatsuno, 2017. "San Francisco Renaissance: Yet Another Gold Rush?," Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, in: Piero Formica (ed.), Entrepreneurial Renaissance, chapter 0, pages 143-152, Springer.
    3. Gabriel Metcalf, 2018. "Sand Castles before the Tide? Affordable Housing in Expensive Cities," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 59-80, Winter.
    4. Laura Wolf-Powers, 2010. "Community Benefits Agreements and Local Government," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(2), pages 141-159, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doris Kwon & Olav Sorenson, 2023. "The Silicon Valley Syndrome," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 344-368, March.
    2. Holstenkamp, Lars & Degenhart, Heinrich, 2013. "Bürgerbeteiligungsmodelle für erneuerbare Energien - Eine Begriffsbestimmung aus finanzwirtschaftlicher Perspektive [Citizen Participation Schemes for Renewable Energies - A Definition from a Financial Economics Point of View]," MPRA Paper 81263, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Murray, Cameron & Gordon, Josh, 2021. "Land as airspace: How rezoning privatizes public space (and why governments should not give it away for free)," OSF Preprints v89fg, Center for Open Science.
    4. Andreas Mense, 2025. "The Impact of New Housing Supply on the Distribution of Rents," Journal of Political Economy Macroeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-42.
    5. Sun, Tianyu & Chand, Satish & Sharpe, Keiran, 2018. "Effect of aging on housing prices: evidence from a panel data," MPRA Paper 94418, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Mar 2019.
    6. Elliott Sclar, 2021. "The Infinite Elasticity of Air: New York City’s Financialization of Transferable Development Rights," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(2), pages 353-380, March.
    7. Qiang Li & Jason F. Kovacs & Geun Hee Choi, 2021. "High-technology employment growth in China: geographic disparities in economic structure and sectoral performance," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1025-1064, November.
    8. repec:osf:socarx:wnd8t_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Yuming Fu & Song Shi, 2022. "Barriers to urban spatial development: Evidence from the 2010–2011 Christchurch earthquakes," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 218-245, January.
    10. Auspurg, Katrin & Schneck, Andreas & Thiel, Fabian, 2020. "Different samples, different results? How sampling techniques affect the results of field experiments on ethnic discrimination," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 0.
    11. Mi Shih & Kathe Newman, 2024. "Rethinking value in land and negotiating the city’s social future," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 56(6), pages 1731-1737, September.
    12. Lee, Neil & Clarke, Stephen, 2019. "Do low-skilled workers gain from high-tech employment growth? High-technology multipliers, employment and wages in Britain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    13. Nathan, Max, 2022. "Does light touch cluster policy work? Evaluating the tech city programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(9).
    14. David Mazáček, 2023. "Concepts of Housing Affordability Measurements," FFA Working Papers 5.008, Prague University of Economics and Business, revised 13 Sep 2023.
    15. Christian Dustmann & Bernd Fitzenberger & Markus Zimmermann, 2022. "Housing Expenditure and Income Inequality," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(645), pages 1709-1736.
    16. Wei Chen & Zaiyan Wei & Karen Xie, 2022. "The Battle for Homes: How Does Home Sharing Disrupt Local Residential Markets?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 8589-8612, December.
    17. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    18. Robert P. Stoker & Michael Rich & Eric Stokan, 2026. "Lessons from Atlanta and Baltimore About Linking Economic and Community Development," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 40(1), pages 88-100, February.
    19. Bernard Nzau & Claudia Trillo, 2019. "Harnessing the Real Estate Market for Equitable Affordable Housing Provision through Land Value Capture: Insights from San Francisco City, California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-21, July.
    20. Neil Lee & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2021. "Entrepreneurship and the fight against poverty in US cities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(1), pages 31-52, February.
    21. Richard Gardiner & Petr Hajek, 2024. "The Role of R&D Intensity and Education in a Model of Inequality, Growth and Risk of Poverty: Evidence from Europe," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 1845-1870, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:25-:d:217180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.