Return to Olympics 2016 page

Community Benefits Agreements relating to the 2016 Chicago Olympic Bid will be presented, amplified, discussed here

Presented by Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, its Parks Committee and its website www.hydepark.org

The only South Side Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), at least with an official draft (although it may or may not be enacted) so far is that for neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Olympic Village, 37 acres between 26th and 31st streets, Vernon and Metra. Other CBA's may come forward. Note that it is not yet determined whether the Village will be there or in the truck staging area south of McCormick Place.

Several organizations and coalitions over a wide swath of the South and West sides are seeking inclusion of affordable housing, transit, and green goals (all tied together) into Olympics community benefit agreements. Such discussions are under way, for example, in task forces set up by Ald. Hairston and Preckwinkle. Note that the draft below includes affordable and minority-women and jobs/ job training commitments but little on the mentioned others or schools. Communities for an Equitable Olympics, a host of public officials, HPKCC and the Chamber of Commerce have signed on to letters of support for 'Silver Line" (Gray Line Lite)- see Metra page. Another transportation idea gaining steam is trolleys or streetcars.
Coalition for Equitable Community Development held a forum October 18, on Olympic impacts on affordable housing in the area-- Augustana Church, 55th and Woodlawn. (See report on forum; see CECD's issue paper- at Olympic Village 1/3 affordable as defined, private developments within 2 miles of Village or Stadium 20%.)
Fifth Ward holds monthly meetings on benefits and impacts 4th Thursdays at 6:30- Jackson Park fieldhouse, 6401 S. Stony Island.

Sadly, there is still confusion over whether the time for public input is before the bid book is prepared, before the selection, or after. It must be continuous. So far, it does not seem likely there will be a recognized, overarching body from the citizenry (plus aldermanic) side.

Here: draft benefits agreement for Olympic Village
Negotiating for Neighborhoods: Interventions in Olympic Impact in Sydney and Vancouver--[Do you know about the OGImpact requirements and how they might be leveraged?]
Ballot initiative near Washington Park and a forum in Hyde Park

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT

(5/12/08 DRAFT)

The City of Chicago ("City" is considering purchasing an approximately 37-acres site from MRL Acquisition, LLC located at 2929 South Ellis Avenue, generally bounded by E. 26th Street on the north, S. Vernon Avenue on the west, E. 31st Street on the south, and the CN/Metra rail tracks on the east (the "Property"). Redevelopment of the property, currently occupied by Michael Reese Hospital, will revitalized the immediate community areas, including but not limited to the Near South, Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Washington Park and North Kenwood, by providing new residential and commercial development and additional permanent public improvements that will improve the quality of life for area residents. The City will directly benefit from the redevelopment through increased revenues derived from the real estate and sales tax revenues attributable to the new residents and businesses locating to the Property.

If the City acquires the Property, the City of Chicago will establish and administer a public benefits program ("Program") consistent with the terms of this summary for the purpose of mitigating adverse community impacts of the redevelopment and linking the economic well-being of neighborhood residents to the benefits of such revitalization.

This Program shall commence if and when the City acquires the Property and shall govern the Property's development, whether by the City or a private developer, from the date of such acquisition through the expiration of he new tax increment redevelopment project area ("TIF Area") that the City anticipates establishing with respect to the Property. All construction contracts related to the development of the site shall include the objectives of the Program listed below.

The Program will seek to achieve six goals:

(1) develop affordable housing in order to retain resident population in the area;

(2) hire City residents, minorities and women in connection with the construction projects undertaken at the Property, and utilize such firms for the purchase of services and supplies for such construction projects, tracking such employment and use of vendors through minimum City resident hiring, and MBE/WBE participation requirements;

(3) maintain a registry of qualified City-based and minority and women trades and apprentices and place such persons in positions throughout the life of the TIF Area in connection with the projects undertaken therein;

(4) actively solicit both the participation of new minority and women-owned businesses both in the ownership structure of the master developer of the Property and as tenants in the commercial retail space developed on the Property;

(5) manage site related traffic during and after construction projects and, if the City is awarded the 2016 games, during the Olympic and Paralympic Games to insure that residents have continuous egress to and from their homes and that customers of businesses have continuous access to such businesses; and,

(6) an independent third party shall work in connection with the City's monitoring staff to monitor and report on the City's (and private developers') compliance with the Program goals and objectives.

The goals specified above shall be subject to the following specific objectives:

1. Affordable Housing: Of the residential units developed on the Property, not less than twenty percent (20%) shall consist of affordable housing, as defined under the City's Affordable Requirements Ordinance, Municipal Code 2-44-090 (i.e. with respect to rental housing, housing that is affordable to households earning up to 60% of the Chicago AMI, and with respect to "for sale" housing that is affordable to households earning up to 100% of Chicago AMI). Such objective may be met by the development of projects that individually satisfy such affordable component, or by some projects that are all or predominantly affordable and other projects that are all or predominantly market rate, which, taken together satisfy such 20% affordable housing standard. Affordable rental units shall generally be subject to a 40 year rental period or such period as may be required or appropriate based on the funding sources for such affordable units. For sale units shall generally be subject to deed restrictions administered by the Chicago Community Land Trust that shall run with such units for at least 40 years to assure the long-term, multiple-owner affordability of such units. Such twenty percent (20%) affordability requirement shall apply even if no City financial assistance is received for an individual project.

2. Worker Hiring: In connection with the construction of projects on the Property, each developer shall (a) contract (or cause its general contractor to contract) with minority-owned businesses ("MBEs") and women-owned businesses ("WBEs"), and shall meet or exceed the City's standard allocation requirement of 25% for MBEs and 5% for WBEs, (b) shall establish a target market contract program setting aside certain contracts solely for MBE/WBE subcontractors and supplier participation, and (c) shall cause at least fifty percent (50%) of the construction hours on such projects to be worked by City residents. The City-resident hiring requirement shall be monitored on a monthly basis and not less than thirty (30) percent of all construction worker hours each month shall be filled by City residents, it being the intent that the City-resident hiring objective be met through actual employment and not by payment of the City's standard liquidated damages penalty. Failure to meet such minimum monthly hiring requirement for three (3) consecutive months, or any six (6) months in a twelve (12) month period shall subject the defaulting developer to additional City remedies. A First Source Hiring system will be instituted to identify, track and hire such residents, as well as create a transparent process for employment. This on site resource center wil also provide information for unions operating in each possible industry.

3 Apprentice Sponsorships: For all work in the building trades generated by construction projects, no fewer than 10% of worker hours shall be filled by apprentices. The City and developers shall work with established programs such as that run by Dawson Technical Institute at Kennedy King College, as well as similar apprenticeship programs administered by the Chicago Public Schools, to identify and train apprentices, and to hire graduates from such programs.

4. MBE/WBE Ownership and Tenant Participation: In connection with the City's selection of any master developer for the Property, the City shall include as part of any request for qualifications or request for proposals a requirement that the respondent include, a pat of its development team, one or more MBE/WBE partners. The scoring of such proposals shall positively weight the degree of participation by such MBE/WBE partner(s), provided such participation includes actual equity ownership, direct sharing in the economic rewards (and risks) of such equity ownership and involvement in major decisions of the joint venture entity. In connection with the development and leasing of commercial and retail space on the Property, the Chicago Urban League shall actively recruit and present to developers qualified prospective MBE/WBE businesses to lease such space. Subject to customary underwriting criteria of lenders providing construction or permanent financing for such commercial and retail space, such MBE/WBE businesses shall be given a right of first offer with respect to such space.

5. Transportation Improvements: The City Department of Transportation will coordinate traffic and transportation planning for the purposes of congestion mitigation and strengthening work-related commutes to area job centers. If and when transit-0riented development should occur, the City will include the objectives set forth in Paragraphs 1-4 above for both the construction work and retail/commercial components of such transit-oriented development.

6. Monitoring: The Chicago Urban League, The Target Group or a similar entity with affirmative action and employment monitoring experience shall prepare quarterly reports on the City's and private developers' compliance with the objectives set forth herein.

If a developer defaults in meeting the Program objectives specified above, such developer may be subject to the City's customary remedies, including, without limitation, termination of the applicable contract and any penalty amounts. In addition, such developer (and its affiliates) may be barred from obtaining further City financial assistance (whether through a direct subsidy or through an indirect subsidy, such as a fee waiver or allocation of tax credits). Top


Negotiating for Neighborhoods: Interventions in Olympic Impact in Sydney and Vancouver

From Chicago Rehab Network, 2008. Photo not included: The 2000 Olympic Village in Sydney, constructed with environments concerns in mind, built on the city's concept of hosting the first "Green Olympics."

Sydney and Vancouver, hosts of the 2000 Summer Games and the 2010 Winter games, respectively, both established organizations to monitor the social impacts of the Olympics. For citizens and advocates, both provide models for overseeing Olympics-driven development, and offer perspective on possibilities for equitable outcomes for the Games and residents. The two groups, though similar in aim, differed greatly in scope, composition, and organization. Despite the differences outlined below, groups both in Sydney and Vancouver established agreements to benefit neighborhoods and learned from the difficulty [ies of?] compliance with existing or agreed upon goals.

Additionally, a new international Olympic Committee initiative called the Olympic Games Impact (OGI) will change the climate of impact analysis and mitigation by formalizing the procedure. Created in 2003, OGI requires host cities to report on 125 impact indicators for a twelve year span before, during and after the Games. Beijing 2008 will be the first Games to provide a formal postGames analysis, and Vancouver will be the first host to undertake full OGI requirements, the first of which will be due shortly. While OGI will force hosts to consider impacts more fully, the test of its efficacy will have to wait until the release of its first reports.

Sydney and the Social Impact Advisory Committee (SIAC)

The 2000 Sydney Games promised a new look at Olympic hosting as the first Games of the 21st century. In some ways, they achieved a new approach, building venues on abandoned, government-owned land, including green features in their building, and prioritizing treatment of minorities and homeless in the city's plan for managing the Olympics' impact. As one of the first hosts to focus on impacts, Sydney may have some claim to its reputation as the first "Green Games" as well as then-OIC President Juan Antonio Samaranch's famous line in which he called the 2000 Games "The Best Olympics Ever."

So what did the best Olympics ever look like? After Sydney secured the bid to host the Games, the government of New South Wales commissioned a Social Impact Assessment, which made 37 diverse recommendations on mitigating social impact, including the establishment of a committee to monitor and advise on those impacts. Thus, the Social Impact Advisory Committee was born.

SIAC maintained a diverse composition, including members of Sydney's advocacy community, members of SOCOG, -- the Sydney Organizing Committee for Olympic Games -- and members of city and provincial government. The committee met twice yearly from 1994 until the games were over, making recommendations and discussing progress on Olympic development.

The influence of the SIAC eventually led to the establishment of the Homeless Protocol, a guideline for police interaction to ensure that the homeless residents fo Sydney were treated equitably. The Protocol remains a positive legacy that is still in use today in Sydney. This protocol affirmed the right of all citizens to enjoy Sydney's public spaces, and prevented harassment of the homeless by police, an occurrence common during previous Olympics.

Still, the SIAC suffered from problems that plague many monitoring organizations, that they garner advisory power but have little in the way of leverage or mandate for actual change. Rev. Harry Herbert, the chair of the SIAC, expressed this frustration, saying, "It seems to be a case of government saying the biggest measures are too dangerous and the smallest aren't worth doing!" Pointedly, the government's lack of action and plan for homelessness, and SRO housing topped Herbert's list of concerns.

The Games monitoring environment in Sydney experienced fluctuation, as a splinter group formed just before the Games began to call attention to the lack of progress the organizing committee had made in securing positive social impacts. Rating the positive impacts at a 5 out of 10, the Council of Social Services of New South Wales adn its Olympic Impact Committee (OIC) arm criticized the organizers and government for "[failing] to stop the loss of low cost accommodation," and further, that "other figures [that showed] big rent increases in the Olympic Corridor, contradict the Government's claim of no Olympics-related rent effects."

Vancouver and the Impact on Communities Coalition (IOCC)

The Vancouver Olympics have garnered a great deal of attention for their emphasis on sustainability and commitment to host a Games that does little to displace community members. Crucial to this reputation was the Impact on Communities Coalition (IOCC), which drafted 22 recommendations for positive social impact that Vancouver's bid committee eventually included in the guarantees section of their final "bid book."

The IOCC differentiated itself from the SIAC right from the beginning in a number of key ways. IOCC was formed before the bid, and thus was able to advance some of its concerns and create a direction in the bid itself, rather than simply reacting to development. Also, the IOCC is a member organization with on ties to the Olympic organizing committee, VANOC, or the bid committee. The IOCC has also benefited organizationally from its unity of message -- perhaps owing to a somewhat more homogenous group of members -0- focusing throughout its seven year history on the seven areas of environment, security and safety, community and economic development, civil rights, housing, transportation, adn accountability and transparency.

The IOCC has commissioned several academic works that aim to tease out potential impacts from the Games, while also conducting public opinion and market research. While much of IOCC's work has focused on research on those seven issues, community participation bolsters their resume as well; they wil host as community forum on each of their seven platform issues by the time the Games begin in February of 2010.

Vancouver's non-sport legacy focuses on a tract of abandoned shipping and industrial land called Southeast False Creek (SEFC), which will host the Olympic village during the Games and be converted to a mixed-income, mixed-use development after the Games. The SEFC project forms the centerpiece of an agreement between advocates and VANOC called the Inner-City Inclusive (ICI) agreement. The ICI broadly states VANOC's intent to prioritize inner-city redevelopment for the 2010 Games legacy. In addition to that agreement, advocates and the SEFC developer have signed a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), guaranteeing first-source hiring, job-training programs, and affordable housing.

And while the SEFC project appeared to provide wide and deep benefits to the community, developers have already scaled back the affordability commitments of the housing units. Millennium Water, as the housing development will be known after the Games, will sell condo units from $450,000 to $6,000,000, quite unaffordable for many residents.

Next steps for Chicago Olympics Impact

How will our city, known for a rich tradition of community development and organizing, demonstrate the best monitoring and advancement of what are serious social impact concerns. Will the bid establish and independent committee pulled from all of Chicago's diverse communities and expertise? Will the committee have the ability and [be able to] keep the Olympics development process transparent[?]

Top

 

Chicago Coalition for the Homeless cites Geneva report to say Olympics do impact affordable housing, homeless people and housing rights

Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Fall, 2008, based on "Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events, Olympic Games and Housing Rights" by Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, Geneva Switzerland

As Chicago waits to hear whether our city will be chosen to host the 2016 Olympics, it is important for housing advocates to be aware of how housing rights have been impacted in other Olympic host cities around the globe. While the Olympics are an opportunity to showcase a city to the world, the development that comes with hosting the games can often have very negative consequences, particularly for poor and marginalized people. Looking at the past 20 years of experiences of Olympic host cities, what is revealed are some rather devastating impacts on housing rights. In fact, all cities that have hosted the Olympic Games suffer similar negative consequences. The following information looks at experience of the following Olympic host cities:

Seoul, Korea, 1988
Barcelona, Spain, 1992 [experts say the changes were related to entry the European Union, not Olympics]
Atlanta, Georgia, 1996
Sydney, Australia, 2002
Athens, Greece, 2004
Beijing, China, 2008

Why do the Olympics lead to a violation of housing rights?

Hosting a major international event causes a certain fervor in Olympic host cities that often overrides the needs and input of local communities. Studies of the experiences of these cities have revealed some common experiences, including:

Key Housing impacts in Olympic Host Cities:

  1. Displacement and forced evictions of communities to make way for construction of Olympics-related infrastructure or related to gentrification.
    In Seoul in the five years before the Olympics, 48,000 buildings that housed 720,000 people were demolished for redevelopment. Ninety percent of the people evicted did not receive replacement housing within the redevelopment site. The use of violence was common in these evictions as developers hired private security companies to forcibly remove people from their homes. Violent acts included demolishing homes and setting fires close to where people were still living, as well as sexual and physical assaults of protesting tenants.
    In Beijing since 2000, as many as 1.5 million people have been evicted to make way for Olympic stadiums and new infrastructure. While many are compensated adequately, an estimated 20 percent have ended up in worse conditions, far from jobs and needed services. Many evictions were violent. In the Hujialou neighborhood where residents resisted, a demolition-relocation company tried to force the resident to leave by making their homes uninhabitable --removing windows and safety doors, breaking down walls, cutting off heat and electricity, scattering debris and even defecating in entryways.
    It should be noted that gentrification and redevelopment due to the Olympics are not just byproducts of hosting the event, but in many cases a motivating factor in bringing the Olympics to a city. For example, Atlanta's bid to host the Olympic /Games was spearheaded by a commercial real estate lawyer, Billy Payne, and supported by business groups. Payne and these groups wanted to control development in the city and drive poor communities from the center of the city.
  2. Escalation of housing costs.
    Rents in Barcelona increased by 145 percent between 1986 and 1993 due to redevelopment for the 1992 Olympics. In Seoul, as residents were evicted from their homes, thousands of people sought alternative low-cost housing in the surrounding areas. This huge increase in demand drove up housing costs fivefold in some areas.
  3. Reduction in the availability of low-cost or public housing.
    I Atlanta, a public housing development called Techwood Clark Howell was redeveloped with a net loss of 800 public housing units. Over 3,330 people total, were evicted with only 44 percent receiving relocation assistance. In total, more than 2,000 units of public housing were lost during Olympic development in Atlanta and 5,813 residents were displaced. In Barcelona, the number of new public housing units created fell from 2,647 in 1986 to just 9 in 1992.
  4. "Cleansing" operations to remove homeless people from visible locations and criminalization of homelessness. In Atlanta, a local nonprofit received thousands of dollars in local government grants to purchase one-way bus tickets to send homeless people to Alabama and Florida. Atlanta also passed a series of laws called Quality of Life Ordinances the year after it won the Olympic bid. These laws criminalized sleeping in abandoned buildings, begging and walking through parking lots if one did not own a car. These new laws resulted in 9,000 arrest citations issued to homeless people in one year's time, more than four times the normal. However, it wa reported that judges were reluctant to enforce the laws because of questionable constitutionality. It was learned that police in Atlanta pre-printed arrest citations stating the following information: African-American, Male, Homeless. This resulted in a lawsuit which force police to stop arresting people without probable cause.
    In Seoul, a facility was built 50 kilometers outside the city in the style of a prison camp to house 1,000 homeless people, poor people and people with addictions and mental illness.
  5. Introduction of special legislation to help facilitate preparations for the Olympics, including measures to make it easier to take private property, to target homeless people, to increase police power and restrict freedom of assembly.
    In Sydney, two acts were passed that gave police power to remove people from public areas the city wanted cleaned up for the Olympics. The laws also gave private security guards special powers of enforcement. The legislation made it possible to remove people from an area for indecent language or for causing "an annoyance or inconvenience." They also made it illegal to collect money, sleep overnight or use a skateboard or roller skates.
  6. Discrimination against marginalized groups.
    In Athens, people of Romani ethnic origin were targeted for relocation. An estimated 2,700 Roma were adversely affected by the Olympics. Many were forcibly evicted. Others who had lived for many years in destitute settlements were promised relocation to better housing only to find the relocation plans abandoned because they would be in sight of Olympic visitors.

How can these housing impacts be avoided in future Olympic host cities?

Olympic host cities must agree to follow the principles laid out in the Olympic Charter and the Code of Ethics. The Olympic Charter is the overarching constitutional instrument of the Olympics and it binds all persons and organizations involved in the Olympics. Several of those principles are relevant to respecting housing rights including "the promise to safeguard the dignity of the individual, the obligation not to discriminate, the promotion of sustainable development and of a positive legacy, and the commitment to fight against poverty and exclusion." In addition, the human right to housing is included in many sources of existing international human rights law unrelated to the Olympics. ( See CCH policy paper, Is Housing a Human Right? http://www.chicagohomeless.org/files/Archive/factsfigures/humanright.pdf.)

If Olympic host cities were to adhere truly to these principles, the described human rights violations should not have happened. Communities impacted by the Olympics should work to hold their cities accountable to these binding agreements.
The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, an independent non-government, non-profit housing rights organization, recommends the following for Olympic host cities:

Top

Ballot initiative in precincts ringing Washington park calls for lots for affordable housing while forum in Hyde Park looks for alleviations.

Chicago Weekly, October 30, 2008. By Laura Mattison, Perspectives: Restraining Zeus- How a local ballot initiative is attempting to control Mayor Daley's Olympian Actions

....One local issue concerns Chicago's prospective hosting of the 2016 Olympics. Voters in certain precincts in Wards 2, 3, 4, and 20 can encourage Mayor Daley and the Chicago 2016 Committee to use part of any potential Olympic windfall to benefit Bronzeville residents. The ballot initiative asks that at least 26% of the city's vacant lots in Bronzeville be used for affordable housing for moderate-income residents. Generally, "affordable" means residents are spending no more than 30% of their gross (before taxes) income on housing. Moderate-income residents earn between 80% and 120% of Chicago's Median Income, targeting the middle class.

The initiative is meant to partially address a major fear many residents have about the prospect of Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics. Despite the economic and infrastructural benefits Chicago might experience, many people worry that there could be negative impacts on things like housing and transportation for moderate- and low-income residents of South Side neighborhoods. Because the Olympic Stadium would bed located in Washington Park, neighborhoods like Hyde Park and Bronzeville would be especially affected by the 2016 Games. Although the proposed stadium would be a temporary fixture, even that short term structure could have a long-term impact. Groups like the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless believe that low-income and vulnerable groups may be rolled over in the Olympic fever that often takes over the chosen city.

While non expects the degree of widespread evictions witnessed during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chicago residents have valid fears that they may be priced out of their neighborhoods. Other cities have faced this problem of displacement as the Olympics have become a larger and larger event. In efforts to spread the benefits of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, Vancouver recently approved the Olympic Legacy Affordable Housing project to create movable modular housing units. The 320 temporary housing units will form part of the Olympic Village and later be moved to other communities to become permanent affordable housing. Hyde Park's Coalition for Equitable Community Development advocates a similar measure to minimize the displacement of area residents by making a third of the Olympic Village units into affordable housing after the "two-week-party" is over.

The opportunities and risks that the Olympics may bring to Chicago were discussed by Hyde Park resident at a recent forum convened by the Coalition for Equitable Community Development at Augustana Lutheran Church. the forum took place on October 18th, and was cosponsored by several local organizations, including the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference and South Siders Organized for Unity and Liberation. Residents spoke about their concerns to speakers, including the community liaison for Chicago 2016 and two aldermen. With issue ranging from parking to gentrification, area residents expressed hopes that a Chicago Olympics could improve the city, and fears that they might not benefit from those improvements.

There are always huge structural changes when a city hosts the Olympics. There may be urban revitalization, as areas of the city are completely transformed by massive public works projects. The boom in tourism and advertising infuses local businesses and large corporations with huge amounts of money. When all these changes have taken place, a city can find itself transformed. Often the biggest changes are seen in areas considered "underutilized," throwing the lives of nearby already disadvantaged people into further chaos. How can we make sure that these people are not trampled in the ensuing Olympic madness? Is a non-binding resolution to recommend some provisions for middle income housing anywhere near enough?

Cities are always changing. Whether it is "white flight" or gentrification, a new influx of immigrants or technological upheaval, American cities have witnessed waves of change that each left their mark. If Chicago receives the mixed blessing of the 2016 Olympics, no one can deny that there will be manor changes, in both the economic and physical structure of the city. The government and Mayor Daley must be careful to ensure that all benefit. A large public works project like hosting the Games is no experiment in the free market. The city is responsible for the changes it enacts, and it must recognize its obligations to assist all people hurt by its Olympian efforts.

Top