ROBERT C. HOCKETT, Cornell University - School of Law
Email: robert-hockett@postoffice.law.cornell.edu

I propose here a critical amendment to Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposed "bailout" plan for troubled financial institutions. If we channel the plan through FHA and its recently re-federalized GSE siblings, I argue, we shall neatly avoid all objections currently raised to the plan - those sounding in unconstitutional delegation, moral hazard, and inequity alike. Rather than "rescuing Main Street by rescuing Wall Street" through new Treasury authority, in short, we should employ institutional means already at our disposal by which we shall readily "rescue Wall Street by rescuing Main Street."

ERIN C. NAVE, Washington University School of Law in St. Louis
Email: ecnave@wulaw.wustl.edu

The critical relationship between racially identifiable neighborhoods in northern cities and school segregation has been recognized by scholars, lawyers and courts for decades. However, despite this close interrelationship, civil rights attorneys have been frustrated in attempts to gain the courts' approval of combined school and housing remedies. This essay seeks to illustrate the challenges of winning housing remedies in northern school desegregation cases: (1) proving causation in combined school and housing claims is difficult and requires more resources than most plaintiffs are willing or able to expend; and (2) the Justice Department remains either unable or unwilling to tackle both issues at once. Despite these obstacles, evidence of residential segregation has still historically played a significant strategic role. This essay highlights the Indianapolis Public Schools litigation, U.S. v. Board of School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis, as an example of how litigators were able to gain an interdistrict school desegregation plan which included a significant, though limited, housing remedy. As the isolation and re-segregation of urban school districts in northern cities continues, it is essential that the Justice Department and civil rights organizations re-examine the critical relationship between housing and schools. This article is also available at the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.

STEPHEN CLOWNEY, University of Kentucky - College of Law
Email: steveclowney@gmail.com

This Article is an attempt to better understand and address the feeble rate of self-employment in African-American neighborhoods. My animating thesis is that black business lags, at least in part, because commentators have overlooked a key constraint on African-American entrepreneurship: land use regulation. In both the legal academy and in the halls of government, scholars have failed to understand how land use rules restrict commercial development in minority communities. More specifically, the literature has never acknowledged that zoning - the process of dividing an entire municipality into districts and designating permitted uses for each area - sharply limits the formation and expansion of entrepreneurship in black neighborhoods. Drawing on both sociological and empirical evidence, this paper begins by providing a brief recap of the importance of entrepreneurship in black places. The Article then contends that land use fees, municipal zoning board decisions, and the general insistence on separating residential from commercial uses all impress unique and disproportionate harms on African-American merchants, making it difficult to find affordable business space in suitable locations. The final section of the manuscript lays out a policy proposal that could spark a revival of inner-city entrepreneurship. I argue, in short, that transferring government-owned abandoned buildings to fledgling entrepreneurs would provide black merchants the space they need, without raising the ire of local homeowners.

PATRICIA SALKIN, Albany Law School - Government Law Center
Email: psalk@mail.als.edu
AMY LAVINE, Albany Law School
Email: alavine@albanylaw.edu

The opportunity to develop a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) typically arises when a developer announces plans to construct a major project, such as a stadium or a theater complex. Local residents and business owners may often welcome these projects, but they may also have legitimate fears, such as: Will the project displace local residents and local businesses, either physically or through gentrification? Will it cause traffic problems and generate noise, pollution, or other nuisances? Will the economic development benefits espoused by the developer actually create jobs that pay a living wage and offer decent benefits for residents in the neighborhood or in a larger geographic community? Will the developer seek and/or welcome public participation in the project design and review of environmental and community impacts? In short, will the developer and the resulting built project be good neighbors?

This article offers an analysis of legal and policy issues surrounding the development, implementation and enforcement of CBAs. Part II offers a general explanation of CBAs - what they are, what types of benefits they commonly include, and how they are negotiated and finalized. Part III briefly discusses the reasons behind the popularity of CBAs, and explains how they have been tied to smart growth and other social justice issues. Part IV reviews select CBAs from various cities, offering examples of successful models as well as discussing more controversial efforts. These case studies not only assist in understanding the dynamics of the CBA negotiating process, but also they illustrate some of the practical difficulties associated with the CBA model. These problems are discussed in greater depth in Part V. Part VI presents the legal issues surrounding CBAs, including questions of enforceability and validity. Finally, Part VII offers a checklist of items to be considered by developers, communities and municipalities before and during negotiations.