Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Development in the United States

24

planners. Concepts for revitalizing downtown were discussed together. (Brandl, J.; Brook; R.,
1982:178). In Minneapolis the Downtown Council provided financial and planning assistance
when the city was considering policies that would affect downtown. The city’s “Plan for the
1980’s” was drawn up in this fashion. In this way, research and studies were often financed
jointly by the city and the council (Brandl, J.; Brook; R.,1982:196).

The Greater Baltimore Committee (GBC) is an often cited example of an elite group that
affected downtown planning. CEOs of the largest corporations in the Baltimore metropolitan
area were organized in the GBC. The chief purposes of this group were sound planning and
the implementation of plans in order to foster economic development in the city. The GBC
and the Committee for Downtown, in which downtown retailers were organized, devised a
comprehensive plan for Baltimore’s CBD redevelopment.

To conclude, the examples illustrate the liaison of private organizations and city departments
or city hall based on an informal arrangements concerning planning in order to revitalize
downtown. A key contribution of business associations and committees was their sponsorship
of comprehensive development plans with an emphasis on revitalization of the CBD. Private
development committees and their partnership with local public officials might led to lasting
governing coalitions (Barnekov, T.; Boyle, R.; Rich, D., 1989:45). Such close informal
relationships between the public and private sectors were common in the US. Informal public-
private alliances strongly influence urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s and thus affected
downtown revitalization significantly.

B. Formal Partnerships

Formalization of partnerships take place through formal partnership agreements as well as
public-private institutions and corporations. Partnership agreements can be considered less
formalized than partnerships in which quasi-public or private corporations are established. A
new era of partnerships emerged in the late 1970s since public and private partners seek to
achieve formalized partnership agreements. As a result, partnerships have become a more
institutionalized part of urban development in the US (Heinz, W., 1993:129).

Partnership agreements can take many forms. However, it is always “a written statement of
the decisions governing all of the various aspects of the project” (Kirlin, J. J., 1985:20). The
contract clearly defines the responsibilities of each partner. Generally, it is a complex
document. The most common contractual agreements between the public and private sectors
are the following: Development Agreements (DA), Disposition and Development Agreements
(DDA), Ownership Participation Agreements (OPA), and Lease Agreements. In California
DAs were authorized by California State Law in 1979 (Arana, 1986:31). This legislation
authorizes localities and developers to contract for mutual benefits. A development agreement
may specify “conditions, terms, restrictions, and regulations pertaining to all aspects of a
development” (Fulton, W., 1999:352). A DDA is similar to a development agreement,
however, it is a contract between a city or city agency and developer in a redevelopment
project called for in a redevelopment plan. An OPA is struck between the city or city agency
and property owners when property is not owned by the redevelopment agency. Usually the
property owners have small parcels and the city wants particular improvements to be done.

The advantage of formal public-private partnerships is the early commitment to negotiations
with a contractual agreement at the end. Formal agreements afford security for the
participants. In this instance the private partner (developer or investor) has the assurance that
the “actions agreed on by the city would be carried out no matter what political uncertainties”
will occur. On the other hand, the agreement provides the city assurance of planning
guidelines and financial duties of the developer or investor. (Claggett, W. E., 1982:257).

<<   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   >>

More intriguing information