In many cases, where real estate developers have obtained a zone permit or grants in the absence of a Community agreement, they have accepted the costs of the CBA in order to avoid or reduce the risk of the government delaying or rejecting their project (Baxamusa 2008; Parks and Warren 2009; Salkin and Lavine 2008). As community coalitions succeed in maximizing developer concessions, CBAs represent the price developers are willing to pay to avoid risk. To benefit community investments, CBAs are able to extract this award from private developers if city governments do not. CBAs have two important advantages over the traditional land use authorization process. First, the CBA negotiation process allows for a more constructive and collaborative discussion of meeting the needs of the community than the often adversarial and highly structured hearings that are part of the approval process for local government projects. Second, a private agreement is free from certain critical legal constraints that apply to state conditions in development projects, so that the community and developer can negotiate a multitude of outlets and develop creative approaches. Supporters of CBA argue that the community benefits approach improves the development process for the community, developers and local officials by creating a win-win overall scenario.  Some of the principles and objectives that CBA supporters want to promote are: Here is a fundamental explanation of the community`s benefits. To familiarize yourself with the details of how they work, please also read these resources: elected officials and government authorities often play an active role in CBA negotiations. In California and other countries where development agreements have been approved, government officials may be official signatories to the CBA. In other cases, government officials can play a more informal role in facilitating negotiations with KBA and fostering cooperation. Improving their attractiveness to businesses (Abu-Lughod 1999; Gotham 2001, middle- and upper-class tourists (Gotham 2001) and high-income professionals (Peck 2005) have used a large number of private public inventions (e.g. B tax financing and business areas) to facilitate and subsidize private development, in the hope of achieving higher tax revenues through economic growth (Gotham 2001). For example, the City of Chicago has made considerable public funds and efforts to attract Boeing`s headquarters, build an „entertainment complex“ in downtown Navy Pier, plan and build the United Center Professional Sports Arena, and expand the McCormick Place Convention Center (Repos 2001). Cities partly justify high public spending on „entertainment destinations“ by the fact that benefits are „spilled“ into the local economy while leading to ancillary investments [and] high employment opportunities in hotels and restaurants and retail,“ while „bringing the necessary tax revenues“ (Gotham 2001, 14). The community benefits movement began in Los Angeles, with successful implementation in mixed-use projects in Hollywood and Highland, and Staples Center/LA Live.  Since then, it has expanded rapidly to other cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, San Francisco, San Francisco, Seattle, Syracuse, Washington, D.C. and Wilmington.  Among the major organizations are the National Community Reinvestment Coalition , the Partnership for Working Families , the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy („LAANE“) , Strategic Actions for a Just Economy („SAJE“), SCOPE , Georgia Stand-Up  and Pittsburg United, those who want to promote the use of CBAs in their cities, have taken into account policies that require developers.