In a challenge to a City law that conditions certain tax exemptions and abatements to private developers of projects in certain designated areas on the developers' entry into agreements with labor unions that bind the developers to specified labor practices, the District Court's dismissal of the complaint -- on grounds that the City acts as a market participant, not a regulator, when it enforces the law, and therefore that plaintiffs' NLRA, ERISA, and dormant Commerce Clause claims were not cognizable -- is reversed where the City was acting as a regulator in this context, and thus the claims are cognizable.