The Challenges of Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Sanda Kaufman Levin College of Urban Affairs Cleveland State University IACM Conference, Eugene, 1994 LULUs

The Challenges ofNegotiating Changes in ELULUs

Sanda KaufmanLevin College of Urban Affairs

Cleveland State University

IACM Conference, Eugene, 1994

LULUs and ELULUsThe GSX StoryELULU profileThird parties and ELULUs

Negotiating Changes in ELULUs

What are ELULUs?

ELULUs are Existing, Locally Unwanted Land Uses.

LULUs are new Locally Unwanted Land Uses.

Is the process of negotiating ELULU change comparable to negotiating LULU siting?

What should be the terms of the comparison?

parties' perceptions of consequences parties' involvement laws and regulations negotiation process alternatives

Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994


Comparing ELULUs to LULUs (a)

The negotiation process involves:

NEW simultaneous interaction of most players EXISTING sporadic interaction of select players

Community perceives consequences:

NEW as larger, more threatening EXISTING as smaller, less threatening

Community's status quo can be:

NEW maintained or unaffected by LULU EXISTING changed or questioned even if initiative is not implemented



ELULU Change Strategies


Implementing ELULU changes differs from LULU siting

Key differences:history of relationshipstatus quo not an optionparties cannot disengage

Recommendations: apply parts of the credo

default worse than status quo

conduct research on

intervention strategies that work

incomplete stakeholder representation

introduce third party intervention

matching interventions to situations

institutionalizing intervention


Why UNWANTED?


Siting LULUs

Changing ELULUs

EnvironmentalConsequences

EconomicConsequences

FunctionalConsequences

SocialConsequences

damage to air, water, soil, etc.Ex. waste treatment facility

Impact on property valuesEx. landfill

legal and delay costsEx. power plant

change in spatial relationshipsEx. WallMart in rural area

presence of "undesirables"Ex. housing for the poor, disabled ...


Examples of ELULU Changes


St. Herman hospitality house

GSX waste treatment facility

Shaker Heights Malvern School

Tremont's Grace Hospital

Rock-N-Roll Hall of FameFunctional consequences

Alternative sites & designsIf negotiations fail -> status quo

Social & economic consequencesIf negotiations fail, parties cannot walk awayParties' joint history affects current dispute

Functional & social consequencesCommunity voice varies greatlyIf negotiations fail status quo not restored

Economic & functional consequencesRepresentation problemsSuboptimal outcomes

Environmental consequences


Some Types of ELULU Change


Siting LULUs

Enlarging facility,same function

Same facility,changing function

Same facility,adding functions

Enlarging facility,changing function

Changing ELULUs


Examples of ELULU Changes


St. Herman hospitality houseSt. Ignatius High SchoolBeachwood Pavilion Mall

GSX waste treatment facility

Shaker Heights Malvern schoolCleveland's Warehouse DistrictCleveland Flats nude dancing bar

Tremont's Grace Hospital

Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame

Cleveland's Tower City

Euclid Beach Park


Siting LULUs

The Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame will be built in Cleveland, on a vacant site in the new harbor on Lake Erie

In general, for siting LULUs,

Alternative sites

Alternative designs

If negotiations fail, return to status quoSanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

Rock-N-Roll Hall of FameFunctional consequences


Expanding an existing facility

St. Herman's is a Greek Orthodox hospitality house for the homeless in Ohio City.In 1991, it attempted to expand its kitchen, triggering considerable community opposition.Mediated negotiations led to the approval of a zoning variance for the expansion.

In general: if negotiations fail, the parties cannot walk away parties have a joint history that affects the current dispute


St. Herman hospitality house

Social & economic consequences


Changing the function

Shaker's Malvern elementary school was closed for lack of students.A developer attempted to convert the building into condominiums, triggering community opposition.The building has now been rented to a Jewish day school.In general: the ability of communities to have a voice in the process varies greatly if negotiations fail, the status quo is not restored


Shaker Heights Malvern schoolFunctional and social consequences


Expanding facility and changing function

The Grace Hospital of Tremont bought surrounding land to expand and change into a more profitable spinal cord injuries treatment facility.The community split over the plan, which failed, leaving the hospital under continuous threat of closing down.

In general:

private sector transactions may be able to stay outside the community reach misrepresentation by parties results in inefficient outcomes

Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Oregon 1994

Tremont's Grace HospitalCleveland's Tower City

Euclid Beach Park


Adding new functions

The GSX waste treatment facility located in Cleveland's St. Hyacinth neighborhood, wanted to add the capability of processing toxic waste.Opposition to the plan led to the closing down of the facility.

In general:

the result of such initiatives may be worse than the status quo for initiator, community, or both there are no institutional structures to assist the process


GSX waste treatment facilityEnvironmental consequences


GSX, Sequence of Events 1981 AlchemTron Hazardous waste treatment facility opens local and state regulatory violations incinerator installed permit renewal process initiated financial problems escalate

1988 GSX purchases AlchemTron facility management and procedural changes

1989 Community awareness of GSX neighborhood gets new EPA hearing FITE organizes/takes action public officials oppose the incinerator EPA bifurcates hearing process

1990 GSX closes operations accidents and violations continue EPA permit revoked court order to shut down GSX decides to pull out of location



GSX Stakeholders GSX wanted to: Add incineration treatment Increase radius of service (profits)

City government wanted to: Maintain compliance (mandate) Show responsiveness to public's concerns (political)

County government wanted to: Provide for regional needs of waste processing (mandate) Minimize costs of involvement

EPA, OHWFB & State of Ohio wanted to: Maintain compliance Foster good image with public, industry, governments

Neighborhood and environmental groups wanted to: Get informed about their environment Prevent incineration treatment process

Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Oregon 1994


Siting LULUs Credo

13 tenets for negotiating LULU siting L. Susskind, Negotiation Journal, 1990


1. Seek consensus throughbroad-based participatory process

2. Work to develop trust

3. Get agreement thatstatus quo is unacceptable

4. Choose facility designthat best addresses the problem

5. Seek acceptable sitesthrough volunteer process

6. Consider a competitive siting process

7. Work for geographic fairness

8. Keep multiple optionson the table at all times

9. Guarantee that stringentsafety standards will be met

10. Fully compensate allnegative impacts of the facility

11. Make the host communitybetter off

12. Use contingent agreements

13. Set realistic timetables

Documents

The Challenges of Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Sanda Kaufman Levin College of Urban Affairs Cleveland State University IACM Conference, Eugene, 1994 LULUs