• Whom to talk to first
• Building on an initial base of supporters
• The real goal when engaging NIMBYs
• When public information campaigns can backfire

This online briefing can be accessed here at NAIOP, a national trade association for developers, owners and investors in industrial, office, retail and mixed-use real estate projects.  Or go directly to the briefing here.

BNA:Do you think it would be fair to say that your mission is liaison between local residents and real estate developers?

Noto:When we are being cynical we say we generate spontaneous support for controversial projects. In a nutshell, we are a full service public affairs firm and we help win community and political support for controversial real estate projects, or projects that sponsors believe may become controversial. They want to avoid NIMBY opposition, or they want to overcome it, or they want to reduce it. Most of our clients are private-sector and nonprofit developers. We do occasionally work with a variety of others, [like] coalitions or trade associations, city or government agencies, or unions.

BNA:Is yours a huge, under-reported profession?

Noto:I think there are a lot of people doing it. They may be architects and they may be attorneys or general public relations agencies, but we are kind of unique. There are only a couple or three firms who provide this service to project sponsors pretty much full time. NIMBYism is a problem nationwide, and it’s not just in our country. It has spread to some of the other Western European countries, particularly where there is a lot of local democracy in place.

BNA:Can you name a couple?

Noto:Canada [and] Great Britain.

BNA:Do you think that there should be certain “protected towns” that simply do not allow chain stores to come in? I believe the term is “Formula Business Regulated District.”

Noto:I would distinguish between the two. It’s probably not legal in many areas to say, ‘OK, you are going to get more business than anyone else, therefore we will not allow you to come in.’ That would be a restraint of trade. So what happens instead is that local governments will establish a burden of proof that a store or a facility is going to be beneficial to a community, and that’s pretty fair, in my opinion.

Now, sometimes they will go beyond that. They will say, ‘You can’t be over 5,000 square feet.’ Some of those restrictions may be unfair, but we work with whatever the local environment is. Candidly, I don’t have a problem with demonstrating that a facility is going to be beneficial to a community, that it is going to provide jobs … that it is going to provide a needed service.

BNA:Is that, however, something your clients are going to have a problem with?

Noto:Yes, that is a possibility. But again, most local areas do not say, ‘We don’t allow chain stores.’ They simply try to establish a very high burden of proof that it is going to be helpful. Therefore, what you have to do is explain that it is going to be helpful. Some clients might have a problem with that, but to go out and say, ‘No chain stores’ is something that I would definitely be against.

BNA:How difficult is it to establish that a business will help a community?

Noto:Some communities will say, ‘Are you going to be creating business opportunities for people? Are you going to be providing jobs for local people or are all the folks who work here going to be coming from outside the community?’ So it depends on the situation.

The Trouble With NIMBYs.

BNA:What is the biggest objection that you encounter from NIMBYs?

Noto:I would say, ‘You are going to increase auto traffic here.’ Typically what happens is that opponents are concerned with preserving the status quo, whereas proponents want to improve the community, and so what’s important is to show that you can mitigate traffic or that you can provide offsetting benefits–[that] you can provide more jobs, more housing or whatever.

BNA:Do you outsource any of that to experts within, say, the field of traffic alternatives?

Noto:Most typically a developer or a project sponsor will work with a traffic expert who will come up with mitigation strategies. Oftentimes the city or the county or the locality will require that you show you can mitigate traffic. But–and I want to talk about this–people oppose projects for different reasons and some of those may be unrelated to the actual facts or the actual impacts. So if you can determine what the real cause of opposition is, you can get a better response.

BNA:Do you mean that people will have an ulterior motive they don’t want to mention, so they hide under the banner of ‘too much traffic?’

Noto:That can be part of it, but basically we see that there are four causes of opposition. One can be loss of face–’You didn’t sit down and talk to me,’ or, ‘I’m important because I’m a nearby neighbor or I’m a former city council person and you didn’t even bother to talk to me. So I’m going to oppose your project and I will get up on my soapbox because that will increase my power.’

Another cause of opposition is misperception–people have the wrong impression about what the project’s going to be. ‘It’s going to increase traffic by 200 percent.’ Well, no, it’s going to increase the traffic by 2 percent. ‘This is subsidized housing.’ Well, actually it’s not; it’s private-sector housing. So if you can change a misperception, sometimes you can change attitudes.

The third kind of opposition, and this is perhaps the most difficult–is [a] moral conflict, people who say you are raping the land. This is natural land and it should not be built on at all. And with those kinds of folks there are no real concessions. If I say, ‘Yeah I’m a rapist but I will reduce my number of crimes to one a year,’ we couldn’t come up with a compromise on that. Moral conflicts are difficult to compromise on, so you have to explain that you share some of those moral values–if you do–or that you share other moral values with those people so they are unable to demonize you. Maybe they will still disagree on something, but we often say, ‘OK, we’re going to preserve 70 percent of this property–this is private property–as open space and we are going to preserve and enhance it. We will clean up the streams and the creeks and by putting fairly dense housing … in, we will be improving the environment.’

BNA:Would those people with moral issues be known as BANANAs?

Noto:They might be. They might not feel the same way about development in the middle of a city but they might be against anything in a rural or suburban area that is going to affect vacant open space.

The fourth type is [the] folk who are concerned about conflicts of interest, so if you can [say], ‘OK, we are going to add five cars to our streets per hour, [but] we’re going to include a rail line to assist in public transit,’ maybe you can compromise. Maybe [you can] go from 40 condos to 30 condos. So conflicts of interest can be negotiated, compromised, but [for] the other kinds of opposition, you have to use different techniques.

BNA:How much power do NIMBYs really have?

Noto:It depends on the structure of the area. For example, we are talking about structural factors like, are decision makers elected by district? How big are the districts? Do they have a tradition of, ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours?’ If the local city council member who represents that particular neighborhood is opposed to it, then all the other city council members are going to automatically oppose it, even though they think it’s a decent project.

There are other factors like, do folks have some acceptance of authority and expertise or are they conspiracy theorists and very suspicious of government, big or small? Who are the players? Are the unions important? Is the business community important? Maybe the environmentalists are behind the smart growth project. Who are the folks that the decision makers pay attention to?

Noto:I think that we have a very complex and changing world and people feel like that don’t have any say-so in those changes. They were not allowed to vote on cell phones, Iraq, regulatory items that caused the economic collapse, derivatives, and such. But this is change. Development is inherently contentious; it is change right where I live and oftentimes decided at the local level. And you can have some influence there, whereas your influence on the policy on derivatives or the war in Afghanistan may be very limited. So people take out some of their frustrations about the change that we see in the world on development.

It goes back to, ‘Are people talking to me? Do they care about me? Are they listening to me? Do I have misperceptions about what this project is going to be like? Are these bad people? Do we have a moral conflict or just a conflict of interest?’ The folks with a moral conflict, well, you are pretty much born with that. You develop as a child your response to authority and what your thoughts are on morality are developed very young in life, so those folks are ‘born NIMBYs,’ or more likely to be. Others are responding to the changing world and to development itself. In other words, did somebody come and talk to them, explain the impacts [or] ask their view on other ways the impacts might be mitigated or changed?

BNA:Many NIMBYs appear to believe they are crusaders in the mold of Jane Jacobs battling Robert Moses. Do you find that to be a major theme?

Noto:‘It’s change and I wasn’t consulted. The outsiders are out to get us, they are out to make their own big profits; it’s a conspiracy.’ That oftentimes happens, particularly if the project sponsor is not local or hasn’t had close links in the community.

BNA:NIMBYs often seem to oppose any development because they have a poor impression of corporate America. Do you know of any organized efforts to educate that group about the nuanced differences between development per se and environmentally friendly developments, such as those oriented around transit hubs?

Noto:[Do] they have a poor impression about corporate America? Well, yes and no. You can get people who are very passionate about how their neighbor wants to build a second floor on their house. That’s not because of a poor impression of corporate America. However, it is easier to demonize multinational corporations in areas that have a more anti-business outlook. What a project sponsor needs to do is show that they are interested in the community and involved in the community and sit down and listen and talk to people about what they are looking for and what their perceptions are and how [they] can work together in some fashion. But if there is a high level of suspicion of your corporation–yeah, you’re going to have that problem.

BNA:Have you noticed that NIMBYs are much more likely to protest high-density development, which often represents sound land use planning, than low-density development, which tends to promote sprawl?

Noto:Yes and no. In general I would say yes. Anything that is going to change the existing zoning or change the existing lay of the land or threatens to change the character of the neighborhood–obviously that is much more likely to be protested. Of course … high-density development by its nature tends to be more environmentally friendly because it means we are going to be using less resources–we won’t have to increase infrastructure as much. If we [are] trying to reduce our carbon footprint, high density is the way to go, typically … so the way around this is to see what the reason for the opposition is. Is it because they see a conflict of interest? Is it a moral value for them or is there a misperception on how dense this is going to be? Or they don’t know how you are going to provide parking, or they don’t know how you are going to reduce traffic? Or is it just that they haven’t been consulted and you are imposing this on them? But yes, in most cases, absolutely, high-density development in an area that is lower density, even if it’s sound land use planning, is going to [be protested] more readily.

The second issue goes to the issue of smart growth, and of course there are smart growth groups all over America. Perhaps the problem is that it is easier to say no than [to] say yes–I think we’re seeing that at other levels of government.

BNA:What is the difference between preserving the character of an area and establishing protectionist barriers?

Noto:Establishing some protectionist barriers can harm a local economy and make it difficult for business owners to thrive. They can increase costs to local residents. You simply need to show you are increasing business opportunities and employment for the local residents.

Developers, NIMBYs, Learn to Concede.

BNA:Are developers typically intransigent or conciliatory about getting their way?

Noto:I’ll answer that question both for developers and NIMBYs. Given time, I think developers are extremely conciliatory if they think there is an expectation that they will lose. They often have millions of dollars invested in a process before it goes before a public hearing, so most private sponsors are going to be very realistic. But if somebody thinks that their expectation of victory is very high, they may be less conciliatory. On the other hand, we try to get our clients to understand that if a particular concession or mitigation is not going to affect [their] ultimate goals … then it makes sense. If by putting in a child care center at a cost of $100,000 is going to win you a strong group of supporters or reduce opposition, then I think people can be made to see that that is an effective mechanism.

NIMBYs also look at their leverage. What’s the expectation of victory? Most are not in to kick up a storm, though there may be NIMBYs like that who are in it because they want to increase their personal power. But by and large people do not want to lose, so if they think there’s a strong chance that they are going to lose, then they are more willing to compromise. But again it depends on their reason for opposition. If their reason for opposition is a conflict of interest, then yes, if they think they are likely to lose, then they are more likely to go with a concession. And again, we encourage our clients to think about concessions or mitigations that are not going to ultimately impact on their goals, but will satisfy the neighbors and help them view us as good neighbors too.

BNA:You have said that the formative stages require developers to pay for, among other things, planning, maps, architectural drawings, and environmental studies. Is there a way to take a plan to the public forums before all that money is invested?

Noto:One thing you can do in terms of getting public support is get public opinion research, and that’s one of the things that we specialize in. It could be a poll, it could be an interview where [we] sit down and talk to 10 or 20 community leaders, people from different walks of life who have some influence in the community, or just average residents who live in the area, [and] find out what they want, what they care about. For example, we did trade-off interviews, [where] we talked to 20 people who lived in a community near a housing development and asked them what was important to them. If we lowered density, could we put in more commercial development? If we increased density but put in a bus line, would that be better? For example, we did a project in south central Colorado. We talked about putting in soccer fields and [asked] would that change attitudes? People were unanimously in favor of soccer fields, but it didn’t change their attitudes. Could we clean up the creek and the environmental degradation–rubber tires and trash in the creek? Well, they liked that too, but it didn’t change their attitudes. What they really liked was that we put in an equestrian trail, which made them feel like they lived in a rural community, and we [showed] pictures of children riding their horses. We [then] got a pretty strong approval out of that community and we were allowed to increase the density, eight times as much as it had previously been zoned for.

That’s called conjoint analysis, that kind of trade-off analysis. That’s an alternative or sometimes a supplement to a survey. A survey can tell you what people want, what they like. Most people in America like the color blue, but that doesn’t mean that if you paint your hotel blue that they are going to approve your project.

Profiling.

We use a system called DISC, and this is a way of evaluating folks’ perceptions of how they make decisions. It is based on creating personality profiles, so we look at whether the decision making style is based on Decisiveness, Interaction, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness. So if someone is an accountant and is very conscientious and values stability, you are going to approach them differently than somebody … who gets their opinions from other people, or someone who is very decisive and make[s] up their mind almost immediately. So we do these kinds of personality analyses and use them to determine how you can influence a particular individual–or the swing vote on a city council, for example.

BNA:Do you get professional profilers to do this?

Noto:This is a highly developed profile and we can do these personality profiles on our own. If we are looking for a much more sophisticated level, I do use other consultants that provide this. They are not psychologists per se–not all of them, at least–but the system was developed originally to use in hiring profiles. [If] you are going to hire a new director of finance, you want to know if this is somebody who is steady or somebody who is going to make up his mind almost immediately. So what we have done is we have taken this system and adapted it to use in evaluating decision makers. It can be used in evaluating community leaders too. It’s not a panacea but if you know how people react … you also want to know how they process information. Is this a ‘kick the tires’ kind of guy or someone who wants to read everything? Is it someone who processes information verbally, [and] they want to hear what you have to say, or is this somebody who is going to read every detail? This kind of information is useful in influencing decision makers, helps to develop lobbying plans. And that’s what we do.

Noto:Last week on Tuesday–’Can you get us a bunch of folks to show up at a hearing on Thursday? And we won’t be able to approve your budget until tomorrow, so you’ve got one day to do it.’ So we said that we could try.

BNA:What was the most difficult assignment you have had?

Noto:We did a project–a ski resort–in Utah and we did our homework beforehand. This was a relatively small community–we did a survey and it showed that if the project went to a referendum, we would lose. Of course, that’s not for sure, but it gave a strong motivation to a developer to make some concessions and compromise. At the same time we needed to get the opposition to the bargaining table. How do you do that? We had to have some leverage, [the opposition] had to have some expectation that they might lose. So within a relatively short period of time, we put together a strong coalition, consisting of the business community, neighborhood leaders, folks in the churches, and showed that there was really strong support. And we went out and did our own petition drive with two expectations. One, because people were signing our petition they were less likely to sign the opposition’s petition to put this on the ballot as a referendum. And [two], it also created the impression that there were a lot of people in support of our ski resort. And so the opposition caved in and said, ‘Yeah, let’s sit down and talk,’ and so we gave a little and they said they would be okay with the project. It got built.

BNA:Thatwas your most difficult assignment?

Noto:It was difficult because if we had pushed this all through, we would have lost. Public opinion was dead set against it and there [weren't] a lot of misconceptions about the project. So we had to convince our client and convince the public that the project was supported by a significant amount of people in the community. So you are out there gathering endorsements, getting people to put signs up, in the face of the fact that most of the people in the community [didn't] support this project.

Another very difficult one was a low-income multi-family housing project, in a very affluent area. In fact, it was just across the borderline from one of the most affluent communities in … the country … right next to where [California gubernatorial candidate] Meg Whitman lives. This was low-income subsidized housing for large families … This was for families with four or more kids. We not only had to convince the city council and planning commission to approve it but also to approve a subsidy. There was some opposition from another nonprofit housing group that didn’t want our project to go in because that meant less money for them to build. So what we did in this case was find folks who would benefit from the project–there were plenty of large families within 20 to 25 miles who lined up to get into this housing–and we [said], ‘We will screen you and pre-qualify you to sign up,’ and we recruited those folks to go to the hearings and to go and talk to various groups like the [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] or low-cost housing advocates, religious groups, [and] social justice groups. We were able to narrowly win a victory there.

BNA:Is there a typical time span from the time you get the contract from the project sponsors to resolution?

Noto:I’m not sure there is an average time because it depends on the type of project, the local zoning and the local process and the local regulations. I think our services are typically most valuable before one submits an application or before a project sponsor has decided … ’This is exactly what we are going to do and we can’t make any changes.’ And we do get called in by project sponsors who are in the last three or four months and they can’t really make changes. And we can help them with some things, like public hearing management. We can help them recruit new supporters, but by that time their opposition may already have heard about this. People call us in sometime after they have already had a public hearing, and then opposition may have hardened. It might make it more difficult to go back to people and say, ‘We really want to hear your views’ if in fact the project sponsor is not able to make changes.

But again, it depends on the situation. Sometimes … you’ve got the local decision-making planning board on your side, but if there is a huge crowd against it and nobody supporting it, you’re going to go down in flames. So you need to make a show of support to give the decision makers cover. In that case–you may be able to do that in a couple of weeks or a couple of months. In other situations you want to be in before the environmental studies are complete so you can help shape the project in a way that’s going to be acceptable to the public opinion survey or other opinion research. Maybe it’s just individual interviews, [and] you need more time for that. We have worked on some projects three to four years out and we have worked on others just a month or two.

BNA:What would you like to have accomplished with your work?

Noto:I think we would like to be able to show that we have helped make communities better. In some cases we can provide solutions that work as well for the business community, the project sponsor, as well as the neighborhood, and we have done that in community after community across the United States from Maryland to Maui.

BNA:Are people living on a natural paradise like Maui more difficult to deal with?

Noto:Each community has some unique challenges. Folks who were born and raised in Maui have somewhat different attitudes from the folks who came there only 10 years ago, [who] expect it never to change. ‘I bought a condo here and this is how it should be.’ Whereas folks who have been there for a while tend to be interested in the economy. They want to be sure that their kids will have jobs and opportunities. So all of those are perceived differently by different demographic groups, and of course that’s why you do your opinion research.
Copyright 2010, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

BY FRANK NOTO, PRESIDENT, GCA STRATEGIES

Published: Public Sector Digest
February 2010

PDF Download: Overcoming NIMBY Opposition

Most major development projects proposed for urban environments are likely to be challenged by NIMBYs. Whether the project is a power plant, a sewer treatment facility, or public housing, opponents are likely to raise the rallying cry of “Not in My Back Yard.” No matter how much the proposal or infrastructure improvement is needed by the community at large, someone is bound to object, and such opposition can derail, delay, or increase project costs geometrically. Below are several best practices ranked in order of importance that can help municipal governments and other proponents overcome potential citizen criticism and NIMBY opposition.

Talk to Supporters First

The best way to avoid a NIMBY fight is to identify, recruit, and mobilize pro-project allies first. If people believe most of their fellow citizens support a development proposal, they are less likely to voice opposition to it. It is human nature: We do not want to be unpopular with our neighbors. Similarly, if those who generally support a proposal hear their fellow citizens speak out in favour, they are more likely to voice their own support. Community leaders and individuals in the middle with no fixed opinion also are more likely to make up their mind in favor of a project if they believe it is generally supported. This is the bandwagon effect in action; humans are social creatures who tend to follow the crowd, and will often adjust their thinking to act and believe in the same way as the perceived majority of their neighbors.

Of course, the reverse is also true: If citizens think all their neighbors oppose a project, they are more likely to jump on the opposition bandwagon and full-blown NIMBYism will spring to life. Again, the antidote is to mobilize pro-project supporters who are willing to publicly stand up and be counted.

Vocal supporters can be particularly helpful if the news media is likely to address the project controversy. The natural inclination of the press is to juxtapose quotations from hostile neighbors with statements from municipal authorities or the property owner. Neighborhood David vs. Government Goliath is an easy story to write and sure to engage readers’ emotions. It is critical that this characterization be sidestepped by enlisting credible supporters from the community to act as spokespersons. These can be pro-project neighborhood activists, taxpayer association leaders, former public officials, or Chamber of Commerce executives who are both articulate and willing to speak for the good of the community. These community spokespersons should be well-briefed on issues associated with the development and perhaps receive media relations training to prepare best for responding to press queries.

Pick the low-hanging fruit first

Crucial initial tasks include identifying supporters, recruiting them through community outreach and then mobilizing them to express their support for the project. Such supporters can be found easily in various broad constituencies:

-Obvious direct beneficiaries (construction workers, suppliers, new facility workers, proposed project site property owners)
-Indirect beneficiaries (merchants who would sell goods and services to new workers; local chambers of commerce)
-Potential project users (industries that are heavy users of infrastructure; families that might live in public housing)
-Special interest groups (organizations motivated by ideology)

Naturally these constituencies will vary greatly depending on the type of development proposed: Faith groups and nonprofit service agencies may be willing to support public housing or mental health facilities; unions will be more likely to back infrastructure facilities that offer jobs to their workers; realtors and homebuilders will likely line up behind a sewer treatment plant that allows construction of housing; an aluminum manufacturer and its suppliers might support a power plant. An effective community outreach program will speak to all these groups, seek their input, and solicit their support well in advance of any extensive outreach to likely opponents.

In addition, members of the general public may support the project because of their beliefs or simply because the project is in the public interest. These individuals or organizations may be identified because they spoke in support at civic meetings on similar projects, wrote letters to the editor of the local newspaper, or through other means. If there is a high expectation of general support in an area, a door-to-door telephone canvas can be used to effectively solicit supporters. For example, survey research may reveal that men in working class neighborhoods will strongly support a project that offers hundreds of new blue-collar jobs. It makes sense to recruit supporters from that target audience.

Finally, after initial attempts at supporter recruitment have borne fruit, use previously collected project endorsers to build additional support, by asking these endorsers to share their address book and identify (and sometimes themselves solicit) similarly like-minded people. Knowing that credible community leaders already approve of a proposal makes it easier for others to extend their support. And once a strong group of supporters are on hand to back them up, responsible leaders will be more willing to do the right thing by endorsing the project. Without that initial support, for example, there is little likelihood that a chief of police or other public safety officials will wager their reputation by going on record with their enthusiasm for quality public housing.

Notice that the first two tips listed above end with the word “first.” Because we want to address the NIMBY problem head on, there is a natural tendency for project sponsors and local government to initially focus on outreach to potential opponents. Resist that impulse and contact potential supporters first. Once third party allies have been lined up, there will be enough time to contact those more likely to oppose the project than not.

Mobilize Supporters

Recruitment of supporters alone is insufficient. The most effective community relations program in the world is worthless if public opinion leaders and decision-makers are unaware of public support. Here are two ways to convince city hall that the public supports a project:

Citizens can communicate their support directly, such as through letters, emails, personal testimony at hearings, post cards, petitions, phone calls, or meetings with city council members.

Citizens can express their support through the media, through letters to the editor, blogs, social media, opinion articles, talk shows, etc.

Both these means of publicly communicating support should occur later in the planning process, beginning immediately before or sometimes after the commencement of outreach designed to minimize opposition. What is needed early on is recruitment of supporters, not mobilization. Recruitment consists of securing commitments to back a project, generally in writing from individuals or by vote of organizations. It can be as simple as a signature on a petition or endorsement card, or a letter held by the project sponsor until the right time comes to disseminate it.

Understand the Four Causes of Opposition

After outreach to and recruitment of supporters is well underway, it is time to begin outreach to opponents. Minimizing opposition is largely a matter of fully understanding its root causes, which usually fall into four categories: Misinformation, Emotional Needs, Conflicts of Values, and Conflicts of Interest. The type and intensity of outreach efforts needed to defuse opposition largely depends on which causes are at play. For example, public information campaigns can certainly be helpful in minimizing opposition based on misinformation. But widespread dissemination of accurate information through such campaigns may be counterproductive if the primary root cause of opposition is not based on misperception of the facts. As we will see, such tactics can actually stir up opponents if their opposition is based on emotional needs.

However, NIMBY opposition is often based on misperceptions or misguided information based on rumors regarding a project’s impact on its surrounding area. For example, neighbors may believe that a major project will be built without transportation mitigations, thus significantly increasing traffic. Showing specific plans to add lanes to a highway and/or add public transit bus routes may minimize fears of added traffic.

Correct Misinformation

This is the type of opposition that is the simplest to deal with and overcome, by simply making sure that the actual facts are presented in a clear manner through a public information campaign. Project sponsors can sometimes depend on extensive one-way communication mechanisms, (i.e. direct mail, newsletters, fact sheets, blast emails, websites) to disseminate correct information to concerned citizens. This approach allows full control of the message and enables quick responses to misinformation. Project materials should include simple graphics in order to focus citizen attention on the relevant facts and figures needed in order to make informed decisions. In the case cited above, clear graphics that show plans to add highway lanes would help minimize fears of added traffic.

However, just providing correct information in an impersonal fashion is often not a magic pill to deal with all resistance. No matter how authentic the intention of government or project sponsors to inform the public about the project, it is critical to hear from the citizens themselves and listen to their fears, concerns and suggestions. This is particularly true when feathers have already been ruffled by emotionally-charged misinformation. The old saying that “a lie can travel around the world twice in the time it takes for the truth to get its pants on” applies here, with certain types of misinformation requiring more sensitive handling. Interactive or two-way communications are preferred in this situation, or when the complexity of the issue requires a detailed explanation. This can include small group meetings (including coffee klatches in neighbors’ living rooms), person-to-person briefings, door-to-door canvassing, or open house presentations in which the project team has an opportunity to establish a personal bond with attendees.

Meet Emotional Needs

Opposition from community activists often may have little to do with the actual project itself. Some people who view themselves as community leaders become involved in land use disputes simply to validate their community leadership role and to feel like a pivotal part of the decision-making process. They expect to be consulted, and any failure to acknowledge their status seems to confirm that municipal government intends to run roughshod over community concerns. Receiving a glossy brochure in the mail would only fan the flames with such individuals who believe their special status should be recognized by personal interaction. Fortunately, meeting prospective opponents’ emotional requirements is frequently the least expensive means of reducing NIMBY opposition. Going over plans for the project with Mr. and Mrs. Jones in their living room is far less costly than paying for major mitigation measures, or years of delay. Again, personal interaction is preferred in this situation, with one-on-one or small group meetings preferred.

The same principle may apply to proximate neighbors of a proposed facility who want recognition from local government that they are most impacted by the project. They may demand respect by lashing out at those who fail to seek their advice and counsel first. If the number of adjacent households is small, it is advisable for project sponsors to canvass door-to-door on a weekend to meet the neighbors face-to-face. If the project sponsor is likeable and is a good listener, the results are often surprisingly positive. Treating such proximate neighbors and community leaders deferentially can sometimes secure their support simply because the project sponsor has personally asked for their help and insight. Often, community leaders may believe this support will gain them a bandbox for public recognition or deepen their ties with city hall.

Unless required by law or local government regulations, avoid conducting public participation in the form of mass meetings. The least appropriate communication mechanism is the large informational meeting format in which local government authorities and project sponsors opponents stand up at the podium and dispense information. Meanwhile, faceless opponents in the crowd vie with each other for the chance to shout the most hostile questions designed to trip up the presenters. Dispensing public information in this manner is inherently condescending, because it implies that the presenters have the facts and the neighbors can contribute little to the decision-making process. Just as in a classroom where the teacher lectures to the students, the presenters are in a position of authority and the audience may resent being treated in a paternalistic manner.

Large public participation events of this type not only tend to anger participants, but they can also turn into confrontations. Furthermore, they create a marvelous forum for potential opponents to meet each other and trade arguments. While mass informational meetings are an inappropriate means of meeting community leader emotional needs, they are equally unproductive as a way to deal with misinformation or exaggerated fears of project impacts.

Focus on Mutual Priorities Rather than Conflicting Values

Opposition based on a conflict of values is typically the most difficult to address. Some people perceive land use debates as battles between good and evil, particularly with regard to environmental values. For them, environmental preservation is an absolute moral goal that cannot be negotiated. It is critical to not publicly disparage opponents’ ethical values. Instead, focus on other values held in common and problems that all agree must be solved: Unemployment, municipal solvency, the quality of local education, etc. If project sponsors also hold a moral commitment to protect the ecology, they should affirm this shared goal.

Moderate citizens may then be able to set aside differing values to work together to find solutions to these common concerns. If ideologues refuse to talk cooperatively with an “evil” developer, however, then the best approach may be to bring other more moderate stakeholders into the public participation process.

Negotiate Conflicts of Interests

A fourth root cause of opposition is a conflict of interests. Land use projects frequently cause a battle between perceived positive interests and negative interests. Most people will support a project when they believe it creates benefits that will improve their lives, such as new jobs, new public services, new housing opportunities, etc. However, it is important to remember that many people fear losing what they already have more than they believe in future benefits. They fear more traffic and cars in their area, less open space or more crowded schools, services or other changes to the status quo.

How to deal with differing interests to help reach a conclusion that is satisfactory for all is the next issue. There are two main way to deal with opposition to a given project: persuasion, and negotiations. The usual first choice is to try and persuade the opposition to see things from a particular point of view. Project sponsors often use rational persuasion, i.e., a logical presentation of the facts and issues in order to convince citizens of the worth of the project. However, if persuasion cannot convince the opposition to lay down their arms and give up the fight, it may be necessary to move into negotiations.

Before going any further into the subject of negotiation, it is crucial to note that making concessions is usually the most costly and least effective way to resolve conflict. Concessions can cost millions and should be avoided when opposition can be resolved in other ways. Even if negotiations fail to produce a compromise that all parties can live with, engaging in the process alone can nonetheless further development goals. Negotiations remove the anonymity between project sponsor and neighbors, and make it difficult to demonize the other side. If some of the opposition results from neighbors’ feelings that they have not been consulted and respected, then sincere interaction can induce the neighbors to offer you reciprocal respect. Finally, even if both sides do not agree on all parts of a compromise solution, the negotiation process can result in a development proposal that is more responsive to community concerns. Local government decision-makers may decide that the revised plan developed during negotiations more than meets neighbors concerns, even if some remain dissatisfied with certain elements of the project.

However, it is important to go into negotiations with a positive attitude toward potential concessions. There are numerous types of concessions to consider during negotiations:

Compromise: A project can be modified to remove the real or perceived threat to citizens’ interests. Project modifications often involve physical changes related to density, height, acreage, use and so on.
Exchanging Concessions: Unavoidable negative impacts can be reduced to lesser levels by trading concessions. Giving up something of lesser importance to the development’s viability in order to gain a concession of greater importance may be feasible. Like project modifications, improvement measures are aimed at meeting neighbors’ negative interests to preserve the status quo.
Offering Counter-Balancing benefits: A new element, service, or program that is so attractive to citizens that it offsets the negative impacts of the project can be proffered.
Expanding the Pool: If the total amount of potential resources seems too small to satisfy everyone, then the pool can be made larger. For example, to satisfy neighbors concerned about the potential for increased crime, the municipality may agree to double the number of street lights or increase police patrols in a neighborhood. Other stakeholders outside the debate may also be called upon for assistance. For example, construction unions might be asked to establish an apprenticeship program to train local youths in building trades and ensure that they receive a certain number of jobs from the project.
Joint Decision Making: Neighbors often advocate for equal decision-making powers between citizens and project sponsors. The danger with joint problem solving, however, is no project may occur unless the project sponsor and the neighbors are both satisfied. Formation of a community advisory committee with representation from several stakeholders may be more acceptable, provided that no one stakeholder has veto power. By majority vote of its members, this committee can be empowered to provide counsel on a development scheme to the governmental decision-makers.

All NIMBY opposition is not alike, and the wrong type of outreach response can create more problems than it solves. Identifying the cause of such opposition is crucial in shaping a proper response to potential opponents. A good offense can also be key to a good defense. Equally as important as minimizing opponents is identifying, recruiting, and mobilizing supporters. This will influence the news media, the general public and decision-makers, while also helping to reduce opposition.

Multi-Housing News Magazine On-Line

December 29, 2008

The room is packed with shouting, sign-waving opponents. The public record is crammed with postcards, petitions, and protests against your development project. Public officials seem reluctant to establish eye contact with you, and your staff continues to insist that you “do something” about community opposition. So what do you do?

Before disgorging a steady stream of newsletters, fact sheets, and brochures, and before setting up meetings with any neighbor you can corral, ask yourself, “Why are citizens opposed to this project?”

Many outreach tactics can actually generate greater community opposition than might already exist, so your community relations program should be as sharply focused as possible. There are four different reasons why citizens oppose land use projects, and each requires a different community outreach response.

Get the Facts Rights

A tremendous amount of opposition to land use projects is based on misperceptions or exaggerated fears of project impacts; for example:

“Whaddaya mean you’re only building 50 luxury homes? I heard you were building a 50-story apartment building!”

“You mean it’s not true that you evicted those little old ladies in order to get control of the property?”

“Hmmmm….this isn’t as bad as I thought.”

Opposition based on misinformation is a relatively easy type of resistance to overcome. Developers generally rely on unilateral communications (newsletters, fact sheets, websites) or bilateral communications (one-on-one briefings) to educate people about their projects. Some project sponsors and many public officials believe that the most efficient way to educate the public about a proposed project is to host a massive community meeting. However, enormous public meetings are one of the least effective ways to reduce opposition arising from lack of information.

Large audiences usually have too many issues to address in depth, and time is typically so constrained that people become frustrated because they cannot fully express their fears or concerns. At their worst, huge neighborhood meetings do little more than introduce opponents to each other, allow them to hear and adopt each other’s agendas, and encourage spotlight-hungry activists to stake out irrevocable positions to impress their constituents. When public information is a top priority, don’t rely exclusively on big public meetings to get your messages out.

It’s important to recognize that public information is not a magic cure-all for all community resistance. If opposition is not based on misperceptions or lack of information, too much public information can actually backfire. It can stir up people who were otherwise uninvolved in the debate, validate vague fears, and notify them of new issues to be concerned about. Moreover, public information is inherently condescending, suggesting that the developer is entitled to make unilateral decisions affecting neighbors, but has only a patronizing obligation to inform residents of those decisions after the fact.

No matter how genuine your intention is to inform the public about your project, stress how much you want to hear from neighbors and listen to their fears, concerns and suggestions.

Loss of face

It is impossible to overemphasize the need for neighbors to “save face.” When a citizen feels humiliated, ignored, or pushed around, that resident if likely to go on the warpath simply to redeem his damaged self-esteem and prove to the world that he really is a force to be reckoned with. Meeting the emotional needs of activists is a critical part of any community outreach campaign and can be substantially less expensive than making concessions later on in the process.

While it is always important to treat neighbors with respect, it is especially important to do so when controversial proposals are being discussed. Go out of your way to show neighbors how much you respect them. Make personal eye contact. Refer to individuals by name. Instead of telling neighbors they “have to” believe your experts, demonstrate respect for citizens’ intelligence by encouraging them to review technical documents and confirm for themselves that the conclusions are correct. And keep your hands away from your mouth while listening, because hiding your lips while listening sends strong signals of rejection and dislike.

Conflicts of values

Some people perceive land use debates as basic moral conflicts between good and evil. Since the days of the Puritans, progress and growth have been considered morally good, with any environmental impacts in the name of achievement seen as purely incidental. Over the past few decades, however, America has seen a major shift in its moral ideology related to land use and economic development.

A significant segment of society now believes that land has intrinsic value beyond its usefulness to humans and that preservation of the environment is itself an independent moral principle. For environmental moralists, ecological preservation is a higher moral goal than economic growth or property rights. Therefore, it is critical that you recognize when you are dealing with ethical extremists.

If you share your opponents’ moral principles, then say so. If the parties place a different priority on a particular value, then explore your opponents’ environmental priorities in relationship to their other values. Sure, they may hold strong beliefs about environmental protection, but how do those beliefs compare to other moral priorities such as affirmative action, property rights, or concepts of fairness and equity? Even if the parties hold truly conflicting values, the clash does not have to result in deadlock. When land use conflicts appear to be caused by ethical disagreements, focusing on mutual interests and problems rather than on conflicting values can lead the way to resolution.

Conflicts of interest
Land use projects tend to pit positive interests against negative interests. Citizens have a positive interest in gaining new benefits they don’t currently enjoy: new tax revenues, new housing, new local jobs, new services, and so on. Most people who support development proposals do so because of the new benefits that come with responsible development.

By comparison, neighbors also have a negative interest in losing benefits they presently possess. Most citizens live in the community because they like it the way it is, and they are not looking for more traffic, less water in their wells, more crowded schools, or other changes to the status quo.

“Everybody hates this, so it must be a bad project.”

Or, “She rattled off a lot of statistics, so she must be telling the truth.”

And, “All lawyers lie.”

Where persuasion isn’t enough, then sponsors often engage in negotiations with neighbors to resolve conflict. Before going any further into the subject of negotiation, it is critical to note that making concessions is usually the most costly and least effective way to resolve conflict. Concessions can cost you millions and should be avoided where opposition can be resolved in other ways. When negotiation is the only answer, then there are three types of concessions to consider during negotiation:

• Your project can be modified to remove the real or perceived threat to neighbors’ interests. Project modifications often involve physical changes related to density, height, acreage, use and so on.

• Unavoidable negative impacts can be reduced to less offensive levels through the incorporation of mitigation measures. For example, attractive landscaping can mitigate the view impacts of a new mixed-use project. Like project modifications, mitigation measures are aimed at meeting neighbors’ negative interests to preserve the status quo.

· It may be possible to appeal to neighbors’ positive interests by offering counter-balancing benefits: some new feature, amenity, or program so desirable that it offsets the negative impacts of the project, such as providing more public open space or community facilities such as child care centers or senior centers.

The right outreach campaign

All community opposition is not alike, and the wrong type of outreach response can create more problems than it solves. If opposition isn’t caused by lack of information, then newsletters and fact sheets will backfire. Making concessions won’t resolve opposition based on unmet emotional needs. Endless meetings won’t solve conflicts of interest. But by carefully diagnosing the cause of opposition and undertaking outreach activities specifically tailored to respond to that cause, you can reduce citizen opposition to your project.

Debra Stein was a co-founder of the San Francisco-based public affairs firm GCA Strategies. The firm’s founders authored several books and articles on NIMBYism and the firm specializes in controversial land use projects across the nation. For more information, e-mail GCA President Frank Noto, call us at 415-391-4100 or visit the GCA Strategies Web site at www.gcastrategies.com.

by Elan Drucker
What do you get when you bring together the director of city planning, a local developer, a land use attorney and a former planning commissioner? Energetic debate! In July, ULI’s Young Leaders were treated to a candid discussion about the approvals process that underlies all of San Francisco’s development projects – whether simple and straightforward or complex and controversial.
“In our city we are not shy about regulating planning restrictions,” said San Francisco planning director Dean Macris to an audience of 150 Young Leaders. Tom Hart, executive vice president of Shorenstein Properties, explained the complexity of the approvals process. He said that applications and approvals usually involved coordination between multiple agencies and comprehensive applications but stressed that developers are eager to work in and with the City.

Robert Herr, a land use attorney with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman, reminded the Young Leaders that there are many constituents that the land use attorney and the developer need to work with beyond the planning department in order to get projects approved. Lisa Feldstein, a former planning commissioner, described the planning commissioners’ role and described how planning commissioners are responsible for creating new and sound policy. Attendees learned about the ultimate importance of planning code guidelines, the critical role planning department staff play and the excitement and drama that often occurs at planning commission hearings. The audience walked away marveling over the complex process and amount of cooperation required to get projects built in San Francisco.

Please click the above link to view as PDF.

National Multifamily Housing Council – Spring 2007

Debra Stein and Mark Obrinsky, Ph.D.

by Debra Stein

Planning commissioners spend a lot of time choosing the right words to avoid sending the wrong messages, but it is equally important to monitor the nonverbal communication signals that accompany your words. In fact, research shows that more than 93 percent of communications effectiveness is determined by eye contact, body language, facial expression and voice quality. When you’re trying to convey important messages like, “I am telling the truth,” or, “I respect you,” or when you’re establishing the power positions of the parties, the nonverbal signals you send can be even more important than the particular words you are speaking. Understanding nonverbal communication can help you monitor your own physical cues and understand what other people are telling you, even when they are not speaking out loud. Some of the following suggestions are most relevant in planning commission meetings; others apply to less formal circumstances outside the hearing room, when you are nonetheless still acting in the role of planning commissioner.

Honestly, Now …

People involved in high tension civic discussions often feel very distrustful, and planning commissioners need to carefully monitor both incoming and outgoing nonverbal signals of honesty. How can you tell if a witness is exaggerating or lying? How can you make sure you are not inadvertently sending signals of dishonesty? Here are some tips on how to enhance your own credibility and double-check to see if you are really getting the straight story from other people.

We are very suspicious of people who won’t look us in the eye. Speakers rated as “sincere” make eye contact three times more often than “insincere” speakers. For 90 percent of Americans, intensive, personal eye contact means using your right eye to look into the right eye of the listener. Whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, chances are that you use your right eye to gather data and use your left eye only for depth perception. To test this theory, use your left eye to look at someone else’s left eye … feels awkward, doesn’t it? Making sincere, respectful eye contact, then, involves using your right eye to look into your counterpart’s right eye. Do not stare vaguely at a speaker’s nose or forehead, and avoid shifting eye contact between the left and right eyes, which can send messages of aggression or sexual attraction.

Maintaining sincere eye contact doesn’t mean you have to stare like an unblinking lizard. Honest speakers blink between 10 and 20 times per minute. When Richard Nixon attended his first Watergate press conference, he blinked up to 40 times a minute. It is especially important to avoid excessive blinking when facing a news camera or when sitting on a brightly-lit podium, where strong lights may naturally trigger a lot of blinking.

There really is something called the “Pinocchio Syndrome.” Stress and tension can cause delicate nerves in the face to tingle, so people who are lying or otherwise aroused really do scratch their noses, touch their cheeks, and rub their eyes more frequently than calmer speakers. Keep your hands away from your face!

The same autonomic response that makes the nerves in your face tingle can also thicken the consistency of saliva. Dishonest or uptight speakers often lick their lips, swallow, or clear their throats more often than relaxed and happy speakers. Have some water on hand when making a stressful presentation so that you do not send inadvertent messages of dishonesty.

People with something to conceal often conceal their hands. In stressful situations, keep your hands where people can see them. People who talk with their hands are also perceived as being more powerful and more confident than communicators with hidden hands.

Showing Respect

It is easy to say, “Treat citizens with respect,” but what do you actually do to demonstrate your esteem and regard? Let’s start with paying attention. In casual conversation, we tend to prove that we are listening merely by making a sensible response to the speaker’s statement. A teenager who appears to be ignoring a parent’s instructions to turn off the television will suddenly demonstrate adequate listening by turning the TV off. In more formal settings or where there is distrust between the parties, it is important to demonstrate attention towards a speaker long before the citizen actually begins speaking.

The first way to show a speaker that you are paying attention to what is being said is to abandon other activities that are competing for your attention. Set aside reports and turn off your cellular telephone. Put your pen down as soon as a citizen approaches the microphone in order to indicate that you are now turning your attention to the speaker. Needless to say, turning away from the witness to exchange private whispers or jokes with a fellow commissioner is an obvious and inappropriate misdirection of attention.

Leaning forward is an effective way to convey attention to and interest in a speaker. By inclining forward in your chair, you create a more intimate environment between yourself and the speaker that seems to exclude other people or distractions. Leaning back, on the other hand, signals that you feel distanced from the speaker or unwilling to get personally interested in the issues.

Eye contact is a crucial way we signal our respect for another person, and it matters both who you look at and how you look. In an audience setting, some commissioners adopt a machine gun approach to eye contact, shifting their heads from side to side and quickly skimming their eyes over the entire audience. No personal relationship is formed with individual audience members, who feel both disrespected and more likely to view the Planning Commission as impersonal targets to attack.

No matter how big the audience is, genuine, respectful eye contact involves looking at one individual at a time, using your right eye to look into the other person’s right eye. Select one audience member and make personal eye contact with that citizen. Next, look at another part of the audience and make eye contact with another individual. Even if you cannot make individualized eye contact with each person in the room, attendees will perceive that you are respecting each citizen as a unique individual and trying to interact on a personal level.

We have a natural tendency to make more eye contact with people we know and like, and with an individual who has asked a question and is now listening to the answer. In an audience setting, however, looking exclusively at one person in the room can actually send messages of disrespect to everyone else in the audience. Yes, the one person you are looking at will feel important, but everyone else in the audience will feel excluded and offended. If you have something to say of interest to one audience member assume that it is of interest to everyone, so shift eye contact regularly throughout the room to convey your respect for everyone.

Planning commissioners who process information best when it is in writing may alternate between looking at the witness and looking at staff reports and other printed materials, trying to link what they are hearing to the written evidence before them. Other commissioners are such focused listeners that they need to eliminate visual distractions that could compete with auditory evidence. These commissioners may close their eyes to listen to a witness or seem to stare straight “through” the speaker without really seeing anything, or gaze vaguely at their desk or off into space. While these can be effective strategies to help commissioners balance verbal, written, and visual input, if overused, they can send the inadvertent message that the commissioner isn’t “really” listening.

It is extremely important to keep your hands away from your mouth. Roughly three-fourths of people who are covering their mouths when listening are hiding thin, compressed lips of disapproval. Covering your lips sends the signal that you do not like the person you are listening to, that you disagree with what is being said, or that you do not want to be involved in the discussion. These negative nonverbal signals are often accompanied by positive but insincere cues such as nodding one’s head or smiling, but the rejection message always prevails. In fact, a savvy audience can often predict the Planning Commission’s vote simply by watching what happens when various witnesses are testifying. If a supporter stands up to speak at the microphone and the majority of commissioners slowly raise their hands to conceal thin, compressed lips of disapproval, then supporters know they aren’t getting their message across. If too many audience members start covering their lips while you are speaking, then you know that you need to take another approach to get through to listeners.

While keeping your hands away from your mouth is a must, it is perfectly O.K. to touch other parts of your face while listening. Resting your chin on you hand while listening, touching your cheek with your finger or pencil, or adjusting your glasses all send the message that you are listening carefully to what is being said and working hard to understand its meaning.

Powerful Planning

Power is a real part of the world of planning and politics. Neighbors who feel pushed around feel resentful and angry, while commissioners who appear weak, ineffective, or lacking in confidence may be unable to achieve important civic goals.

Your perceived power has something to do with your title, your authority and your expertise, but it has a lot to do with the nonverbal signals you send. One of the earliest ways power is demonstrated is through our handshake. Power is not established by the bone-crushing strength of your grip, but by the position of your hand in relationship to the other person. Offering your hand with your palm facing downward signals your desire to intimidate the other person, your belief that the other person is “beneath” you, or your wish to dominate the other person. When you offer your hand with the palm face down you’re telling your counterpart, “I’m the top dog, get out of my way before I push you out of the way.” Not surprisingly, men are more likely than women to offer their hands palm down, especially when shaking hands with a woman. Be careful that you don’t automatically offer your hand downwards, which can send inadvertent signals of disrespect or condescension.

Shaking hands with your palm facing upwards shows a conciliatory attitude or suggests that you see yourself as weaker than your counterpart. When someone has forced you into a submissive, palm-up handshake, you cannot establish dominance simply by squeezing your hand in a vise-like grip; the only way to regain power is to use your other hand to touch the other person’s arm while you are shaking hands. Shaking hands with your palm vertical to the floor sends a neutral message and is usually the most appropriate way to offer your hand. And an important tip for men: shake hands with a woman exactly the same way you shake hands with a man. Merely clutching a woman’s fingertips conveys one of the lowest messages of contempt.

Beyond the handshake, hands communicate power in several ways. Powerful people speak with their hands and point with their index fingers while speaking. Like Prince Charles, they clasp their hands behind their backs while standing or walking. On the other hand, people who engage in hand-washing motions, clutch their fingers, rub the back of their necks, put their hands in their pockets, or touch their body or face may be sending signals of nervousness or insecurity, so be aware of what you are doing with your hands to ensure you are sending appropriate signals of confidence and authority.

The person with the tallest shoulders at the conference table is usually perceived as being the most powerful. When it is important to establish control in a professional situation, pick a tall chair, sit fully back in your seat, and keep your shoulders up and your head high. If you are trying to encourage cooperative negotiations or consensus among equals, then consider sitting in a seat that is less intimidating compared to your counterparts’.

Powerful people occupy a lot of space. They spread their belongings across the table and even intrude into other people’s personal space by touching the individuals or their belongings. Not surprisingly, men tend to touch women twice as often as women touch men.

No matter how much space you like to occupy, it is important to keep in mind that everyone has a sphere of private space around them into which intruders are not welcome. When you inadvertently invade someone’s private bubble, that individual feels threatened. Parties engaged in friendly conversation usually stand between two and five feet from each other. Business discussions and professional presentations are usually carried out at a distance of up to 12 feet. Territorial dimensions, however, can vary considerably depending on the race, sex or cultural background of the people involved. Asians, North Americans and people of northern European descent, for instance, prefer more space between speakers than most Latinos, African-Americans, Arabs, or Jews do. Men tend to define a territorial buffer that is larger than the personal space women reserve for themselves. Men tend to feel threatened when their turf is invaded from the front, while women dislike intrusions from the side and prefer to have strangers sit across from them at a table. So when you see someone moving closer or farther away from you, do not automatically adjust the distance to your own comfort level. Instead, consider whether the individual has moved in order to minimize his or her own sense of spatial discomfort.

Sending the Right Signals

While it is always important to pick one’s words carefully in the high-profile world of planning, it is equally important to monitor and control one’s nonverbal communication skills. Through the careful control of body placement, eye contact, and hand movements, planning commissioners can better communicate with the public.

Debra Stein was a co-founder of the San Francisco-based public affairs firm GCA Strategies. The firm’s founders authored several books and articles on NIMBYism and the firm specializes in controversial land use projects across the nation. For more information, e-mail GCA President Frank Noto, call us at 415-391-4100 or visit the GCA Strategies Web site at www.gcastrategies.com.

by Debra Stein

For some people, the term “conflicts of interest” raises specters of misused powers for the improper advancement of personal interests. This term, however, has a distinctly different meaning when neighbors are resisting the construction of proposed homeless shelter, hotel, housing project, or halfway house in their own backyards. When a controversial land use issue is at stake, the term “conflict of interests” refers to differing beliefs about whether a proposed project will damage the status quo or bring about new benefits.

Land use and infrastructure proposals tend to put positive and negative interests into conflict. Citizens have a negative interest in avoiding damage to their existing lifestyles. People tend to live in a community because they like it the way it is, and they don’t want higher taxes, more crowded schools, less open space, deteriorated water quality, or lower property values.

Most neighbors who object to the construction of a new drug treatment center or the expansion of a local hospital do so because they fear that change will make them worse off-or at least less well off-than they are right now.

Citizens also have a positive interest in gaining new benefits they don’t currently enjoy; they want additional jobs, more housing units, new tax revenues, and the public services these tax revenues can pay for. Most people who support a land use proposal do so because they hope the proposal will result in a better life for themselves and their families, or for other people or businesses in the community.

Too often, advocates for a project try to refute charges that a proposal will hurt the status quo by painting alluring picture of how change will benefit the community. But when neighbors complain that “the convention center will create terrible traffic jams,” regaling them with details on how many new jobs will be created or how much new tax revenue will be generated by the convention center is both irrelevant and insensitive.

In this case, citizens want to hear how the convention center will be modified or the traffic impacts mitigated to maintain the current flow of cars through the community. Only in situations in which adverse impacts cannot be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels is it effective to argue that new benefits will make up for the harm done by the project.

Protecting the Status Quo

Not surprisingly, a bird in the hand is more valuable than a potential bird in the bush. Citizens are much more likely to protect what they already have than to risk current benefits for vague future improvements. Indeed, people believe they should be paid a lot more money to tolerate change than the amount they would pay to avoid it.

A study published in Scientific American concluded that, while the average utility customer would pay an annual fee of $13 per person to avoid having a nuclear power plant sited nearby, the typical citizen would be willing to tolerate the power plant as a nearby neighbor only if the utility compensated each ratepayer with a payment of $960 per year. The disparity between the high value of current benefits and the lower value of future benefits may suggest why it is so much easier for NIMBY neighbors to mobilize citizens to resist change to the status quo than it is for project proponents to turn out citizens to testify in favor of change in the community.

One way to get citizens to accept change is to stress how resistance can damage the existing quality of life. If you need voters to approve a new bond measure to rebuild city hall, for instance, you’re better off warning that “the old city hall will fall down in an earthquake if we don’t undertake a seismic retrofit” than promising that “city hall will be safer in an earthquake after we’re done with the seismic upgrade.”

Creating New Benefits

Citizens tend to be more interested in, and persuaded by, the promise of certain-but-smaller benefits than by the lure of larger but highly speculative benefits. Describing a smaller, certain impact (“This stadium will generate $2 million per year in new tax revenues”) is more credible and effective than inflating the scale of an alleged benefit but acknowledging its risky nature (“The stadium may generate up to $5 million per year in new tax revenues”).

It is obviously important to make future benefits as credible and certain as possible. Tools that can be used to make promises more credible include imposing enforceable covenants or conditions on the developer as part of a permit, recording deed restrictions, and adopting legal memorandums of understanding.

Detailed renderings and architectural visualizations of the project are particularly helpful in demonstrating how the library, jail, or senior center will compatible with and therefore “fit into” the existing, attractive civic setting.

Resolving Conflicts of Interests

How do you resolve conflicts of interest? The first step is to rely on persuasion. When engaging in persuasion, city officials use facts, arguments, and emotions to convince citizens that a proposed landfill expansion or new office building will not damage the status quo. When it is clear that the proposed project will indeed have negative impacts on the community, then public officials usually shift to negotiation. Negotiations involve the mutual exchange of benefits to minimize the adverse impacts of change while maximizing the benefit to each party through the mutual exchange of concessions.

When considering concessions at the bargaining table, it is important to recognize that popular concessions are not always the same as persuasive ones. A popular concession is one that everyone likes; a persuasive concession actually causes people to shift opinion and accept the project, even if only a few people like the idea.

A simplistic example: Blue is the most popular color in America, but painting a homeless shelter blue won’t materially placate public fear or result in greater citizen acceptance for the facility. By comparison, few people may be focusing on the problem of graffiti in the neighborhood, but those who are concerned may be highly pleased with the shelter’s plan to paint out all graffiti in a block’s radius within 24 hours.

When the only way to address citizens’ interests is to make project concessions, listen carefully to neighbors or conduct opinion research to make sure that you’re making the right concessions that are actually persuasive and not merely popular.

An Interest in Identifying Interests

Anxiety about change is a legitimate factor in the planning process, while hope for a better future is a fundamental premise of America’s civic life. When land use proposals seem to pit negative and positive interests against each other, then recognizing and strategically responding to each type of interest can result in a more productive and reasonable public debate.

Debra Stein was a co-founder of the San Francisco-based public affairs firm GCA Strategies. The firm’s founders authored several books and articles on NIMBYism and the firm specializes in controversial land use projects across the nation. For more information, e-mail GCA President Frank Noto, call us at 415-391-4100 or visit the GCA Strategies Web site at www.gcastrategies.com.