The Challenges of

1. The Challenges of Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Sanda Kaufman Levin College of Urban Affairs Cleveland State University LULUs and ELULUs The GSX Story ELULU profile Third parties and ELULUs IACM Conference, Eugene, 1994

2. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsWhat 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? 4 parties' perceptions of consequences 4 parties' involvement 4 laws and regulations 4 negotiation process  alternatives Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

3. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsComparing ELULUs to LULUs (a) nThe negotiation process involves: NEW simultaneous interaction of most players 4 EXISTING sporadic interaction of select players nCommunity perceives consequences: NEW as larger, more threatening 4 EXISTING as smaller, less threatening nCommunity's status quo can be: NEW maintained or unaffected by LULU 4 EXISTING changed or questioned even if initiative is not implemented Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

4. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsELULU Change Strategies Implementing ELULU changes differs from LULU siting incomplete stakeholder representation Key differences: history of relationship status quo not an option parties cannot disengage default worse than status quo apply parts of the credo Recommendations: introduce third party intervention conduct research on matching interventions to situations intervention strategies that work institutionalizing intervention Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

5. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsWhy UNWANTED? Siting LULUs Changing ELULUs Environmental damage to air, water, soil, etc. Ex. waste treatment facility Consequences Impact on property values Economic Ex. landfill Consequences legal and delay costs Ex. power plant Functional change in spatial relationships Ex. WallMart in rural area Consequences Social presence of "undesirables" Ex. housing for the poor, disabled ... Consequences Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

6. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsExamples of ELULU Changes Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame Functional consequences Alternative sites & designs If negotiations fail -> status quo St. Herman hospitality house Social & economic consequences If negotiations fail, parties cannot walk away Parties' joint history affects current dispute Shaker Heights Malvern School Functional & social consequences Community voice varies greatly If negotiations fail status quo not restored Tremont's Grace Hospital Economic & functional consequences Representation problems Suboptimal outcomes GSX waste treatment facility Environmental consequences Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

7. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsSome Types of ELULU Change Siting LULUs Changing ELULUs Enlarging facility, same function Same facility, changing function Enlarging facility, changing function Same facility, adding functions Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

8. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsExamples of ELULU Changes Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame St. Herman hospitality house St. Ignatius High School Beachwood Pavilion Mall Shaker Heights Malvern school Cleveland's Warehouse District Cleveland Flats nude dancing bar Euclid Beach Park Tremont's Grace Hospital Cleveland's Tower City GSX waste treatment facility Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

9. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsSiting LULUs Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame Functional consequences 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 quo Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

10. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsExpanding an existing facility St. Herman hospitality house Social & economic consequences 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 Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

11. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsChanging the function Shaker Heights Malvern school Functional and social consequences 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 Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

12. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsExpanding facility and changing function Euclid Beach Park Tremont's Grace Hospital Cleveland's Tower City 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

13. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsAdding new functions GSX waste treatment facility Environmental consequences 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 Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

14. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsGSX, Sequence of Events • 1981 AlchemTron Hazardous waste treatment facility opens 4 local and state regulatory violations 4 incinerator installed 4 permit renewal process initiated 4 financial problems escalate • 1988 GSX purchases AlchemTron facility 4 management and procedural changes • 1989 Community awareness of GSX 4 neighborhood gets new EPA hearing 4 FITE organizes/takes action 4 public officials oppose the incinerator 4 EPA bifurcates hearing process • 1990 GSX closes operations 4 accidents and violations continue 4 EPA permit revoked 4 court order to shut down  GSX decides to pull out of location Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994

15. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsGSX Stakeholders • GSX wanted to: 4 Add incineration treatment 4 Increase radius of service (profits) • City government wanted to: 4 Maintain compliance (mandate) 4 Show responsiveness to public's concerns (political) • County government wanted to: 4 Provide for regional needs of waste processing (mandate) 4 Minimize costs of involvement • EPA, OHWFB & State of Ohio wanted to: 4 Maintain compliance 4 Foster good image with public, industry, governments • Neighborhood and environmental groups wanted to: 4 Get informed about their environment  Prevent incineration treatment process Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Oregon 1994

16. Negotiating Changes in ELULUsSiting LULUs Credo 13 tenets for negotiating LULU siting L. Susskind, Negotiation Journal, 1990 1. Seek consensus through 7. Work for geographic fairness broad-based participatory process 8. Keep multiple options 2. Work to develop trust on the table at all times 3. Get agreement that 9. Guarantee that stringent status quo is unacceptable safety standards will be met 4. Choose facility design 10. Fully compensate all that best addresses the problem negative impacts of the facility 5. Seek acceptable sites 11. Make the host community through volunteer process better off 6. Consider a competitive siting process 12. Use contingent agreements 13. Set realistic timetables Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994