NIMBY Wars: organizing and managing citizen group for a project
(Editor’s Note: An effective citizen’s group can rally like-minded people to pressure elected officials in favor of controversial projects. This excerpt discusses how to get them interested and enthused, how to select a leader and how to get them committed)
By P. Michael Saint, Robert J. Flavell and Patrick F. Fox
Once the consultant has identified natural friends (or enemies) of the project, his task is to show them that they can act on their concerns effectively if they organize and work cooperatively with one another and enter into alliances and coalitions with other groups whose members share their concerns.
Once again, the land use political consultant’s experience comes into play as he determines how to best make contact with the concerned citizens and groups he has identified, and how to earn their trust so they will feel comfortable talking openly with him and listening to his suggestions. Sometimes, the initial contact may arise from chats with local residents in local gathering places. The consultant needs only one or two local residents to say they love (or hate) the project to begin the recruitment process. Do their neighbors, friends, coworkers, or relatives feel the same way? Is anyone organizing them to make their concerns public and to push public officials to address these concerns? What are the reasons for their opposition, and who else might share these concerns? Sometimes, there is a preexisting activist, neighborhood, taxpayer, or citizen group that the land use consultant can adopt (or that adopts him). If so, the consultant can use its existing leadership structure to treat the land use campaign as a project the group undertakes, provided he can get past the suspicion and cynicism that invariably greets the interloper. Read More »
NIMBY Wars: natural supporters and opponents in land use battles
(Editor’s Note: Natural supporters and opponents are people with innate or personal reasons for supporting or opposing a project. They don’t need to be sold either way, but they might not come forward and take a position if the political manager doesn’t reach out and encourage them)
By P. Michael Saint, Robert J. Flavell and Patrick F. Fox
Once the land use consultant has gathered all of the information he needs to thoroughly understand the situation and the local laws and regulations applicable to the client’s goals, he begins drafting a campaign plan. The plan is designed to advance the client’s interests by organizing local citizens to influence their public officials to act the way the citizens want them to act, which is also the way the client wants them to act, though usually for different reasons.
Campaign plans are as unique as the situations that require them and the people who write them. The expertise and professionalism of the land use consultant tells him what political tactics would be useful, what strategies will be most effective, what public officials are empowered to provide the vote desired, and what groups and organizations may be relied on to take up the banner. Like the manager of an election campaign, the land use political consultant must understand the political lay of the land, the parties involved, and the forces at work. From all of these sources, he draws on his knowledge and experience to fashion a winning campaign strategy. Read More »
Massachusetts court weakens protections from SLAPP lawsuits
(Jeffrey Gould has written for The Saint Report about SLAPP suits and legal rights to protect public participation in the development process. Here he examines the impact of a Massachusetts court ruling that helps developers avoid the consequences of filing such claims.)
By Jeffrey R. Gould
Vice President & General Counsel, The Saint Consulting Group
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled last month that victims of retaliatory lawsuits cannot recoup their legal fees and expenses when the perpetrator voluntarily dismisses its suit before a court enters judgment for the victim.
The Court applied a strict interpretation of the so-called “anti-SLAPP” statute in ruling that attorney fee awards are only available if and when a judge makes a finding that the suit is indeed retaliatory. Connolly v. Sullivan, Appeals Ct. No. 09-P-597 (Feb. 23, 2010). The plaintiff in that case, the former Massachusetts Secretary of State Michael J. Connolly, had sued an abutter for $5 million in damages for challenging an affordable housing project being promoted by Connolly in Wellesley, Massachusetts. The abutter filed a Special Motion to Dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, but before the trial court ruled on the motion, Connolly voluntarily withdrew his claim.
The statute was enacted to prevent real estate developers from filing specious lawsuits against their detractors in order to intimidate or quell opposition to their projects. The statute awards the victims of such suits their attorneys’ fees when successful. This ruling is troublesome for victims, because it gives developers a parachute to avoid the fee-shifting consequences of filing such claims. Read More »
Prepare for UK NIMBY Government – big, radical, scary policies
By Nick Keable,
Vice President, UK Operations, The Saint Consulting Group
Assuming that the Tories do manage to come out of the General Election in control of the UK, and that is by no means certain at all, they have this week laid out their proposals for reform of the planning system. And it’s big. And radical. And scary.
Most scary of all is the introduction of third party rights of appeal. This could be truly horrible for the development sector. Labour flirted with the idea earlier this decade but backed off. In Scotland, they came close but stayed sane. Let’s hope that this is an idea that can be seen off as a ‘sacrificial layer’ of their proposals. But maybe not. The Tories are now the party of NIMBYism. They are no longer the party of business. And their ‘localism’ mantra is the driver for this new found love for third party rights, so it may be hard to disabuse them of the third party appeal concept.
The second fundamental fear is the impact of yet another – the third – round of planning system reform since 1997; all policy certainty shot to pieces, council officers sucked out of development control and into policy making, not to mention the inevitable ‘planning by appeal decision’ which during any transitional period always occurs.
There would be winners and losers in this new system.
The losers would be regional government (which would be abolished), potentially developers of major infrastructure projects (whose planning regime would once again be controlled by politicians) and frankly all other developers (who will be impacted by the sclerotic affect of any change to the planning system, as well as a more difficult planning regime at the end of it all).
The winners are many: LPAs (which gain lots more power), county councils (which are being given a role once again), NIMBYs (who will find it much easier to campaign against development) and, of course, planning consultants (who will have to help us mere mortals understand what the hell is going on)!
See here our bullet point summary of the Tories’ proposals…
Dealing with an angry mob – developers should engage community, seek mutual gains
By Patrick Fox,
President, The Saint Consulting Group
A client recently asked me how to deal with an angry mob. If you are confronting an angry mob of residents opposing your project at a public hearing, you’re not alone. I can tell you it is happening across the US and Europe with greater intensity and frequency. But what now?
If you have just walked into your public hearing and you are surprised by the level of opposition, you have made a number of mistakes. The days when developers could cut a back room deal with officials and quietly walk through the local approvals process are long gone. The politics of land use has changed. Maybe you missed the memo.
Developers should be conducting aggressive outreach to abutters, neighbors and community activists early to identify supporters and opponents and gain an understanding of what the issues are. If you have been surprised by an angry mob, you have big problems. Local officials are very unlikely to want to commit political suicide by voting for your project in front of a mob of angry constituents. Winning approval now will be a tough and very expensive fight- if you can win it at all. Read More »
Organizing, implementing an appropriate site selection methodology
(Editor: Anthony Colavolpe is managing principal in the New Haven, Ct. office of Citron Group LLC, an international real estate and advisory services group. This article is reprinted from Shopping Center Business, February 2010 © 2010 France Publications, Inc.)
Site selection has evolved over time. Today, metrics can help you better locate — or relocate — stores so they have optimum performance.
By Anthony Colavolpe
A developer, investor or real estate broker can influence where to locate a store by participating in an appropriate site selection methodology with a retailer. Typically, site selection methodologies include certain basic elements. These, at minimum, involve the delineation of a trade area, determining the sales potential for a given retailer or use category, and the creation of a concept site plan. With these items in hand either the retailer or the person submitting the property for consideration can assist in advancing the selection process. The more information the retailer has the better, particularly if it validates something positive about a site or location.
Trade areas vary from retailer to retailer. Drug stores, for example, may look hard at 1-mile demographics, whereas a grocery store might expand their analysis to 2 or 3 miles when defining a trade area. Home improvement stores, discount department stores or various category killers may take a more regional approach. Regardless of the end user, the retailer carefully determines the area from which 80 percent or more of its business will be derived. Often brokers and developers will simply draw 1-, 2- and 5-mile rings around a site, obtain a myriad of demographic information from a recognized data source and submit this as part of a package to the retailer. While this certainly provides relevant information, it does not replace the retailer’s requirement to determine for itself a location’s sales volume potential and desirability. The retailer also may have access to customer spottings and other data not available to the general public, which can impact the boundaries of a trade area. In the final analysis, the retailer’s trade area will be more like an amoeba than a simple ring or circle. Read More »
Don’t let your project become the third rail in land use politics
By Owen Eagan,
Senior Vice President for Transportation, The Saint Consulting Group
Recently, the issue of transportation gained political undertones in Hawaii as the governor’s race started to unfold there (See “Honolulu rail project: political football or policy football?” http://bit.ly/aZeYY7). Now, transportation has taken center stage in the Texas GOP primary race for governor, even becoming the subject of a “comparative” ad by U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (See “Texas GOP primary: KBH promises to deal with transportation – mañana” http://bit.ly/bSl1n6).
Transportation projects can be among the most controversial land use issues because they not only involve NIMBYs, but they also usually require some form of public financing or subsidies. Further, these projects become harder to justify when public resources are strained in difficult economic times. Therefore, it is imperative that private sector interests seeking to develop large scale transportation projects do their political homework.
This includes conducting a political viability assessment to determine whether a project is feasible and, if so, the resources needed to ensure its approval. Without building the necessary political support and giving politicians cover, you risk your project becoming the third rail.
Owen Eagan is senior vice president for transportation for The Saint Consulting Group, email: eagan@tscg.biz phone (818) 239-4769; http://tscg.biz/transportation
NIMBY Wars: security, confidentiality essential to land use politics
(Editor’s Note: Experience shows that security and confidentiality are crucial concerns for clients and land use political consultants and that most project strategy documents eventually wind up in the wrong hands; never put in writing anything you don’t want opponents to know)
By P. Michael Saint, Robert J. Flavell and Patrick F. Fox
Because clients accept their land use political consultant in the inner circle and share proprietary or sensitive project information, they are understandably concerned about confidentiality and security.
A professional land use political consultant who can’t keep a secret or who develops a reputation for double-dealing will not last long in the business. The good reputation of the land use political consultant is therefore the client’s best protection against disclosure.
Although a client can request a written confidentiality agreement, it is unwise to rely on such a document for protection because filing a lawsuit to enforce it would ensure that the confidential information the client is trying to protect gets into the newspaper. It’s far better to limit the list of people who have the information to those who truly need to know, and to remind them that the information is confidential. Read More »
NIMBY Wars: avoid clumsy amateurs; they don’t know land use politics
(Editor’s Note: As we have discussed so far in NIMBY Wars, novice political operatives think that simply inviting people to a hearing will produce turnout. A seasoned political campaign manager knows that mobilizing citizens requires a lot more than that. It’s important to avoid clumsy amateurs.)
By P. Michael Saint, Robert J. Flavell and Patrick F. Fox
An additional point, and an important one, is that land use politics methods work only for those who know how to use them. Many is the public relations operative who thought he knew how politics works, who barged into town full of ideas and threw his weight around, only to dash his client’s hopes. And many are the clients (and their corporate lawyers) who erroneously think they know how to attract and keep project support. For example, one corporate lawyer insisted that the way to turn out favorable crowds was to hire clowns with balloons. He was serious and insistent. His client lost. Another big-firm lawyer spent so much effort trying to figure out the identity of Saint’s campaign manager that Saint killed his client’s project while the lawyer bumbled around playing Sherlock Holmes.
Clumsy amateurs create a mess, poison the well for future attempts, and destroy the proponent’s credibility. Since they don’t foresee the consequences of their actions, they will use a blunderbuss where a feather would have done nicely. They hold contentious public meetings in auditoriums when a small friendly gathering over coffee in a neighbor’s kitchen would have been far more effective in curbing opposition. Read More »
NIMBYism in UK: discuss at Royal Geographical Society, 3 March
21st Century Challenges (www.21stCenturyChallenges.org) will hold a live discussion event at the Royal Geographical Society in London on 3 March 2010 at 7 pm on the issue of NIMBYism in the UK.
For context, please note that some 85 percent of Britons oppose more development in their local communities, making Britain even more NIMBY than the USA or Canada, according to the UK Saint Index.
Julian Glover, chief leader writer of The Guardian newspaper, will chair the panel discussion, which includes: Dame Fiona Reynolds, director-general of the National Trust, Antony Oliver, editor of New Civil Engineer, and Jim Steer, a leading authority on transport.
Full details available here: http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/meet-our-panel1/