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

2. Negotiating Changes in ELULUs What are ELULUs? ELULUs are Existing, Locally Unwanted Land Uses. LULUs are new Locally Unwanted Land Uses. n Is the process of negotiating ELULU change comparable to negotiating LULU siting? n 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 ELULUs Comparing ELULUs to LULUs (a) n The negotiation process involves: NEW simultaneous interaction of most players 4 EXISTING sporadic interaction of select players n Community perceives consequences: NEW as larger, more threatening 4 EXISTING as smaller, less threatening n Community'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 ELULUs ELULU Change Strategies Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994 Implementing ELULU changes differs from LULU siting Key differences: history of relationship status quo not an option parties cannot disengage Recommendations: apply parts of the credo default worse than status quo conduct research on intervention strategies that work incomplete stakeholder representation introduce third party intervention matching interventions to situations institutionalizing intervention

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

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

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

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

9. Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Siting LULUs The Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame will be built in Cleveland, on a vacant site in the new harbor on Lake Erie In general, for siting LULUs, n Alternative sites n Alternative designs n If negotiations fail, return to status quo Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994 Rock-N-Roll Hall of Fame Functional consequences

10. Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Expanding an existing facility St. Herman's is a Greek Orthodox hospitality house for the homeless in Ohio City. In 1991, it attempted to expand its kitchen, triggering considerable community opposition. Mediated negotiations led to the approval of a zoning variance for the expansion. In general: n if negotiations fail, the parties cannot walk away n parties have a joint history that affects the current dispute Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994 St. Herman hospitality house Social & economic consequences

11. Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Changing the function Shaker's Malvern elementary school was closed for lack of students. A developer attempted to convert the building into condominiums, triggering community opposition. The building has now been rented to a Jewish day school. In general: n the ability of communities to have a voice in the process varies greatly n if negotiations fail, the status quo is not restored Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994 Shaker Heights Malvern school Functional and social consequences

12. Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Expanding facility and changing function The Grace Hospital of Tremont bought surrounding land to expand and change into a more profitable spinal cord injuries treatment facility. The community split over the plan, which failed, leaving the hospital under continuous threat of closing down. In general: n private sector transactions may be able to stay outside the community reach n misrepresentation by parties results in inefficient outcomes Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Oregon 1994 Tremont's Grace Hospital Cleveland's Tower City Euclid Beach Park

13. Negotiating Changes in ELULUs Adding new functions The GSX waste treatment facility located in Cleveland's St. Hyacinth neighborhood, wanted to add the capability of processing toxic waste. Opposition to the plan led to the closing down of the facility. In general: n the result of such initiatives may be worse than the status quo for initiator, community, or both n there are no institutional structures to assist the process Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994 GSX waste treatment facility Environmental consequences

14. Negotiating Changes in ELULUs GSX, Sequence of Events l 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 l 1988 GSX purchases AlchemTron facility 4 management and procedural changes l 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 l 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 ELULUs GSX Stakeholders n GSX wanted to: 4 Add incineration treatment 4 Increase radius of service (profits) n City government wanted to: 4 Maintain compliance (mandate) 4 Show responsiveness to public's concerns (political) n County government wanted to: 4 Provide for regional needs of waste processing (mandate) 4 Minimize costs of involvement n EPA, OHWFB & State of Ohio wanted to: 4 Maintain compliance 4 Foster good image with public, industry, governments n 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 ELULUs Siting LULUs Credo 13 tenets for negotiating LULU siting L. Susskind, Negotiation Journal, 1990 Sanda Kaufman, IACM, Eugene 1994 1. Seek consensus through broad-based participatory process 2. Work to develop trust 3. Get agreement that status quo is unacceptable 4. Choose facility design that best addresses the problem 5. Seek acceptable sites through volunteer process 6. Consider a competitive siting process 7. Work for geographic fairness 8. Keep multiple options on the table at all times 9. Guarantee that stringent safety standards will be met 10. Fully compensate all negative impacts of the facility 11. Make the host community better off 12. Use contingent agreements 13. Set realistic timetables