Developers Defenses Against NIMBY

April 27, 2021

If you want to be effective in defeating a real estate development, it is critical to understand how developers counter these objections.  And they encounter them all the time.  Most people do not like change and any little change will inevitably generate an objection from someone.

Most are of the NIMBY (not in my back yard) type, and easily countered by the developer.  Others are major as in rezoning and large-scale developments such as the Hillwood proposal.  In these cases, the developer has already anticipated the standard objections and set in motion the responses before he even contacts the municipality.

Therefore if we expect to defeat the distribution center project in Churchill, we must adapt our tactics to counter those of the developer.  That requires first being aware of how they blunt objections.

Hillwood and Amazon have gone through these hundreds of times and anticipated everything we bring up.  This is their business and they are professionals.

You can see clearly how Hillwood in its last PowerPoint specifically addressed each of the points listed in the letter sent to residents.

In this posting of 55 pages, you can get a good idea of what works and how so that the efforts of each individual are most effective.

If you have time, you may want to scan some of these articles to improve your skill level in countering the misleading and distorted data Hillwood presents to the public.

Murray Bilby

https://www.benzinga.com/news/20/10/17755856/real-estate-roundup-warehouse-and-distribution-demand-soars-so-does-community-opposition

Real Estate Roundup: Warehouse And Distribution Demand Soars, So Does Community Opposition

October 02, 2020 2:30pm   4 min read   Comments

Real Estate Roundup is a weekly rundown of developments in the world of industrial real estate used for logistics and transportation. This week: Demand for industrial warehousing and distribution facilities is soaring, but communities frequently fight back against what they see as problems with noise, air pollution and traffic safety. Recent incidents in Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and California illustrate the situation.

In the rush to expand warehouses and distribution facilities amid skyrocketing demand for online commerce, here’s a bucket of cold water for eager developers and elected officials.

Homeowners and residents often don’t want these facilities as their neighbors. The issue has popped up recently in Pennsylvania, Florida, California and western New York, to name just a few locations.

It’s easy to see why homeowners fight back. Large warehousing facilities can be loud and, in some cases, operate around the clock. Large trucks can worsen traffic and damage local roads.

But as e-commerce surges, it’s an issue likely to pop up more and more. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed consumer behavior, perhaps permanently. Demand has soared for warehouse space, especially in the last-mile delivery zone, according to Chris Roach, CEO of real estate firm BBG. Manufacturers and distributors are rapidly changing how they source materials, trying to lessen their dependence on Chinese production. Still, it will take time to make major changes to logistics and transportation routes, Roach said.

Meanwhile, homeowners remain vigilant about keeping big industrial parks out of their communities.

In late 2019, the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, development company River Pointe Logistics Center bought 725 acres near Upper Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania, where it wants to build 13 manufacturing and distribution buildings, according to the Allentown Morning Call. The developer wants to lease the warehouses to businesses in the food and beverage, manufacturing, retail, automotive, distribution, and e-commerce sectors.

Residents complained that it would worsen traffic, air, and noise pollution, and pose safety hazards to motorists. Despite the opposition, the township approved zoning changes in early September that will allow the development to move forward.

In Pompano Beach, Florida, developers want to build a warehouse and logistics center at the site of a horse racing and casino park. The company is redeveloping the entire site into an industrial park, taking advantage of its location near a CSX rail line, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

As soon as word of the plans became public, however, Cordish Cos., of Baltimore, found itself on the receiving end of complaints from residents. Elected officials in Florida are still considering the proposal.

Residents near Buffalo, New York, have succeeded (so far) in repelling a proposed $325 million Amazon distribution site. The center was slated to be about 3.8 million square feet, which critics said was too large for the neighborhoods in Grand Island, New York.

Trammell Crow, the commercial real estate firm representing Amazon, said in late September that it may try to revive the project in another part of the Buffalo area, according to Buffalo Business First.

Environmentalists also get involved. The Sierra Club and two other groups last year sued to block the development of a massive warehouse complex in Fontana, California, saying it would threaten air quality and nearby endangered species. The groups later reached a settlement with the developer after securing promises for some protective measures.

The issue is more than just another case of NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome. Many NIMBY disputes center around developments that ostensibly provide a greater public good, like bike trails or mass transit lines, that can provide a direct benefit to the protesting neighbors. It’s much harder to see the benefit of a 24/7 warehouse site for a company you never buy products from.

Of course, public officials have ways to sell the developments to resistant citizens. They can point to the higher tax revenue the facilities will generate and the public benefits the extra revenue will buy. They can point to job creation.

Officials can also limit the impact of protests. They can locate warehouse facilities at the extreme edges of their jurisdictions. Think of an industrial park (or a landfill, a prison or another type of undesirable facility) that’s situated literally on the border of another county; in such a location, the number of impacted property owners is reduced by half. Let the neighboring county worry about half of the protesters.

They can also pass regulations to limit the impact of logistics and transportation. The state of California this summer required ships and trucks to limit air pollution in the communities located near ports, according to the Times of San Diego. The state passed the measure despite opposition from the oil companies, engine manufacturers, and ports officials who rely on the facilities.

Expect more of the same, possibly in your neighborhood, in the coming months and years.

https://pegcompanies.com/4-tips-for-dealing-with-opposition-toward-your-development-project/

Gail Sheehy once said, “If we don’t change, we don’t grow. If we don’t change, we aren’t really living.”

Developing in communities that are strongly opposed to a project is nothing new to the modern commercial real estate developer. It can be easy for uninformed constituents to jump to conclusions, often accusing developers of doing anything to make a higher return—even at their community’s expense.  Regardless of whether critics of our projects are right or wrong, the ways we, as developers, deal with such situations make lasting impressions on these communities and impact how future developers are received.  Here at PEG, we’ve learned through experience that nine times out of ten, our projects are stronger after we incorporate community input.  That is why we actively pursue feedback through surveys, open houses, and beyond. While not easy, it is possible to change people’s minds.

Below are some ways that I managed to turn dirty looks and complaints into hugs and high fives in Ketchum, Idaho, the future home of PEG’s new Tribute Portfolio hotel:

1. Relate, understand, be open, and be kind.

Today, it is unfortunately rare that we put down our devices, look each other in the eyes, and truly listen. It is imperative that we try to understand community members’ concerns. What are they afraid of losing? What is causing them such heartache? What lies at the core of their frustrations?

A significant part of understanding these concerns is being able to really connect and relate to people. For example, share something personal like the fact that you grew up in a small town not far from their hometown. Explain that you understand their concern that the project could change the culture and feeling of the community that they love and grew up in. Rephrase their concerns back to them so that they know you heard them.

Being vulnerable and willing to interact on a personal level is one of the most effective ways to bring down walls. As you do this, you will notice a change in people’s demeaner and energy that is undeniable. They may still disagree with you, but you both at least understand where one another is coming from, and you’ve hopefully started to earn some respect.

2. Be willing to adapt.

As you enter Ketchum, there is a gorgeous view of the mountains immediately to your left.  Of course, to my disadvantage, this is also the area I am trying to entitle for our beautiful high-end hotel. The zoning technically allowed for me to build a high enough structure that would ruin the serene view for everyone else, but being able to find a creative solution will not only help the project but will also show that I, Nick Blayden the human, understand and am listening to the community’s concerns.  As result of this view corridor into town, I dropped the south part of the building by approximately 14 feet (see Figure 1 below).

3. Understand that word spreads fast and rumors spread faster.

When people are fearful or don’t take the time to understand what is really happening, they can spread rumors that spread like wildfire.  In Ketchum, for example, someone created a petition about the height and size of the proposed building that contained inaccurate numbers. The group that created this petition did not take the time to educate themselves on how these measurements and floor-to-area ratio was calculated, which in turn, caused everyone headaches. Fortunately, we have been able to hold open houses, put out press releases, and make presentations to dispel the misinformation in Ketchum.

4. Don’t take yourself too seriously.

When a popular Ketchum influencer attempted to stir the pot about our project at last year’s community Halloween party, we easily could’ve fired back and gotten angry. Instead, we decided to make the most of the unsolicited publicity and respond with humor in the form of a tongue-and-cheek press release. As a result, we actually ended up building a positive relationship with the very individual who could’ve caused us a lot of grief had we let him. Sometimes sharing a good laugh is all you can do.

Going through some of my recent experiences in Ketchum hasn’t always been easy or fun, but I can honestly say that the process has made for a stronger project. Plus, I’ve made some fun and eclectic new friends along the way, and what beats that?

https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/respond-to-counterattacks/respond-to-opposition/main

• WHAT ARE SOME GENERAL WAYS TO FIGHT THESE TACTICS?
• WHAT ARE THE TEN D’S?
• SPECIFIC STRATEGIES FOR RESPONDING TO OPPOSITION TACTICS

In community work, there’s almost always someone opposed to whatever it is you’re doing. Even if your goal is something everyone can agree on, there will be those who disagree with your methods for achieving it. When your opposition starts fighting your efforts, it’s best to be familiar with what tactics they might use to do so and how your group might most effectively respond.

WHAT ARE SOME GENERAL WAYS TO FIGHT THESE TACTICS?

There are a variety of tactic-specific ways to deal with each of these forms of attack. Some strategies that apply no matter what tactic is being used include:

UNDERSTAND YOUR OPPONENT AND HIS/HER/THEIR STRATEGY

If knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness. An opponent you understand is much weaker than an opponent whose every move baffles you. Understand your foe’s beliefs, background, and position. This will put you in a stronger position to respond to attacks. It can also increase your organization’s image as an intelligent, rational group. What does your opponent believe and want? Does your opponent come from a cultural or ethnic group different from your own; and if so how might this affect dealings with your organization? Does your opponent have a history of acting (or reacting) in a certain way? You may be able to determine some of these things from your own history with the person or organization in question, from the experiences and personal knowledge of friends and colleagues, from newspaper articles, from corporate PR materials (if you’re dealing with a company), or from campaign literature (if you’re dealing with a candidate or elected official).

TURN NEGATIVES INTO POSITIVES

As the saying goes, when the opposition gives you lemons, make lemonade. The ability to turn any negatives you are given into positive situations is a very powerful ability for your organization to have. For example, you might use the utility company’s opposition to a program to provide heat subsidies to poor people as an excuse to set up a review of the company’s records of utility shut-offs to heighten awareness of the problem.

SET THE AGENDA

If you are meeting with the opposition, your organization should establish or influence the agenda. This way, it will be your group that controls the meeting; you, and not the opposition, will have the chance to be on the offensive, which is always the stronger position to be coming from. Further, if you allow the opposition to set the agenda, chances are good that some of the important points you wanted to discuss won’t even be brought up.The opposition will naturally use their “home court advantage” to talk about their strengths, rather than points they may be weaker on.

PUBLICLY STATE THE OPPONENT’S STRATEGY

This makes the opposition’s tactics seem clearer to all of the members in your group (and therefore easier to fight). It is also a great way to win sympathy and respect from the general public. This is particularly true if you are a relatively small group fighting a larger agency or corporation in a just cause. Everyone wants to root for the underdog; giving your battle a “David and Goliath” image can do a great deal to further your cause.

Some of the information you should consider making public:

• What your opponent has said or done
• Why it is untrue or unjust
• What is true and/or equitable
• How the truth affects you and your opponent

For example, a fair employment practices committee meets with directors of their company about the small number of minorities hired by the organization. However, in the meeting they find themselves sidetracked by a talk on the new “cultural competence” seminars being given. At the end of the meeting, the directors leave saying that by meeting with the committee, they have done their job – even though nothing was really accomplished. Instead of dropping the matter, however, the members of the committee let the directors – and the press – know that the company was doing nothing to address the issue.

Be judicious when it comes to going public. You shouldn’t do this every time; it can make your group look reactionary and whiny.

KEEP YOUR OPPONENTS OFF BALANCE

Don’t rely on the same approaches all of the time. Instead, constantly take the opposition by surprise. This can not only can help in your current battle, it will help your group avoid stagnation. If you tried to privately negotiate a solution last time you butted heads with the opposition, this time you might go public with the situation. Or, you might ask for a third party to act as a facilitator. Be creative, and don’t be afraid to try something new. Leaving your opponent in a cloud of uncertainty of what your tactics will be this time is a powerful strategy on it’s own, and gives you an advantage over the opposition before you even start.

LEARN FROM THE PAST

If an organization has a history of responding in a certain manner, chances are that’s how they will respond again. Know the history including the preferred tactics of the people you are battling – and know how your organization has traditionally responded. That way, you’ll be thoroughly prepared for what is likely to happen, and you’ll be more likely to avoid any pitfalls you’ve fallen into in the past.

For example, an organization was trying to reduce the number of billboards advertising beer in a low-income area of the city. When advocates for the group did their research, they found that every time anyone had complained about the number of billboards in their community for any product (beer, hard liquor, tobacco, or anything else), the marketers invoked their right of free speech. Knowing that in advance, the advocates were able to formulate a strong response to the beer company’s free speech argument before they met the opposition, and were eventually successful in limiting the number of alcohol-related billboards in the community.

BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE

Your opponents may be willing to work with you in good faith, particularly if you have run a good advocacy campaign. Keep an eye open for situations that might turn into a chance to work together. Be careful that by saying cooperation, your opponents don’t really mean capitulation to their interests. But be careful, too, that you are open to any legitimate possibilities for making a deal that come your way. If an opposition leader states publicly that some of your ideas have merit, that could be the olive branch you’ve been waiting for to achieve peace, and also reach some of your goals.

WHAT ARE THE TEN D’S?

The ten D’s of opposition tactics are:

• Deflect
• Delay
• Deny
• Discount
• Deceive
• Divide
• Dulcify
• Discredit
• Destroy
• Deal

SPECIFIC STRATEGIES FOR RESPONDING TO OPPOSITION TACTICS

Some of these tactics can be dealt with in similar ways; these are grouped together.

DEFLECT AND DELAY

Deflection happens when your opponents try to shift the focus of the debate from the real problem to other issues, or when they try to “pass the buck” to a group with little or no authority. Delays occur when the opposition says it is working on the problem, when the reality is that nothing has been done. Sometimes they do this by claiming that they don’t yet have enough information to move on the problem, when there is already plenty of information. Often the opposition will form a committee or commission to study the problem, putting things off for as long as possible. Your opponent is most likely hoping that the public will lose interest if the issue can be put off indefinitely.

• Deflect: Clean Our River, a citizens’ group in Riverville, releases a study showing that SludgeCo, a large chemical manufacturing company, has been dumping toxins into the river upstream from the town. The community is outraged and Clean Our River begins pressuring SludgeCo to stop dumping into the river and to clean up what they’ve done so far. SludgeCo counters by releasing its own study about Riverville residents littering along the river.
• Delay: A consumer safety group has been lobbying for national legislation to require all furniture manufacturers to treat all furniture upholstery with flame-retardant chemicals, because several studies have shown flammable upholstery to be the cause for a high percentage of home fires. A Congress member from a state with several furniture factories, under pressure from furniture manufacturers in his district, is opposed to doing this. He introduces a bill that calls for the legislation to be put off for another year so that a study can be done by the Consumer Product Safety Division, in spite of numerous studies cited by the consumer group. This is a classic example of the delay tactic.

Responding to deflection and delays

Be persistent! If you feel you must address whatever other issue your opponent may have thrown out, do so, but try not to spend too much time on it, and always bring the focus back to your primary issue.

• Know your opponents and understand their strategies. In the above example of delaying, the consumer group was familiar with their opponent’s ties to furniture manufacturers, and pointed that out in all their press materials and appearances.
• Be as familiar as possible with your opponent’s decision-making process, including who has what responsibilities. This will help you make a reasoned and well-informed objection if your opponent tries to shift responsibility to someone else.
• If necessary, briefly address the issue your opponent has thrown out. If you feel the public has really been “sucked in” by the opposition’s tactic, go ahead and address it, but it’s important that you only do so briefly. If you appear to be giving it a lot of weight, the public will perceive it as being as important as the real issue.
• Always bring the focus back to your key issue or problem. Be ready to bring out more evidence that your problem or issue is the main one that your opponent and the public should be concerned with. You may need to be repetitive, or you might have to come up with new ways to get the issue into the public eye. Whatever the case, persistence is key.

The consumer group in the above delay example provided the press with numerous studies and reports backing up their claims about the danger of flammable furniture upholstery. They also provided television stations with dramatic footage of safety tests in which an untreated sofa quickly burst completely into flames, while a treated one only smoldered.

If your opponent is stalling, claiming that more information is needed, consider using some unusual publicity-grabbing tactics. For example, something the consumer group in the above example could do is set up a mock cemetery in a public place, with fake gravestones representing the number of people who will die in fires caused by flammable furniture over the next year.

DENY AND DISCOUNT

When your opponents use denial tactics, they try to say either that the problem doesn’t exist (e.g., “AIDS is not a problem in our community”), or that your proposed solution won’t work.

Discounting is very similar to denial; the only difference is that the opponent isn’t saying the problem doesn’t exist – they’re just saying it isn’t important, or it isn’t as big a problem as you know it really is.

• Deny: A teen pregnancy prevention group is trying to get the public schools to require a sex education course for all high school students in Suburbandale. Enraged, members of the PTA claim that Suburbandale high school kids aren’t having sex.
• Discount: Members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community in your city are asking the city council to pass a law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment and housing. The city council counters by saying that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people make up such a small portion of the community that such a law is unnecessary.

Responding to denial and discounting

When your opponent tries to say the problem isn’t real or isn’t that important, you’d better be prepared to prove to the public that it is indeed real and that it is indeed significant.

• Know your opponents and understand their strategies. Why would your opponent want the public to think the problem doesn’t exist? As with other opposition tactics, knowing your opposition’s motives will help you figure out how to best deal with them.
• Be prepared to provide the necessary information and to be persistent about it. If you can hand over loads of evidence that there is indeed a problem and that it really is important, your opposition won’t be able to keep denying or discounting it for long. They’ll start to look pretty bad in the public eye if they continue to deny the problem after you’ve shown ample evidence to the contrary.
• Publicly state the opponent’s strategy. If presenting evidence that the problem is real doesn’t get anywhere with the opposition, it’s time to go public. Fact sheets, reports, surveys, expert opinions, and other materials can be presented to the public and the press to prove your point.

DECEIVE

Your opponents may intentionally mislead or confuse your organization or the public by lying or by “forgetting” to tell the whole story. Deception is low-minded; it is also, unfortunately, an all-too-common occurrence in the lives of both people and organizations.

For example, the National Audabon Society, which has long been battling logging companies, recently encountered a deception tactic from a Congress member with ties to the logging industry who sponsored a bill. The bill, attempting to promote increased logging as a cure -all for insect and disease infestations in our National Forests, would have allowed logging companies to cut big, healthy trees instead of the small, fire-prone trees they are supposed to cut. The National Audabon society countered by pointing out that insects, disease, and fire were at relatively normal levels, while logging and grazing cause the most damage to our forests.

Responding to deception

Respond immediately – don’t wait until things have cooled down and people have forgotten what has happened, or accepted your opposition’s deceit as truth. Refute their statements quickly, clearly, and forcefully, and then get on with the rest of your work.

Know your opponents and understand their strategies. Deception may be carried out in a variety of ways, and some of them are more difficult to discern than others.

Common types of deception to be on the lookout for include:

• “Forgetting” to tell the whole truth. This may include leaving out important information, facts, or details that would change the way others would view the situation.
• Misusing or misrepresenting statistics. As Mark Twain once said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Statistics may sound impressive and give weight to your opponent’s arguments, but they are also very easily manipulated. For example, the phrase, “Two-thirds of those surveyed believe condoms should not be made available to area youth” may sound impressive, but find out who was surveyed, who conducted the survey (an unbiased third party? your opposition?) when the survey was done (is it outdated?) and how the survey was done (was it done in such a way as to minimize the possibility of bias?). The above statement becomes much less convincing when you find that “those surveyed” included only the leader of your opposition, her husband, and their dog (the dog, being hungry at the time, had no opinion, thus creating the one-third dissension).
• “Fogging” the issue with unrelated information, bureaucratic nonsense, or just incomprehensible gibberish. An example of fogging the issue would be the politician who claims, “The papers misquoted me!” More than likely, what she means is, “I really wish I hadn’t said that publicly!” Fogging can also occur when you are given a long -winded answer complete with so much technical jargon and gobbledygook that you have no idea what (if anything) has been said, or when your opposition brings up a totally unrelated issue, and tries to steer the conversation onto different, safer (for them) ground.
• Telling half-truths. With a half-truth, your opposition takes something that has occurred or a fact that they have uncovered and discusses only the parts that hurt you and help them. An example of this might be a quote on the cover of a book from a famous reviewer saying, “[I]ncredible… definitely a novel worth picking up.” The quote, used here to help sell the book, actually said in its entirety, “What an incredible bore! If you have problems with insomnia, this is definitely a novel worth picking up.”
• Telling flat-out lies. People don’t play fair a lot of the time, and for our organizations to survive, we have to be ready to defend ourselves. If you have any doubt in the truth of what your opposition is saying, insist that they back up what they said with facts.

Let the public know what has occurred. There are two reasons for this: first, the deceit of the opposition may be better known than you think, and by going public, you are helping the public get a positive, clearer view of your organization as well as a negative view of your opposition. Second, such a situation can only help your group and hurt your opposition in the eyes of the public.

• Refute the deception. If you can prove in a clear, logical manner why your opposition is wrong, you are sure to win supporters for your cause. At its best, refutation is a three step process:
  • Analyzing your opponent’s argument. What, exactly, is wrong with what your foe has said?
  • Attacking the weaknesses in your opponent’s argument. If there are many weaknesses, list all or at least most of them. Show the factual errors in each case. List the major weaknesses first and last, then summarize those weaknesses at the end.
  • Establishing a contrary argument. Don’t just explain that the opposition is wrong; be sure to make clear what the truth of the matter is. If you simply refute the argument, it may still stick in people’s minds if they have nothing to replace it with.

Going back to the example of contraceptives for teenagers, an example of how you might want to publicly refute your opponent might be phrased in the following manner:

“Our opponents have stated that two-thirds of those surveyed in our community were against allowing access to contraception for our youth. Upon scrutiny of this survey, however, we have learned that it had only three respondents, and that they were all linked by very close ties to our opponents. However, a second survey of 2500 residents, conducted by the independent research group XYZ, reports that in truth, over 80% of our community is actually in favor of increased contraceptive access for our youth. Therefore, it must be realized that our opponent’s views are not held by the majority of community members, and it should be remembered that they are only a very small, if vocal, voice in our area.”

DIVIDE

If your group is working on a controversial issue, you may find your opponents try to split your group over such issues.

For example, a community coalition in a predominantly African American neighborhood in Los Angeles has been battling manufacturers of malt beverages for some time. The manufacturers have decided to try a new approach – offering to build a youth center in the neighborhood. The offer effectively divides the group – some members feel that the offer should be accepted, and others feel that the group shouldn’t accept any gift from a longtime foe.

Responding to dividing tactics

• Know your opponents and their strategies
• Keep the lines of communication open within your group. Provide opportunities so that the members of your organization are able to discuss concerns with each other on a regular basis. This can be done by holding regular discussion groups, setting up an email discussion list, or sponsoring social gatherings for your group. Encourage your members to talk about any problems or concerns they might have. You may want to facilitate the discussions to a degree just to keep things orderly, but give everyone a chance to speak their mind and try not to steer the discussion too much. Knowing what’s on the minds of people in your organization and encouraging open dialogue will help you find out early on when another group may be trying to divide you, and it fosters a sense of unity to combat such attempts.
• Take steps to ensure team feeling and group morale. When people in your organization feel like a part of a team, they’re less likely to be vulnerable to outside attempts at dividing them, and they’re more likely to inform you when such attempts are being made. Open lines of communication, as mentioned before, are the key. Team-building activities, staff retreats, and social activities are also good ways to make everyone involved feel like a part of the group and, therefore, make the group less likely to be divided.
• Find ways to achieve compromise within the group. When your group does become divided over a particular issue, find a compromise so that you can move on and continue your work as soon as possible. This holds true whether the division is coming from an outside element or from within the group. Read on – the information on deal tactics later in this section give some good tips on ways to reach a satisfactory compromise.

DULCIFY

To dulcify an organization is to try to appease or pacify members with small, meaningless concessions.

For example, one of the goals of the New Haven AIDS Task Force is teen HIV prevention, and they’ve been trying to get the school district to create an effective HIV prevention program in the high schools. The school district attempts to dulcify the task force by saying they do have an HIV prevention program. The school district’s program, as it turns out, is largely meaningless – a voluntary, after-school program that students get no class credit or extracurricular credit for taking part in. The task force counters by publicizing evidence of the ineffectiveness of such voluntary programs in similar communities and by publicizing a rise in teen HIV infection in the community. The community as a whole starts pressuring the school district for a more meaningful response, and a mandatory course during school hours.

Responding to dulcify tactics

• Know your opponents and their strategies
• Explain why the concessions made by your opponent are unsatisfactory. Remember, you don’t want to come off sounding ungrateful or hostile at this stage. Your opposition may very well think that they are really making an effort to meet your requests; then again, they may fully realize that what they’re offering is meaningless. Play it safe at first – act as if they really are trying even if you suspect they may be not be. Try to be appreciative and respectful of what they’ve offered, but firm in explaining why it won’t work: “We applaud your efforts to make a difference in this, but we’re afraid that a voluntary after-school program won’t do enough to prevent teens in New Haven from risk behaviors. Here’s why…” The AIDS task force in the example above had to back up their claim about the ineffectiveness of voluntary, after-school education programs with statistics from communities similar to their own.
• Explain why whatever it is you’re asking for is more reasonable. Again, be ready to back up your argument with facts and figures.
• Let the public know what has occurred. If you’re unable to get any more concessions out of your opponent, you may want to go public at this point. Be careful to do this only if you feel fairly certain that the public will view the concessions made by the opposition to be as meaningless as you do! If people perceive you as ungrateful or unreasonable, it will hurt your cause.

DISCREDIT

When the opposition tries to discredit an organization, they call your motives and methods into question to try to make your group look incompetent (unreasonable, unnecessary, dishonest, et cetera), to the community. This can get nasty – discrediting can even go so far as to include personal attacks.

Responding to discrediting

Handle this like you would handle deception. Your opponent is trying to make you look bad.

For example, let’s go back to the consumer safety group working to require flame-retardant upholstery in furniture again. The Congress member who was opposed to their efforts also attempted to discredit the group by saying that they couldn’t possibly speak to the potential harm of flame-retardant chemicals because they don’t have a toxicologist on staff. The consumer group countered by listing the credentials of the various scientists that they do have on staff and presenting the press with several reports and studies showing flame-retardant chemicals to be harmless.

DESTROY

If your opponents are trying to ruin your organization or initiative in any way possible – which can include using a combination of two or more of the other tactics – they are trying to destroy you.

Responding to destroy tactics

Your response should be swift and intensive. Respond – and respond forcefully – as soon as you recognize your opponent’s tactics. Consider the following five steps as a possible strategy for defeating your opponent:

• Know your opponents and their strategies
• Realize that threats are only threats. The use of fear is one of your opponent’s greatest weapons. Threats of lawsuits, of curtailing funding sources, and even of violent attacks or arrest may be used. It’s important to realize, however, that groups usually have no intent on going through with their threats; they are often just bluffing to make you back down with as little trouble as possible.
• Know your rights. In the face of such threats, your best defense is a full understanding of whether the opposition can actually do what they say they are going to. Perhaps a local company has threatened to sue you for defamation, but a quick check with legal counsel can show you that they simply don’t have a case. Knowing your rights can help you call your opposition’s bluff. You can also can turn the situation to your advantage and put him back on the defensive if your opponent does step over his legal boundaries.
• Keep the lines of communication open within your group. It can hardly be emphasized enough: when trying to destroy you, one of your opponent’s main weapons is the use of fear. By keeping all of the members of your organization up to date on what is happening, you can minimize that fear, as well as avoid any dividing tactics your opponent may be trying to use. Communication within your group may be kept up with phone calls, notes in the agency newsletter, memos, letters, electronic mail, updates at meetings, and any other way you currently communicate news.
• Go public with your opponent’s tactics. There are two good reasons to do this. First, if your opponent has been trying to discredit you in the eyes of the community, doing so can help clear up potentially ruinous notice in the press. Second, exposing your opposition’s attempts to destroy you can help your group gain sympathy and support. This is particularly true if the group you’re up against is very powerful in comparison to your group, because the confrontation may take on a “David and Goliath” aspect, and people love to root for an underdog.

DEAL

Occasionally, your opponent may offer to make a deal. Positively speaking, to deal with an opponent means to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to everyone involved. Sometimes, however, deal tactics may be used negatively as a ploy to lure your organization away from your true goal. This may be done by offering your organization concessions that turn out to be almost meaningless in exchange for “give-backs” on your part that bring you no closer to your ultimate goal (see the suggestions on dulcifying earlier in this section).

If you play your cards carefully, a deal can work to your advantage. You might gain increased understanding of your opponent and his/her position, and vice versa. It can also show your organization to be a legitimate, powerful organization that’s not afraid to “sit across the table” – especially important for small or new organizations trying to gain credibility in the community. Finally, in a best case scenario, effective negotiation may bring about your goal in its entirety: you might just get exactly what you want!

Times when you might not want to deal include:

• When your opponent is seen as having a long-term negative relationship with your community and your negotiation might be viewed as betrayal
• When your opponent has a history of meeting with community groups in bad faith
• When your opponent has had recent, publicly proven financial or other serious misconduct

For example, the teen pregnancy prevention coalition in the small, closely-knit town Somewhereville wanted to have all high school students fill out a survey regarding sexual activity. A parents’ group, opposed to the survey because of its explicit nature, started organizing against the coalition. Luckily, both sides were able to strike a satisfactory compromise when the teen pregnancy coalition agreed to use a different survey that still asked about sexuality issues but also asked questions about nutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, and other teen social issues. The parents’ group was happy to have a survey that didn’t focus only on sex, the coalition still got the information it needed, and information needed by other community groups was gathered at the same time.

Responding to deal tactics

The above example could have turned out much differently – the teen pregnancy prevention coalition might not have been able to do a survey at all, or the parents group might have been rebuffed completely, making them resentful and unwilling to be helpful to the coalition. Striking a compromise that is acceptable to all parties is crucial, and there are a variety of ways you can make sure you get the best possible compromise.

Know your opponents and understand their strategies.

• Set the stage for a successful meeting. Schedule your meeting for the time and place where you will feel most comfortable and confident. If possible, meet on your own “home turf”, or pick a neutral site for your meeting. Avoid going over to your opponent’s playing field. Also, consider what time of day to hold the negotiations – e.g., if you’re a morning person, don’t schedule the meeting for 9:00 at night.
• For your negotiation team, try to pick people with different personality types and responsibilities in your group. Remember, you have the responsibility of representing the interests of your group, so a balanced negotiation team is important.
• Determine ahead of time what you want most to achieve, what’s most important to your group, and what you won’t compromise on. Think about what you’ll do if negotiations fail – there’s always the chance that negotiations will fall apart, so have a “plan B” cooked up well in advance.
• Negotiate with the people with the power. Speaking with the people who actually have the power to enact a change will reduce the chance that you will be misunderstood and increase the chance that something will actually happen. Insist that the real “decision makers” are there. There’s nothing that’s more frustrating than negotiating with folks who say, “Well, we’ll get back to you after we confer with our director.”

While you are negotiating, you should:

• Be careful about how you communicate your ideas.
• Let your opponent make the first offer. This will let you get a better idea of what your opponent is thinking, while revealing none of your own ideas. It’s also possible that their first offer will be significantly better than you’d hoped for.
• Explain the basis of your offer. Explain why you are making this offer, and why you believe it to be fair. Always ask your opponent to do the same.
• Make your offer flexible. If you are too rigid with your demands, you may discourage your opponent away from the bargaining table.
• Stay cool! As the commercial says, “Don’t ever let them see you sweat.” If you feel yourself beginning to get upset, or you are worried you will give in on an important point, call a recess and get your wits back in order.
• Avoid ultimatums. Ultimatums can often lead to an abrupt, ugly end to a meeting, leaving both sides in a worse situation than before. Only use them when you feel you have no choice; even then, leave an escape clause open if possible. For example, you might say, “Unless we receive some new information that changes things, we’ll have to…”
• Remember what is most important to your organization. This can’t be emphasized enough.

After a deal has been agreed upon, be sure to:

• Restate the agreement and document everything. You might finish a meeting with a statement such as, “Then we have agreed that…” Restating your agreement confirms everything that has been decided and helps you make sure there have been no misunderstandings. Also, put it in writing. Unfortunately, oral agreements are broken all the time, so until the deal has been put down on paper, you’re not finished.
• Don’t let your opponent reopen a deal or agreement that has been closed.
• Establish a process to make sure everyone sticks to the terms of the deal. It’s in your common interest to ensure that both parties do what they said they would do. This “monitoring process” is an important part of most good negotiations.

IN SUMMARY

Knowing how to handle counterattacks and preparing yourself for them as much as possible will greatly increase your confidence in dealing with the many skirmishes you’re likely to experience in community organizing. Keep in mind that you’ll probably often find your opposition using a combination of two or more of the ten D’s, so you may have to adapt some of these strategies somewhat to better fit your own situation. As activist and educator Effie Jones once said, “Failing to plan is planning to fail.” Think about what you might expect from your opponents and how to best respond to them, and you’ll be prepared and confident when counterattacks come.

Contributor 

Chris Hampton

Jenette Nagy

Eric Wadud

Aimee Whitman

Online Resources

Identifying Allies and Opponents. This advocacy planning model provides information on how to establish a group or individual as an ally, opponent, or neutral/unknown group.

Allies and Opponents Matrix is a model targeted at understanding and responding successfully to opposition.

Basic Advocacy Skills is a guide that provides basic information to being a good advocate, including information on how to open lines of communication.

Countering Opposition in Issue Campaigns is a blog post on the Bolder Advocacy website aimed at providing information for mapping out opposition messages and preparing to respond.

Gathering Support and Neutralizing Opposition is a module on the World Animal website with the intention of providing information for understanding the opposition’s weaknesses and neutralizing opposition.

Responding to Opposition/Criticism – Advocates for Youth is a resource provided by Advocates for Youth that offers information in list form with advice for responding to opposition.

Responding to Opposition and Criticism: Dealing with Disagreement – Advocates for Youth is an article with extensive information on sources of opposition and strategies for addressing opposition.

Target Audiences: Support and Opposition – This PDF, provided by Policy Project, is dedicated to identifying support and opposition and responding to both groups.

Print Resources

Altman, D., Balcazar, F., Fawcett, S., Seekins, T., & Young, J. (1994). Public health advocacy: Creating community change to improve health. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention.

Bisno, H. (1988). Managing conflict. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Brown, L. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Coover, V., et al. (1985). Resource manual for a living revolution. Philadelphia: New Society.

Eisenberg, A., & Ilardo, J.(1972). Argument: An alternative to violence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Evarts, W., et al. (1983). Winning through accommodation: The mediator’s handbook. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Higbee, K., & Jensen, L. (1978). Influence: What it is and how to use it. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.

Ilich, J. (1992). Dealbreakers and breakthroughs: The ten most common negotiation mistakes and how to overcome them. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Ramundo, B. (1992). Effective negotiation: A guide to dialogue management and control. New York: Quorum Books.

Schweitzer, S. (1979). Winning with deception and bluff. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sun Tzu (1988). The art of war. (T. Cleary, trans.) Boston: Shambhala. (Original work written 500 B.C.)

Weeks, D. (1992). The eight essential steps to conflict resolution: Preserving relationships at work, at home, and in the community. Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher, Inc.

Windes, R., & Hastings, A. (1965). Argument and advocacy. New York, NY: Random House.

 

https://www.patrickslevin.com/blog/2019/10/29/why-do-communitys-oppose-real-estate-development

October 29, 2019

WHY DO COMMUNITIES OPPOSE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT?

Crisis Leadership, NIMBY, Patrick Slevin

 

Benjamin Franklin coined the term about death and taxes being the only certainties in life. He neglected to add a third certainty, and that’s ironically change. As a constant force, change often comes wrapped in uncertainty, which leads to emotionally charged anxieties that fuel the fear of change.

So, when it comes to land development, fear of change quickly manifests into status quo attitudes that drives community opposition against a project.

When developers formally submit their real estate applications with the municipality, they unknowingly start a clock that triggers community fears. In fact, it’s not uncommon for controversial projects to have been misconstrued by community gossip before an application is even filed.  Once the application is officially in the hands of the planning department, fears of change have been validated and wheels of opposition to demonize your project have begun to turn.

“The devil you know” mindset is much more comfortable and desirable than embracing the unknowns of change. Moreover, when a project is perceived as a loss equal to or greater than any proposed gain, citizens fall into a state of “loss aversion” that instigates and mobilizes community resistance.

 

 

In a 2018 Psychology Today article, What Is Loss Aversion? Losses Attract More Attention than Comparable Gains. Shahram Heshmat of the University of Illinois at Springfield noted that “loss aversion is an important aspect of everyday economic life. The idea suggests that people tend to stick with what they have unless there is a good reason to switch. The loss aversion is a reflection of a general bias in human psychology (status quo bias) that makes people resistant to change. So, when we think about change, we focus more on what we might lose rather than on what we might get.”

In the context of land development and loss aversion, homeowners can visualize and physically feel the pain of losing what they have, more than they can see the benefits gained from a new development.  Therefore, when a few citizens begin to speak out against a project via the digital grapevine, it can stoke the loss aversion fears of residents. When enough citizens fear change, the press and elected officials begin taking notice, and projects find themselves in the crosshairs of public conflict.

A 2004 study from the NAIOP Research Foundation entitled “This Land is My Land … But It Could Be Our Land: Developing Influencer Relationships to Accelerate Development Success,” found that “diminishing open space is alarming people into action, as is the perceived poor track record of community planning and zoning in many areas.” Additionally, the study noted that many groups “don’t trust government agencies or planning boards to make what they feel are the right decisions for their communities.”

Although this study was published two decades ago, the data still holds up. This explains why we see local news reports framing developers negatively in the David vs. Goliath narrative across the nation. It affirms the time-worn model fraught with distrust, doubt and cynicism.

The fearful underdog defending his community is a very powerful and persuasive optic driving the emotional rhetoric, advocacy, and attacks that emboldens anti-development resistance. Add to it the digital grapevine spreading misconstrued gossip, you get the trifecta of chaos, controversy and crisis.

 

 

Community opposition is political, emotional and chaotic. Emotionally charged attacks overwhelm the facts, as well as undermine the merits of your project. It’s no mystery that in politics, emotions are more persuasive than facts. The merits of bringing great paying jobs, creating a better quality of life and offering other improvements, falls on death ears with elected officials who get caught up in the emotional turmoil – especially during an election year!

When it comes to turning public conflict into corporate and community goodwill, it’s important to understand why people oppose projects and how they begin tipping the scales away from the legal, logical and linear path of the application toward political turmoil.

Once you understand the why and how, then you can begin incorporating strategies and best practices to effectively mitigate opposing interests.

NOTE: Excerpts of this article can be found in my featured article, The Silver Linings Playbook for Controversial Development Projects, published in the Spring 2019 of NAIOP Development Magazine.

About Patrick Slevin

Patrick is public affairs consultant, NIMBY expert and grassroots influencer who specializes in neutralizing NIMBY opposition. At the age of 27, he was elected one of the youngest mayors in the country in the Tampa Bay city of Safety Harbor, Florida in 1996.

As a Florida mayor, Patrick encountered numerous NIMBY crises in one of the most urbanized regions of the country. During his three-year term, Patrick honed his political instincts, gained invaluable grassroots experience, and acquired a unique perspective on how-to preempt, neutralize, and defeat NIMBY opposition, benefitting his clients for decades.

For nearly 20 years, corporate executives, land development professionals, and communicators have engaged Patrick Slevin to turn NIMBY crises into political victories and project approvals across the country.

Patrick is a two-time winner of the prestigious Public Relations Society of America’s Silver Anvil Award of Excellence for Crisis & Issues Management. He was featured in Influence Magazine as a “Great Communicator”. He has been recognized by Campaigns & Elections Magazine as one of the nation’s top political “Movers’ & Shakers”.

Patrick heads SL7 Consulting, a national public affairs practice headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. His corporate client list represents Fortune 500 companies, multinational corporations, and regional developers spanning the globe as far as Australia.

Patrick Slevin is a highly sought speaker on the NIMBY subject matter. For over 15 years, Patrick has presented before real estate organizations from coast-to-coast including ULI, NAIOP, ICSC, CREW, BOMA, APA, as well as homebuilders, affordable housing, investors, energy, local chambers, EDCs, and municipalities.

Website: www.PatrickSlevin.com

E: P.SL7@patrickslevin.com

 

https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/04/what-most-neighborhood-activists-dont-understand-about-real-estate-developme/

What most neighborhood activists don’t understand about real estate development

For those who hope to influence a development, outright opposition is usually not a smart strategy, says Peter H. Brown, the author of a new book on the subject.

By Peter Callaghan | MinnPost Staff Writer

Peter H. Brown recently has worked with the city of Minneapolis on high-profile projects such as the Nicollet Mall renovation, rendered above.

City of Minneapolis

April 6, 2016

When it comes to real estate development, Peter H. Brown speaks two languages.

He is fluent in both “developer” and “neighborhood activist.” As such, the Minneapolis consultant is in a good position to act as an interpreter in the often fractious negotiations between the two, something he writes about in his recent book “How Real Estate Developers Think: Designs, Profits and Community.”

Brown recently has worked with the city of Minneapois on high-profile projects such as the Nicollet Mall renovation, Peavey Plaza and the design process for East Commons park near the new Vikings stadium. But he also acts as an “owner’s representative” on private projects.

“Most people have a hard time seeing change as positive,” Brown said during a forum last month at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs. “And who brings us change? Real estate developers.”

“They’re gonna block your views,” he continued. “They’re gonna shadow your building. Who knows what’s going to happen,” he said.

But the fear of change — and the tendency to move quickly toward blanket opposition — often results in activists not getting the best outcome from their interaction.

One motivation for writing his book, Brown said, was to demystify the process, to “put flesh on the bones” of developers so that those who interact with them can figure out how to work with them. The alternative is to fight uphill battles against developers who have a right to build under law and code (he quotes one developer who frequently says “that piece of land is not zoned ‘vacant’ “) and against trends that forecast continued development in cities across the nation.

“We can’t wish it away, and we can’t pull up the drawbridge,” Brown said.

But he acknowledges that developers don’t have a pristine reputation. When teaching a class on real estate development at the Humphrey School, he invites students to shout out the terms that come to mind when they hear “real estate developer.”

The response flows so quickly that he has trouble writing them down: rip-off artists, greedy, bloodsuckers, rich white men, devils. Only after their contempt is spent does someone nervously offer terms like entrepreneur, visionary and risk taker.

Whichever way people describe developers, Brown thinks the subjects of his book are vital to the growth of cities. As he writes, “throughout the history of the United States, where the great majority of land is privately owned, the buildings that make up American cities have been planned, designed and built almost entirely by developers, using private capital, one project at a time.”

Brown’s advice to those who hope to influence development in their cities and neighborhoods: Focus on what aspects of a proposed development are actually changeable.

“Don’t say, ‘Twenty stories? Why don’t you make it eight?’ ” Brown said. “If there’s zoning for 20 stories, it’s probably going to be 20 stories.”

Instead, Brown advises neighbors, planners and politicians to keep in mind the Serenity Prayer: “Accept the things they cannot change, identify those things that can be changed and develop the wisdom to know the difference.”

For example, “Instead of insisting that the developer use brick when the metal panels they are proposing are allowed by the code, focus your comments on the quality of the panels and the pattern, colors and detail.”

MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan

Author Peter H. Brown, center, shown speaking at the Humphrey panel discussion, with Metropolitan Design Center Director Tom Fisher, left, and Professor Emeritus John Adams.

Brown has been on both sides of the table. His work with developers has seen him representing their interests to neighborhood groups and politicians, but his time volunteering on Minneapolis’ North Loop Neighborhood Association has seen him questioning developers about their intentions for his neighborhood. Sometimes, he said, he wore both hats on the same day.

Brown’s path to intermediary wasn’t a direct one. He was an architect in Philadelphia for 12 years before returning to school at age 37 to study urban planning, and worked in local government planning offices. After moving to Minneapolis, he figured he was in a good position to be a consultant to developers.

“How different could it be?” he asked. “It’s completely different, it turns out. I didn’t know what I was doing. I thought, ‘Gosh, I’d been working on buildings for 15 or 20 years and the way these people make decisions — their motivations, their priorities, how they speed up, how they slow down, go right, go left.’

“I thought, either they’re insane or there’s a method to their madness and maybe I can figure that out,” Brown said. Developers don’t go to developer school, for example, and often come to the work from various backgrounds — architecture, planning, real estate, construction. There’s no government certification or license for developers.

During the panel discussion at Humphrey, Tom Fisher, who heads the Metropolitan Design Center, lamented that universities don’t do a better job embracing development as a profession.

“Our academic structure is misaligned with what you need to know to make cities,” Fisher said. “Planners are on one side of the river and the architects are on the other side of the river and the civil engineers don’t talk to either one, and the bankers are in the Carlson School. Why can’t universities structure universities in the way the world actually works?”

Brown explains development through the eyes of a batch of longtime developers in Boston, Miami and Portland. He dives into the source of conflict, that “a real estate development is a private enterprise that is acted out on a very public stage.”

“A real estate development is a business venture financed by private investors and lenders who take serious risks with the objective of earning significant profits,” he continues. Developers, therefore, are reluctant to give the public too much influence on the factors that determine the ultimate profits: costs, design and marketability.

“On the other hand, development affects everything from home values and views to the use and enjoyment of public streets, so members of the community feel they should play a stronger role in shaping projects.”

Jacob Frey at the Humphrey panel.

In the middle are city officials — both elected and appointed — who have their own motivations and desires. Minneapolis Council Member Jacob Frey, who represents the city ward where half of the city’s construction activity is located, also joined the panel discussion. He said his own strategy was confirmed by Brown’s book.

“Don’t say ‘No.’ Don’t say ‘Yes.’ Say, ‘Yes, but,’ ” Frey said. He suggests identifying four or five aspects of the project that, if altered, will make it better. “Ultimately you come to an end result that is far better than if you had rejected it or if you had blindly accepted it.”

Still, proposed developments are often met with suspicion and even opposition. “The only thing people hate more than the status quo is any change at all,” he joked.

Neighbors, planners and politicians have a wedge to push for changes if a developer needs a variance from existing zoning and code. Such a variance might be needed to exceed height limits or set-back requirements. But Brown cited a story from Evanston, Illinois, as a way of warning against overplaying that hand. There, a developer in need of some variances redesigned a building to make a project less burdensome on views of neighbors. When they still opposed, the developer built “as-of-right,” that is as much as the zoning would allow.

“If the neighbors had only been able to see the project from the developer’s viewpoint, they may have realized that taking an absolute position — opposition — was a risky strategy and that was not necessarily in their own best interests,” Brown wrote.

Later, he notes that developers tend to be thick skinned and “won’t be going away after one hostile meeting.

Amanda Janzen at the Humphrey panel.

“Remember, he knows his rights, and … he may be low on the ‘agreeableness’ trait so it is hard to hurt his feelings,” Brown wrote.

Amanda Janzen, a project manager for Twin Cities development company Schafer Richardson, said sometimes development decisions are driven by those who are financing a project. A developer might be willing to build a project with less parking, she said. Banks, however, often want more parking for fear that less could restrict sales or leasing. Brown said the people financing a development usually have more interest in the interiors than the exteriors. The interiors — size, design, utility — are what command the prices and rents that determine profitability.

Exteriors? That’s where neighbors and politicians focus more of their eyes because that’s what they will see everyday. “The developer has to figure out a way to have the inside and the outside come together in something that works for everybody,” Brown said.

 

https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2134/AHURI_Final_Report_No211_Understanding-and-addressing-community-opposition-to-affordable-housing-development.pdf

Understanding and addressing community opposition to affordable housing develop

173 page pdf

 

https://elcr.org/organizing-your-community-to-oppose-a-proposed-development-or-zoning-change/

 

Organizing Your Community to Oppose a Proposed Development or Zoning Change

April 6, 2017, by ELCR

So, you find yourself in opposition to a proposed rezoning or a development project. Now what?

First things first, understand what is being proposed. Learn everything you can about a proposed rezoning or development project.

A key consideration when organizing to oppose a project: the difference between rezoning and by-right development. In many places, a property owner or developer may come forward with a development plan that meets all of the established criteria for development under the current zoning, which is considered a by-right development. In this case, there may not be a means for formal opposition or input into the process. Sometimes, you may only know development is planned in an area because you notice survey stakes on the property or see some trees being cleared. Call your local planning office with the property address and ask what plans have been submitted, if there will be any opportunities for public input, and what the next steps will be. Opposing a by-right development will be more challenging than opposing a rezoning, where there is typically an established, formal process for public input, and you will have to create your own opportunities to make your voice heard.

Activate your network and prepare for public input.

Now that you have determined whether the development is a by-right project or a rezoning, and you know what is being proposed and find yourself opposed to the project, it is time to activate your community network. Contact affected neighborhood groups, property owners associations, interest groups, clubs, and others who have an interest in opposing the rezoning or development project. Use your email and listserv networks, social media, flyers, word of mouth, go door to door, set up a website, host a meeting, and use any other communication tools available to share information. Be sure to include your elected officials in your communications and ask them to attend your meetings.

Once you have determined how and when public input can be offered, nominate one or two spokespersons to speak on behalf of the opposition, ideally someone with experience in real estate or development. If there are no formal community meetings, public hearings, or other organized opportunities to speak out, create your own. Circulate a petition, on line and on paper. Share you message on social media, with local news stations, your local newspapers, and with all of your networks. Email, call, and visit your elected officials. Find out if there is a local talk radio show where you might be able to express your opposition. You might even considered posting signs making your opposition highly visible (checking first to be sure you will not be in violation of the local sign codes!). Find out how to get on the next agenda for your governing board and share your opposition, even if the item is not scheduled for consideration. Whenever your opposition group shows up for public meetings, be sure that everyone wears a shirt of the same color, which will add a visual impact, even if not everyone will be speaking.

Take advantage of your social media tools. You can blog, tweet, post pictures on Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, and the many other social media tools available. Be sure to use appropriate hashtags, which can help generate interest in and attention to your cause.

State the facts.

When you have a chance to be heard, no matter the medium, be sure to include facts. While many people may relate to a nostalgic story or an emotional please, it might not be moving enough to stir a city council into voting down a rezoning request. And if you live in a rapidly developing and changing area, your local elected officials may hear a lot of opposition to every rezoning request that all begins to sound like generalized fear and dislike of change. Do not allow your opposition to come across as NIMBYism. Do not “trash talk” the developer, the project, or your elected officials. These techniques can cause decision makers to turn a deaf ear to your concerns. Instead, focus on the factual impacts that the change would bring to your community. Are there stormwater impacts that would be realized? What about impacts on local school enrollment? Can your fire and police departments provide adequate protection for the proposed development? Is there adequate water and sewer infrastructure available to meet the new demand? Be very careful when talking about traffic and property values as negative impacts of development. While they are common points of opposition, it can be challenging to actually prove negative impacts associated with these topics in particular.

Share these facts at as often as possible: at public meetings, on social media, in an email to your elected officials, in a letter to your local planning staff, and in a letter to the editor.

Prepare to offer alternative actions and ideas.

As you have organized and determined what you do not want to happen, think about what you do want to happen. Where can you find leverage to make other options a reality? Are there policies, long-range or comprehensive plans, or adopted goals for the community that support your goals rather than what has been proposed? Are there special environmental factors to consider? What about historic preservation and cultural resources protection? Are there tax credits or other opportunities to help offset the costs of not developing the land in question? Perhaps you can live with some kind of development, just not to the extent proposed. Find ways to negotiate, offer alternatives, and potentially be a partner, rather than just opposition. If the land up for rezoning is for sale, is your group willing to buy it or find a conservation organization that could buy it? Be willing to come up with solid alternatives that bring a winning outcome to all parties.

Pay attention until the decision is finalized.

Be prepared for a rezoning request to move quickly through the process, and for a by-right development to move even faster. If there a formal vote required, follow the process through the final vote. While a rezoning might go from start to finish in a matter of weeks, there is also the possibility that it could be drawn out for several months or even a year, so watch closely. Even if the request is withdrawn or voted down, watch for it to reappear. Usually a determined developer will bring a defeated project back around again, sometimes with minor changes or under a different name. Keep your network organized and alert for it to come back.

If you find your community faced with a rezoning or development to which you are opposed, learn all that you can about the project, connect with your network and spread the word, learn how, when, and where to speak up, be prepared to discuss facts and to offer alternatives, and engage with decision makers. Follow through until you are sure the issue is settled. And even then, watch for it to come back.

 

https://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/overcoming-zoning-opposition/

Overcoming Zoning Opposition

Bargaining Tactics Help Developers Get the Green Light for Their Rezoning Proposals.

By Nancy Bowen Wiggins, CCIM, CIPS |

Many commercial real estate professionals feel challenged when facing local administrators, politicians, and citizens groups to obtain rezoning approval for new development. Even though the rezoning process can be as simple as presenting the proper information to the planning commission staff or zoning administrator, the potential for conflict is evident. Commercial real estate professionals can benefit from using local knowledge and political savvy to gain a commission’s support and avoid the pitfalls that often thwart rezoning proposals.

A fundamental understanding of the rezoning process is essential for commercial real estate professionals to advise their clients on the best course of action.

From gathering background materials to garnering local support to presenting a proposal at a public hearing, many steps must be taken. In addition, each commercial property type has certain nuances that must be considered to better negotiate with planning commissions.

Beginning the Process Several investigative steps must be taken before beginning the rezoning process. The first step is to review the deed for restrictions. Only a court of law can change these restrictions, so they are a waste of time in the zoning arena.

The second objective is to obtain the seller’s full support. The seller has the most to lose if the proposal is not approved, because the property may not be rezoned for a substantial period. Some local planning ordinances restrict buyers from petitioning for a higher zoning classification if a current petition is defeated. Also, if a contract falls through after the proposal is approved, the seller will be stuck with the new zoning parameters.

The next strategy is to collect all up-to-date ordinances to select the appropriate and least-controversial zoning category. In some cases, it may be better to request a similar zoning with restrictions on all aspects of the code to the current zoned standards except for the buyer’s intended use. For example, a buyer wanted a higher density multifamily development than was allowed under current zoning, office 1. The easiest course of action without detrimental results to the seller was to request an up-zoning to office 2, since that classification included the desired multifamily density. The seller requested that all other categories maintain the rights for office 1. This method saves the seller’s higher-yield zoning for resale if the contract falls through.

If the property’s proposed use does not conform to the local plan, the best strategy is to request a plan amendment to the district plan prior to or simultaneously with the rezoning request. A plan amendment is a written text that changes some of the parameters of the district plan to allow the desired rezoning. This side step saves time and money, because if the plan amendment isn’t granted, the buyer knows the rezoning won’t be approved and can stop the process.

The development budget also is an important factor to consider when determining if rezoning is a viable option. Many times buyers obtain zoning at a steep price only to find that the development is too financially strapped to come to fruition.

Some buyers choose to hire local lobbyists to handle the case; however, if it doesn’t appear to be controversial, a lobbyist is an unnecessary expense. If a lobbyist is necessary, look for a professional planner who has worked with the local planning staff, especially in a managerial capacity. Lawyers who specialize in rezoning also are effective lobbyists. The rate of success with lobbyists usually depends on how much attention they can give the case.

Gathering Support and Materials After concluding that rezoning is a viable option, buyers should develop a plan and gather local support. This can be accomplished with a few simple strategies.

Schedule a Pre-Zoning Conference. To ensure a successful rezoning, schedule a pre-planning conference with the planning commission staff since they will be presenting the petition. Make the presentation brief; listen and negotiate with them on their modification ideas. Their opinions typically reflect the desires of the planning commission — the final approving body.

Meet the Neighbors. Schedule meetings with adjoining property owners, homeowners, and business association groups, as well as neighborhood activists and the district representative. Since these constituents can rouse opposition, it is wise to listen to their suggestions and comments. If possible, obtain letters supporting the rezoning. Testimonials from homeowners or business associations can negate the impact of vocal opponents at the public hearing.

Sometimes adjacent property owners are more likely to support plans if their properties receive residual benefits, such as extended water and sewer taps.

Develop a Detailed Plan. All drawings should be detailed and in color. Land planners create the best renderings. Also, all written materials should be very clear, with diagrams and pictures if necessary to present the case. Bring enough copies for all of the decision makers and staff. Later in the process, remember to make new copies incorporating changes that have been negotiated in the 30-day period between the public hearing and the final vote.

Winning Presentation Strategies Timing is everything when it comes to the public hearing before the planning commission. Figure out when the petition will be considered. If it is near an election, schedule the petition before July or after the election in November. If rescheduling isn’t an option, consider asking for a 60- to 90-day deferral.

The buyer always should attend the hearing to answer questions or quell concerns. Be prepared for a full presentation with pictures and drawings; also be ready for a rebuttal if necessary. If the staff recommends the petition and does a great job of presenting it, the buyer shouldn’t need to make a presentation but should reserve the right for rebuttal time. If the buyer’s presentation is necessary, the time should be split between his brief description of the proposal and the current property owner’s favorable support. Adjacent landowners should be allowed to voice their support as well.

During the 30-day period between the hearing and the vote, the buyer must meet with each voting planning commissioner unless a member specifically requests to be contacted in writing. The most critical vote of support will come from the district representative or an at-large member who lives and works within the area in which the petition is located. His vote always carries weight with other commissioners. Also, meet with the representative right before the vote to gain support or a willingness to compromise.

Nuances of Each Property Type Each property type has particular issues that must be addressed for a successful vote. Knowing what the planning commission will ask for and strategies to win its approval will increase a buyer’s success.

Multifamily Development. Opposition to multifamily development usually includes school overcrowding, crime, traffic, and appearance. For example, if neighbors object to the proposed building heights, remedies include creating buffer areas and incremental heights, such as developments where periphery buildings are two stories and inner buildings are three and four. Usually planners will allow higher density with fewer buffer areas if the proposed community is fenced. Dumpster placement also is very important — keep them away from the neighbors. In addition, attractive landscaping almost always helps win rezoning approval.

In many areas, planners will insist that multifamily developments have multiple entranceways to ensure access for emergency crews. In areas where storm water is a problem, detention ponds are critical and aesthetic placement is encouraged.

Other strategies to help win rezoning approval include making donations to neighborhood improvement projects and specific contributions toward the establishment of a traffic light, if necessary. If an unusable flood area exists, consider giving it to the community greenway system for a tax donation or allow it to be used as a ball field or recreational area.

Retail Development. The current trend in retail development is moving away from large strip centers with neon signs and toward village centers or mixed-use developments. Both of these can be challenging since most retail developers and end users have very specific parking requirements. Retailers’ signage and visibility needs also are difficult to negotiate.

Currently, community planners favor breaking up shopping centers to make room for detention ponds, fountains, and other landscaping elements. Malls also are taking on a softer look with landscaped public space where mass transit hubs can locate. Finally, planners are asking developers to add sidewalks and trees to make malls more pedestrian friendly. Buyers’ willingness to harmonize design with the existing properties and integrate it into the neighborhood is critical.

Traffic always is the No. 1 concern with retail development, so it is important to include deceleration lanes and at least two ingress/egress options. Also, a contribution to a stoplight fund is a good concession.

In some neighborhoods, single-tenant drugstores are perceived to be a dangerous addition because of the presence of drugs on the premises. Providing good security, competitive pricing, and additional jobs in the area are arguments that help win approval. Also, many neighborhood groups strongly oppose food stores that back up to residential areas due to the perception that these stores create rodent problems. Locating food stores as far away from neighborhoods as possible is the best way to overcome this objection.

Offering space for the municipality to locate a police precinct in a large or neighborhood shopping center is the best way to curb crime and vagrancy issues. Storm water drainage and detention ponds in non-arid locales are essential. Ponds must be fenced for security or made into play ponds with shallow water and run-through water fountains.

The planning commission may ask for other concessions, such as restrictions on the types of establishments within the petition. A common restriction is adult entertainment. It may be beneficial to have leases in hand and announce some of the tenants that will occupy the parcel. However, this tactic can be a deal breaker with neighbors and elected officials, so it must be used carefully.

Retail developers can offer many incentives to win approval. Trees, pocket parks, and greenway donations are popular with decision makers. Reduced signage and controlled lighting — which provides safety but is not unattractive and is low enough to not disturb the neighbors — are a must. Community rooms also make neighbors happy.

Office Development. Current planning commission requests for central business district high-rise development include first-floor retail activity, integration with hospitality or entertainment space, and decoration such as sculptures, frescoes, or fountains. A second urban trend is to request façade uses for parking decks. Innovative uses include first-floor retail, entertainment, public-safety offices, transit offices, and branch libraries. Upper-floor façade uses include urban lofts. Suburban offices increasingly are required to become mixed-use properties with day-care centers, retail, and residential units. It is believed that all areas should have 24-hour uses for safety and to minimize traffic congestion.

The major oppositions to office development are traffic and building height. Additionally, opposition occurs when proposals lack other integrated uses such as housing, retail, and public space.

Once height, traffic, and parking have been addressed, the only remaining issues involve security and the structure’s design. In office parks, key safety concerns are multiple access points and connectivity. Police, fire, and medical services require access from several directions to improve response time. Addressing this issue appropriately also will lower insurance rates.

The best tactic concerning design is a beautiful visual rendering — usually an artist’s colored sketch. Virtual tours can be effective, but since audiovisual equipment is unpredictable, an actual sketch is ideal. Design is a critical factor in gaining the planning commission’s approval.

Industrial Development. Buyers wanting to develop industrial properties typically are asked to have park-like designs and restrictive covenants for clean grounds where multiple buildings are planned. Natural buffers often are required to shield the campus from other development, particularly where industrial is integrated with other uses. Since taller industrial buildings are gaining in product share, the most successful petitions include additional land surrounding the building to aesthetically minimize the impact of the increased height. Buildings with multiple fronts are favored for rezonings since the space can be carved up for multiple tenants if a single-tenant user vacates the premises.

Ingress and egress issues are critical because of traffic concerns. Work with both the planners and the traffic engineering departments to resolve these issues. Promising a turning lane into the property will help alleviate concerns about truck traffic.

Environmental impact issues tend to be the main source of concern beyond traffic slowdown. These issues include noise, chemical, and air pollution.

Detention of storm water also must be resolved in areas where runoff is an issue. Provide for additional land for a detention pond or include an underground detention capture reservoir.

While there are many challenges to consider when preparing a rezoning proposal, commercial real estate professionals strategically can advise their clients for a successful outcome. With thorough planning and careful consideration of local policies, obtaining rezoning approval can be an easy part of the development process.

Nancy Bowen Wiggins, CCIM, CIPS

Nancy Bowen Wiggins, CCIM, CIPS, is president of Nancy Wiggins LLC in Charlotte, N.C., and a partner of Buster & Wiggins, International in Myrtle Beach, S.C. She served as a planning commissioner from 1994-1999 for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission. Contact her at (704) 375-4272 or nbwiggins@ccim.net. The Decision Makers Local jurisdictions usually follow one of five basic formulas for hearing and voting on rezoning proposals. Judicial System. The judicial system requires a petitioner to submit the rezoning consideration to the planning commission and local elected officials or commission sitting in session. In this format, all discussion is presented in writing, unless parties are asked to provide sworn testimony before the body. Legislative Process. In the legislative procedure, locally elected officials make the final vote, usually after a public hearing. An elected or appointed planning commission completes the entire process. Administrative Method. In the administrative system, the staff personnel or planning/zoning administrator has the decision-making authority. An appeal of this administrator\’s decision must be handled in court. Hybrid System. Many local jurisdictions utilize a hybrid system in which the final planning, zoning, formulation of codes, rules, procedures, and decisions are made by any or all of the aforementioned bodies. When hybrids are developed, the planning commission or zoning board usually is an important reviewing body whose votes and comments are taken as recommendations by the elected officials prior to their vote. Court Decision. The court system follows the standard procedure of a court case. Expert witnesses, excellent attorneys, and thorough planning can help this process. Some jurisdictions also have a historic district commission that rules on development within designated historic districts or on proposals pertaining to landmark buildings. These commissions sometimes defy building codes and standards for aesthetic reasons. They also can limit building height, signage, and exterior paint color. However, being located in a historic district often adds value to property, even to the point of transforming a run-down neighborhood into highly desirable commercial real estate.

 

 

https://gcastrategies.com/overcoming-nimby-opposition-before-it-stalls-your-project/

NIMBY OPPOSITION CAN STALL YOUR PROJECT

Published: Multi-Housing News Magazine On-Line
December 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.

So no matter how you inform the public about your project, be sure to stress how much you want to hear from neighbors and listen to their 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 is 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 them.

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.

For most people, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and the existing quality of life they currently enjoy is worth a lot more to them than the speculative future benefits you claim your project will bring. That’s why it’s so much easier for opponents to turn out troops to stop your project than it is for you to encourage residents to show up to support your plan—and why it is especially important to make promised benefits as credible as possible.

Developers often use persuasion to convince citizens that the project will not injure their interests. Rational persuasion involves the logical presentation of facts and arguments. Opponents often rely on emotional persuasion such as personal attacks, peer pressure, guilt, and appeals to fear to turn residents against you and your project. Many people, however, respond to peripheral persuasion and use decision-making shortcuts to decide whether they believe and agree with you.

“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.”

The best outreach campaigns are those that effectively and simultaneously use rational, emotional and peripheral persuasion.

NEGOTIATION TACTICS

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 have 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 at Frank@FNstrategy, call us at 415-834-5645 or visit the GCA Strategies Web site at www.GCAstrategies.com.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334718123_Opposition_to_development_or_opposition_to_developers_Experimental_evidence_on_attitudes_toward_new_housing

a long pdf text is down loadable

 

https://www.naiop.org/Research-and-Publications/Magazine/2019/Spring-2019/Development-Ownership/A-Silver-Lining-Playbook-for-Controversial–Development-Projects

A Silver Linings Playbook for Controversial Development Projects

Spring 2019 Issue

• By:
• Patrick Slevin

Public meetings can help inform the community about a development project, and they can also provide an opportunity to build goodwill.
It’s important for developers to really listen to the community when planning a big project. However, that doesn’t mean acquiescing to every request. Getty Images

Turning public conflict into corporate goodwill requires thoughtful strategies and genuine concern for the local community.

Who would want to oppose a new hospital, emergency room or medical complex?

Of all the types of real estate developments, medical facilities would seem to be the least likely to experience public opposition and political crisis. After all, hospitals and free-standing emergency rooms create high-paying jobs, attract physicians and nurses, generate tax revenue and improve the quality of life in the community. Yet some new hospitals and ERs cannot escape the costly process of community opposition.

For the most part, when medical projects experience opposition, it comes from competitors looking to protect their market share. However, there are a significant number of hospital projects strongly opposed by local citizens. It seems there are a growing number of media reports about local “hospital wars” — not just those launched by competitors, but also those brought on by local citizens. The latter often claim new hospitals increase traffic, depreciate property values, create water runoff, and even elevate noise pollution with helicopters transporting patients for emergency treatment.

A recent Google search of the terms “Hospital” and “Opposition” produced more than 69 million links, many of them media accounts of communities attempting to stop hospital developments. The stories reveal patterns of crisis, not just in the health care development industry, but across every area of land use development. As the recent example of Amazon abandoning its headquarters in New York City in the face of huge opposition shows, being aware of this fact and knowing how it manifests is key to successfully generating corporate goodwill for projects facing more public scrutiny than usual.

Why Do People Oppose Development?

Benjamin Franklin coined the term about death and taxes being the only certainties in life. He neglected to add a third certainty, and that’s change. As a constant force, change is often wrapped in uncertainty, which leads to emotionally charged anxieties. These anxieties can fuel the fear of change.

Developers introducing new land-use projects can unknowingly trigger a fear in people to maintain the status quo. “The devil you know” mindset can appear more desirable than embracing change. Moreover, when change is perceived as a loss equal to or greater than any proposed gain, citizens fall into a state of “loss aversion” that instigates and sustains community resistance.

In a 2018 Psychology Today article, Shahram Heshmat of the University of Illinois at Springfield noted that “loss aversion is an important aspect of everyday economic life. The idea suggests that people tend to stick with what they have unless there is a good reason to switch. The loss aversion is a reflection of a general bias in human psychology (status quo bias) that makes people resistant to change. So when we think about change, we focus more on what we might lose rather than on what we might get.”

When it comes to turning public conflict into corporate goodwill, it’s important to know what motivates a community. In the case of controversial developments, understanding why people oppose projects and how they effectively defeat them is part of breaking the pattern of crisis.

It’s important to note that not all opposition is unjustified or fueled purely by anti-development sentiments. A 2004 study from the NAIOP Research Foundation entitled “This Land is My Land … But It Could Be Our Land: Developing Influencer Relationships to Accelerate Development Success,” which was based on interviews with real estate developers and influencers from outside the commercial real estate industry, found that “diminishing open space is alarming people into action, as is the perceived poor track record of community planning and zoning in many areas.” Additionally, the study noted that many groups “don’t trust government agencies or planning boards to make what they feel are the right decisions for their communities.”

In the context of land development and loss aversion, people can visualize and physically experience the pain of losing what they have more than they can see the benefits gained from a new hospital or medical practice. So when a few activists begin to speak out against a project via the digital grapevine, it can stoke the fears of residents. When enough citizens fear change, the press and elected officials begin taking notice, and projects find themselves in the crosshairs of public conflict.

Therefore, when something as logical as a new hospital offers the promise of good jobs, better quality of life and other improvements, the project can still be exposed to the risk of demonization by emotional fears of loss. Confrontation then becomes almost inevitable.

Dealing With Conflict

When it came to battle, Napoleon famously said that he preferred engaging the same adversary over and over, because he would become familiar with their tactics and use that knowledge against them. In the case of real estate development, those who are opposed to a project can have the upper hand, much like Napoleon, in exploiting developers’ rigid, often predictable business practices.

On the internet, it’s easy to find “how-to” advice for defeating developers. For example, a search for “how to defeat developers” turns up a June 2017 news story from the Charlotte Observer entitled “Neighborhood Organizers Offer Tips for Fighting Development: 5 Tips from Pros in the Trenches.” (Sample quote: “City Council doesn’t like (people) to show up to an ugly zoning meeting with a lot of ‘no’ signs.”) An internet search for “how to oppose development” brings up 67 million hits. These links offer tactics for concerned audiences facing change and fear.

Historically, developers have often been defined by community activists (and a frequently willing news media) as Goliath poised to be slain by David at City Hall. Even when developers have successfully fought for their projects and won the license to operate, their reputations are often left bloodied and bruised.

“I find there is a tendency for anti-developer leaders in the community to speak louder, more often, and with cooler heads than developers,” said a professor who took part in NAIOP’s “This Land is My Land … But It Could Be Our Land” study. “The anti-development caucus in the community may represent a minority, but they can dominate the debate.”

In the digital age, opponents have even more avenues to attack future investments, so while one development battle can be won, the war for future approvals can still be lost.

Development opposition frequently relies on confrontation. It’s no coincidence that the David vs. Goliath story template is replayed in thousands of media reports every year. Oppositional groups cannot exist without the confrontation and conflict that stokes political crisis. Therefore, an applicant operating under an “us vs. them” attitude unknowingly plays into the hands of those who wish to stoke conflict.

To turn public conflict into corporate goodwill, land-use professionals must resist the tendency to put themselves in a combative public posture with the opposition. This approach is counterintuitive for many in the industry, but exhibiting non-confrontational actions will effectively take the wind out of the sails of the opposition. While it can be useful for developers to host informational sessions with the community before any formal votes on a project, it’s important that they gain awareness about the notice-and-hearing process.

How the Notice-and-Hearing Process Works

The key to turning public conflict into corporate goodwill begins with developers realizing that the opposition doesn’t exist without public anxieties to sustain them. In order to propagate public conflict and fears, some of those who are opposed to a project take advantage of the notice-and-hearing system and its flaws.

The notice-and-hearings process is not always handled in a logical and orderly manner. While most approvals run smoothly, if a real estate project becomes controversial, the process can become politically and emotionally chaotic.

One of the main reasons for the notice-and-hearing system is to facilitate public participation and education. In many cases, it does the exact opposite. The notice-and-hearing process can spark rumors and create perceptions of favoritism to deep-pocketed developers. That, in turn, can empower opponents who are highly adept at exploiting the proceedings.

While most citizens who attend public hearings are airing legitimate concerns in good faith, some opponents hijack the notice-and-hearing process to antagonize public officials and put them under political pressure and duress. It doesn’t help if it’s an election year.

There’s No Crisis If There’s No Conflict

Land-use professionals have often been given poor advice when it comes to dealing with their opposition. This includes traditional political campaign tactics that are predicated on the polarization and wedging of audiences. Operatives predictably proffer grassroots, direct mail, paid media, PR campaigns and coalition endeavors. These engagements might be necessary or useful, but frequently applicants are left to engage the community in a patchwork effort that unknowingly contributes to conflict. In other words, they are involuntarily working against themselves.

While it’s often helpful for developers to host informational meetings before launching a project, the dynamic can change when the opposition creates a confrontational situation. Elected officials frequently get spooked and pressure applicants to host a town hall meeting. Confrontations during town hall meetings can embolden the pattern of crisis. That needs to change, but how?

What Not to Do

The first rule in crisis management is not to make a bad situation worse. So a developer should do the unexpected: Resist the urge to accommodate elected officials worried about re-election and don’t embolden the media, which too often thrives on conflict. Take a deep breath and step back from potential confrontational situations. Doing this can give a developer time to regroup and determine next steps without exhibiting a defensive public posture.

After the initial news cycle or two, the intensity of the attacks will often decrease. Not participating in the confrontation helps the crisis begin to die down.

When it comes to highly contentious projects, don’t engage the opposition in a public forum — at least while the crisis is still fresh in the minds of stakeholders. In many of these tense situations, town hall-type meetings can turn into circuses where opponents disrupt the proceedings and generate more negative publicity.

Don’t appear to be strong-arming or insulting the elected officials’ constituents. Make sure quotes and comments are constructive, sensitive and optimistic about the project. Staying above the fray as much as possible cultivates corporate and community goodwill.

Don’t fall for the allure of making too many concessions as a means of climbing out of the crisis. In many cases, the more concessions offered, the more concessions the opposition will demand.

Don’t have a bunker mentality during the crisis. Most developers either stick their necks out to overaccommodate the opposition or they go to the other extreme by keeping a very low profile. When developers keep too low of a profile, it alienates community leaders and influencers who remain supportive of the project. This is very important, because these are the people who have the ears of the elected officials. Developers should keep them informed and empowered, even when it gets ugly.

A Few Things to Do

Do engage media, but don’t do it alone. It’s one thing when the developer presents the facts about the project, but it’s another when community leaders advocate for it. In a crisis, it’s not what is said, but who says it, so enhance the credibility of the project with third-party influencers from the community who support the developer’s goals.

To cultivate influencers, do have one-on-one meetings with them in the community before and during the crisis. These influencers can be current or past leaders of business, civic and residential organizations.

Do speak before membership groups. Reach out to realtor boards, homebuilder groups and other membership-driven organizations. They can provide valuable feedback and help craft strategies.

Do increase the visibility of the project by establishing a dedicated website and using social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. Social media presence encourages transparency and participation while dispelling negative perceptions about the project.

Do transform the rational arguments for approving the project into an emotionally appealing, humanized narrative. It’s easier for elected officials to reject sustainable real estate projects that seem to only benefit the developers, but it’s harder for them to reject the project knowing citizens will be adversely affected.

Fostering Goodwill

In today’s digital age, anti-development groups can quickly set in motion a pattern of crisis that delays, disrupts and potentially defeats any development, leading to significant losses of investment capital, shareholder value and revenue. However, it’s possible for land-use professionals to cultivate corporate goodwill for their projects confidently. As this happens, the crisis is not only diffused, but arbitrary attacks are marginalized.

Developers no longer have to fight their way out of a crisis. Now, land use professionals can immediately begin breaking down the patterns of crisis using a thoughtful and non-combative posture that will foster enduring goodwill for their companies, their clients and their communities.

Get the Report

To download a copy of the NAIOP Research Foundation’s report “This Land is My Land… But It Could Be Our Land: Developing Influencer Relationships to Accelerate Development Success,” follow this link: www.naiop.org/19influencer

 

 

 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-can-i-stop-the-city-from-rezoning-my-neighborhood.html

How Can I Stop the City From Rezoning My Neighborhood?

Dealing with a developer that has applied to rezone a neighborhood from low density residential to high density residential.

By Will Van Vactor

Need Professional Help? Talk to a Real Estate Attorney.

Please answer a few questions to help us match you with attorneys in your area.

Top of Form

Please select area of real estate

Select an answer Condos and Coops Construction Disputes Purchase/Sale Contract Refinancing Agreement Zoning, Planning and Land Use Property Deeds and Transfers Liens Other

Bottom of Form

Let’s say you are living in a pleasant, low density residential neighborhood, but a notice arrives one day from your city: A developer has applied to rezone your neighborhood to high density residential. Perhaps the developer wants to put a large apartment complex a few blocks away. Inevitably, you will be concerned the rezone will change the character of the neighborhood, possibly leading to more people, traffic, safety issues, and noise, as well as a reduction in property values .

Related Products

Neighbor Law

Deal with common neighbor disputes, including…

 

 

Nolo’s Essential Guide to Buying Your First Home

Buy your first home at the right price with t…

 

 

Selling Your House

Sell your home for the best price in any mark…

 

View More

Read Any Directions on How to Object to the City’s Rezoning Plans

As an initial step, you will want to make note of any procedural requirements the city laid out for registering your opinion or objection. Depending on the rules where you live, you might receive written notice including information about the proposed zone change, as well as applicable deadlines and upcoming hearings.

While this initial notice is helpful, you should confirm for yourself any procedural requirements that might apply, by reviewing the applicable zoning ordinance (sometimes called a “development code”). If the ordinance is unclear, promptly contact a land use attorney to help make sure you do not miss deadlines or important hearings. If you do, you may lose your right to appeal.

Being familiar with the procedural requirements will also help you make sure the city and developer follow the rules.

Learn the Possible Grounds for Objecting to a Rezoning

In addition to the procedural requirements, the zoning ordinance will describe the substantive standards that apply to the rezone application. For example, the zoning ordinance might require the applicant to show:

• That the zone change is consistent with any applicable comprehensive plan for the area. A comprehensive plan is a general plan that directs the future use and development of land. A “comp plan” might state, for example, that a certain area should be preserved as low density residential. A zone change seeking high density might be inconsistent with that statement in the comprehensive plan. If a proposed zone change is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, the application should be denied. Sometimes, if a proposed zone change is inconsistent with the plan, the applicant will simultaneously seek a plan amendment that allows the zone change to be consistent with the amended comprehensive plan. If so, you will also want to become familiar with the standards that apply to a comprehensive plan amendment.
• That there is a need for the zone change. Sometimes this standard will require that the proponent of the change show that there’s been a change in circumstances or that a mistake was made when the property was originally zoned. As an example, if there was no mistake made when the neighborhood was originally zoned, and there is sufficient land elsewhere for high density residential use, the fact the applicant wants to develop a specific piece of property might not be enough to justify a zone change, since there is no need to rezone the neighborhood.
• That the zone change will be consistent with surrounding uses. This could require the applicant to show the zone change will not result in property values going down, or interfere with existing development. For example, rezoning a neighborhood from low density residential to heavy industrial, when the neighborhood is surrounded by other residential uses, is likely to be found inconsistent with surrounding uses.
• That the zone change is consistent with the orderly development of public services. A zone change might not be appropriate in an area with no public services, especially if another part of town already has the services and can support the same type of development the proposed zone change will allow. Such a requirement might also require the applicant to show that the zone change will not significantly impact traffic.

By becoming familiar with the approval criteria, you will be in a better position to identify any weaknesses in the application and to argue that the applicant cannot demonstrate compliance with some or all of the approval criteria.

Featured Real Estate Law Firms in Irwin, PA Change Location

Steven L. Sugarman & Associates

• • 4.6/5.0
  • no client reviews
  •  View Phone #
  • Contact

DeBernardo, Antoniono, McCabe & Davis, P.C.

• • 4.5/5.0
  • 91%
  •  724-858-4034
  • Contact

Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLC

• • 4.8/5.0
  • 73%
  •  412-253-4026
  • Contact

Contact All

VIEW ALL

Look Into Applicable State and Federal Laws

In addition to the approval criteria found in the zoning ordinance, there might be state and federal laws that apply to this type or area of land. A land use attorney can help you identify all applicable laws and regulations that must be complied with by the applicant.

Preparing to Attend a Public Hearing on the Land Use or Zoning Decision

In addition to becoming familiar with both the procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the zone change request, you will also want to put together a strong showing in opposition to the proposal. To do this, some people host neighborhood meetings to see how others in the area feel about the proposal. Putting together a vocal group in opposition can influence decision makers.

The decision maker is usually a hearings officer, planning commission, city council, county board. Since land use decisions like zone changes are political in nature, a well-organized, vocal group in opposition to a proposal can influence decision makers who might be concerned about the next election.

All those opposing the zone change should plan to speak out against it at the scheduled public hearing. In fact, to preserve your right to appeal, you will likely need to participate in the hearing. In some cases, you might be able to “make an appearance” by submitting written testimony, but you should confirm whether you can do that with a local land use attorney.

Consider Filing a Petition Opposing the Land Use

Sometimes a petition put together by opponents to a land use proposal can be helpful. A petition is most effective if it clearly states what the signatories are opposing and why. However, a petition will most likely not be sufficient to preserve anyone’s right to appeal, should the zone change be approved.

If the Developer Seeks a Variance

It might also be possible for the developer to seek a “variance” to the zoning ordinance that allows the use (i.e. the apartment complex) despite the uses permitted under current zoning. Variances can be difficult to obtain, so perhaps the developer believes the zone change is the best way to proceed. However, if you are more concerned about the zone change than a single apartment complex, it could be possible to negotiate a solution that allows the apartment complex through a variance, but avoids a complete rezone of the neighborhood.

Zone changes can be complicated applications. Opposing the application can also be complicated, so it is important to be familiar with the procedural and substantive requirements. A land use attorney familiar with the standards that the city or county will apply is a valuable resource in these cases.

 

 

https://www.citizenshandbook.org/gcastrategies/article_co_1.html

Overcoming Community Opposition Debra Stein The room is packed with shouting, placard-waving opponents. The public record is crammed with postcards, petitions, and protests against your project. Public officials seem reluctant to establish eye contact with you, and continue to make vague suggestions that you need to “do something” about community opposition. So what do you do? Opposition or Support? Any time you face community resistance to your project, the first question to ask yourself is, “Does it really matter?” In other words, do you need to minimize neighborhood opposition, or do you simply need to mobilize support?” Often, it’s enough just to keep a cap on the opposition; at other times, you need overt evidence of community support either to sway key votes or to build the public record that justifies project approval. The distinction is critical. Your potential supporters are a totally different audience from your opponents. Your supporters won’t be moved by the same messages that influence your detractors. Rather than waste your resources with an overly expansive community outreach program, you need to diagnose your primary community relations needs at the outset of the project development process. Four Causes of Opposition Let’s assume that you need to reduce the level of community opposition to your project. Before running out to meet with any neighbor you can find and before disgorging a steady stream of newsletters, fact sheets, and brochures, you need to ask yourself, “Why are people opposed to this plan?” Given that many outreach tactics can actually generate greater community opposition than might already exist, you want your community relations program to 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. Misinformation A tremendous amount of opposition to land use projects is based on misperceptions or exaggerated fears of project impacts. “Whaddaya mean that you’re only building 50 luxury homes? I heard you were building 500 low-income apartment units!” “I thought the building was going to block my view.” “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 the easiest type of resistance to overcome. Developers generally rely on unilateral communications (newsletters, fact sheets) or bilateral communications (one-on-one briefings) to educate people about their projects. Even though public agencies often insist on large community meetings or other multiparty forums, such gatherings are rarely effective informational events. Usually, a project raises more issues than can be adequately discussed at a large meeting. Further, many people are embarrassed to admit in front of others that they don’t understand your proposal, while people with language difficulties may be especially reluctant to speak up in front of a large crowd. Community meetings often do little more than introduce potential opponents to each other, allow them to hear and adopt each others’ agendas, and permit activists to stake out public positions in front of their constituents. It is important to note that if opposition isn’t caused by a lack of information, then disgorging endless data will simply stir up people who were otherwise disinterested. Distribution of information can alert audience members to issues they would never have considered without the prompting of printed material. Moreover, public information is inherently condescending. Offering to “tell neighbors about the project” starts from the presumption that you and you alone are entitled to make decisions that affect the community. It also suggests that you typically inform neighbors only after you’ve made all the necessary unilateral decisions. Unmet Emotional Needs Opposition to your project may have nothing to do with the project itself. People get involved in land use debates in order to feel important, to justify their leadership roles to their constituents, and to save face after being treated disrespectfully. When citizens feel that they aren’t going to “win” many substantive points about your proposal, they may try to make the facts irrelevant by shifting the debate away from a rational consideration of your plan to an emotional confrontation. Emotional attacks are often an effective way for citizens to even the playing field and feel like a pivotal part of the decision-making process. Meeting your opponents’ emotional needs is usually the least expensive way to reduce opposition to your project. You may need to allow neighbors to vent their anger toward you, you may need to apologize, you may even need to overcome your own anger and resentment and show neighbors the consideration they feel they deserve…but you generally don’t have to make costly concessions to overcome opposition based on unmet emotional needs. 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 absolutely critical that you recognize when you are dealing with ethical extremists. After all, you can’t negotiate values. Environmental extremists will never concede in good faith that the destruction of five acres of wetlands is acceptable but the destruction of six acres is not. 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, focus on mutual interests and problems rather than on conflicting values can lead the way to resolution. Conflicts of Interests 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 supporters will endorse your proposal when it serves their positive interests. By comparison, neighbors have a negative interest in losing benefits they presently claim to possess. Most citizens live in the community because they like it. They are not looking for more traffic, fewer deer, crowded schools, or other changes to the status quo. Not surprisingly, the loss of an existing benefit is considered to be significantly more important than the equivalent gain of a new benefit. That is why it is so much easier for opponents to turn out troops to stop your project than it is for you to encourage residents to show up to support your plan. Persuasion: Developers often use persuasion to convince citizens that the project will not injure their interests. Rational persuasion involves the logical presentation of facts and arguments. Opponents rely heavily on emotional persuasion using personal attacks, peer pressure, guilt, and appeals to fear to turn residents against you and your project. Many people, however, respond to peripheral persuasion and use cultural rules-of-thumb and decision-making shortcuts to decide whether they believe and agree with you. “Everybody hates this so it must be a bad project.” “She rattled off a lot of statistics, so she must be telling the truth.” “All lawyers lie.” Negotiations: Public agencies often urge project sponsors to 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. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the four major types of bargaining. * If you are debating about a single issue that can be easily divided (such as height or the number of units), then you can reach a middle-ground compromise on that one issue. * If many issues are in dispute, then you will probably want to exchange concessions by giving up something you don’t care too much about so that you can gain a concession that means a lot to you. * If the total pool of potential resources just seems too small to satisfy everyone, then you can expand the pie by going to the city or other parties outside the debate and asking them to cough up goodies to make the neighbors happy. * Opponents often believe that they should have decision-making powers equal to the developer and that joint problem solving is appropriate. With joint problem solving, however, no development occurs at all unless both the owner and the neighbors are equally satisfied. Coercion: Angry neighbors often rely on coercion to win land use battles. Normally, coercive behavior such as lies, threats, and bad faith negotiation are subject to strong social disapproval. If, however, your opponents have succeeded in characterizing you as a morally bad person, then their coercive conduct becomes morally justified to counteract your “unethical,” more powerful position. 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. You can’t negotiate a conflict of values. 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 is the author of Winning Community Support for Land Use Projects and Making Community Meetings Work, both published by the Urban Land Institute. She is the president of GCA Strategies, a San Francisco-based community relations firm specializing in controversial land use projects.

https://www.useful-community-development.org/re-zoning-opposition.html

How to Organize Re-Zoning Opposition

Last Updated: August 7, 2020

This crash course in re-zoning opposition will educate you about the knowledge and attitudes that will increase your odds of success if an unwanted zoning change is proposed in your neighborhood. Incidentally, professionals would write that as rezoning, but we noticed that many readers don’t do the same.

Become Informed About Land Uses Permitted Under Zoning

Neighbors have to consider the worst possible case, in terms of the land uses permitted under the proposed change. Someone in the neighborhood needs to get on-line to read the zoning ordinance.

Many zoning code regulations are not models of clarity. If you need help understanding what you have read, you will need to ask the city employee in charge of administering the ordinance. Zoning ordinances almost always have a definitions section, though, so if you have questions about a term, check there before you pester the employee.

If the ordinance is not on-line, someone needs to go to city hall or at the very least, talk to a trusted city employee by phone and ask for the entire text pertaining to the proposed zoning classification to be e-mailed out or read aloud. We describe this step first because occasionally when you find out the facts, you will see that you are not opposed to the change at all.

 

Understand The Process To Be More Effective

You and your neighbors will need to understand the process by which zoning is changed if you are going to mount an effective re-zoning opposition. State law sets minimum requirements for public hearings, who must be notified in advance of these hearings, and how the notification process is to be carried out. Usually a city, town, or county holds two public hearings, one each before the plan commission and the city or county council. A tape recording or transcription usually will be made.

In many places, the property owner can initiate the rezoning proposal, which also might be called a zoning amendment, change, or petition, just because he or she wants to.

The owners may not be required to tell the local government or the public what the plans for the property are, even though that is the first thing that you as a neighbor want to know. Further, if they tell you, usually there is no penalty for lying or changing their mind.

Public hearings are becoming a little more formal all the time, partly because lawsuits are more common than in the past. This means that your re-zoning opposition group should not lie, make outrageous statements, threaten public officials, or speak so angrily that they will be embarrassed later if the recording ever comes to light.

As we said, that first public meeting about the request for a different zoning classification typically happens at a body of appointed, unpaid citizens that may be called a planning commission, zoning commission, zoning board, or plan commission. You and your neighbors need to plan to show up in person to express your re-zoning opposition.

Sometimes a staff member may say that not everyone has to come to the meeting. They might do this just to make the commission members feel less uncomfortable.  But don’t trust his particular advice for a minute.  Numbers of bodies in the seats do count..

Almost everywhere in the U.S., the zoning board does not make the final decision on a proposed rezoning.  Ask city or county staff if this is the case in your location. While you are asking questions, find out if the city or county council listens to the planning commission almost all of the time. If so, devote considerable effort to preparing for this first hearing, and make sure you have as many people from your neighborhood attending as possible. Be aware that the plan commissions is not as political as the City Council but re-zoning opposition still counts.

The zoning board can take more than one meeting if they like before they pass their recommendation on to the county commission, board of selectmen, or whatever your elected body is called.  When you get to the City Council level, it is extremely important to impress that group with your unity in opposing this rezoning.

Again, the City Council is not required by any law to vote on the same day or evening as the public hearing is held. In fact in some states that cannot occur because several “readings” of the ordinance that would provide for the rezoning have to spread over more than one meeting. But eventually there will be a vote. You need to get ready.

Prepare For The Zoning Public Hearing

If your neighborhood is small enough that you can canvass everyone and tell them about your re-zoning opposition and discuss the negative effects of the proposal with them, that will be great. Of course if you live in an area where one or more neighborhood associations or block units are active, they will be your best allies in organizing resistance to the proposal.

If you have time and energy for a meeting among yourselves, that is ideal. Getting together beforehand makes people more interested in and excited about the issue at hand than simply talking with them one-on-one. You need your group feeling highly motivated.

Only a motivated group will stay together long enough to overcome any feelings of discouragement if the professional advice is against your position and if the planning commission recommendation is contrary to your wishes.

Watch For Changes As The Process Moves Along

Sometimes after the planning commission meeting, or even before it, the developer or other person seeking a re-zoning will contact your group to try to discuss the matter and reach agreement, or to “buy you off” by giving you something you want.

The proposal to change zoning may be altered substantially as it moves through the public hearing process, and this is perfectly legal in most cities. This is especially likely if the proposal is complex or if the planning commission recommends favorably only if modifications are made.

Watch for this possibility. Do not allow the core members of your re-zoning opposition group to appear uninformed about the current nature of the proposal or the schedule for the process; this makes it easier for decision makers to discount their input.

Organize To Oppose A Land Use Decision

Prepare for the fastest possible timetable. Even though a proposal may appear quite controversial to you, it may seem routine to the decision makers, and they may not want to hold back on making a decision while you do your organizing work. In most jurisdictions, it is theoretically possible to complete a re-zoning in six to eight weeks.

That does not give you a lot of time, so concentrate on understanding the facts about your re-zoning opposition and the process you face as rapidly as possible.

Quickly identify one or two leaders from among your group, preferably people who are well respected in the community and/or well versed in real estate development matters. Designate these people as the chief spokespeople. Using popular people in the community as spokespersons will assure that your cause is taken seriously and can really carry some weight with planning commissions and city councils.

Prepare everyone who will attend from your neighborhood to be smart about what is possible if the re-zoning is granted. Educate them about the re-zoning opposition process, and prepare them emotionally for the likely amount of time it will require of them. And the length of the whole process.

You do not want to “peak too soon,” so that your group is tired of going to meetings just as you approach the final meeting, which is the most important one for decision making.

If you know or can learn any zoning principles, by all means take every opportunity to show off your sophistication. Some commissions and councils are a little intimidated when citizens actually know what they are talking about.

So dig into the zoning principles taught on this site. Look for the potential to call the re-zoning a spot zoning, one of the worst things a city can do in terms of legal defense.

Spot zoning is when comparable properties nearby are zoned differently, but the applicants are receiving a favorable zoning classification because they asked, or because they are being favored.

For example, look around to see if every other lot on a residential street is zoned residential, but for no good reason, someone is asking to have one of the lots zoned commercial. This would be a stereotype version of spot zoning.

On any commission or board, someone will have heard of spot zoning and know it’s bad, so be sure to point it out early and often if this argument will bolster your re-zoning opposition.

Be Aware That Unpredictable City Council Actions Could Defeat Your Re-Zoning Opposition Campaign

Even if you attend City Council, show up in good numbers, and go away feeling as though you surely will win, be sure to turn out an equal number of people at the next meeting if no final vote occurred.

Sometimes a cowardly City Council will decide to postpone their vote, hoping that the people will forget to come to the next meeting and they can vote then with less public scrutiny. Keep going to meetings until the decision is final. At other times the motivation for postponing the vote is better, but if your neighborhood does not attend the second meeting, the council may sense that folks really do not care.

Even if the proposal is voted down, watch for the developer or other proponent of the re-zoning to resurface. Be sure you keep names, addresses, phone numbers, or e-mail addresses you may have accumulated during the re-zoning opposition campaign. Often developers are not deterred by the first loss.

Sometimes a re-zoning proposal will recur with only slightly different facts, and you want your second round of community organizing to be easier than the first.