17 February 2008
Developers perform a valuable service; communities would not exist without them. Because developers take a risk in building, they receive profit as a reward. Once the communities come into being, people move in and develop feelings about the values associated with living there. Occasionally, the two groups, developers and community residents, find themselves in conflict over the nature of ongoing development. Add to this mixture a labyrinthine planning process, the politics of city building, and the politicians who are elected to represent community interests, and there is a potential stew of conflicting interests.
Unfortunately, this has all come to be lumped under the rubric of NIMBY (not in my backyard) or its radical sibling NOPE (not on planet Earth). Many years of studying publics protesting against what happens in their backyards has convinced me that those acronyms do not do justice to the complexity of these local conflicts. To characterize it as neighbours exercising a veto to stymie developers, or developers ramming unwanted uses into communities, suggests only part of the nuanced and important relationships that exist among cities composed of distinct communities.
There are a few options for dealing with disagreements over development. One way is through the halls of power, where developers and communities square off against each other in the planning approval process, in the hopes that there will be a clear victor and the other side will be defeated. This goes all through the appeal process until someone just has to live with whatever results. This route is fraught with the kind of stereotyping associated with labels like NIMBY. In this construction of the issue, the developers can express their frustration at being misunderstood, the residents can convey their outrage at the unwanted building being imposed, and each side can attempt to exert influence over the decision-makers, who wring their hands over planning policies that all sides accuse the others of not respecting. It is a common scenario. The mutual anguish, delay, expense, and rancor fractures any goodwill that might once of existed.
Conflict managers know that once the rhetoric heats up, listening and problem solving skills are proportionately reduced. Small wonder that everyone gets frustrated and anguished; they hear only some of what the other is saying, and interpret it as proof of bad intensions. No development has only one way of being approved. Plans can be modified, buildings can be adapted to landscapes, neighbourhoods can be successfully intensified, routes can be realigned, and approvals can be subject to conditions. When developers present a plan without input from neighbours, and insist that no changes are possible, they understand that the neighbours get upset. If any of us recall the last time someone imposed his or her will upon us, likely we reacted to the use of force against our will. That is the definition of conflict: intentional action to carry out a party or parties’ will over the objection of the other party or parties.
The good news is that developers everywhere have matured beyond falling into some of the mistakes that created the conditions for that scenario to play out. City planners and policymakers are encouraging community wide dialogues that are interest based win/win, rather than forcing win/lose outcomes. Once the level of rhetoric can be reduced, people can listen to each other, and share their interests as well as their positions.
0 Responses to “Consult Thy Neighbours”