Not In My Backyard Attitude Interferes with Resolutions
Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) conflicts have many characteristics that make successful resolutions difficult to achieve. A typical NIMBY conflict, such as a proposal for a landfill site in a vacant lot behind a low-income housing district, often carries with it controversial problems of environmental justice, distributional equity, and procedural justice. The public affected by the Locally Unwanted Land Use (LULU) raises questions such as ãwhy me?ä and ãyou're targeting me just because I'm a minority.ä Some people find out they are affected by a LULU after it is approved, and claim that they had no notification about the proposed project.
Another type of problem with land use conflict centers on the local groups opposed to the project. These people, or NIMBYs, are generally underfunded, highly stressed, inexperienced in negotiation, and lacking political power. They want to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process about their LULU, but many find it difficult to obtain anything but an adversarial position in the process. Power, status, and wealth are the key attributes to gaining attention and consideration from the broader community. Unfortunately, most public NIMBYs are minorities, live in rural areas, live in the South, or have middle- to lower-class incomes (Morris, 1994). In their defense, though, NIMBYs can make harmful land uses difficult to site by creating gridlock on current standard operating procedures.
NIMBY groups may break apart in the middle of the negotiating process, often due to internal power struggles. When this happens, the group tends to lose essential credibility, funding, and support from the greater public, which can become co...
... middle of paper ...
...tor, 1992). Perhaps the LULU risk that the public is hearing from the ãexpertsä is in fact inaccurate. As a future recommendation for NIMBY conflicts, both the public and technical community views should be treated as problematic. Also, there should not be such a stereotypical view of leaders of activist groups as being irrational, over-emotional, or ill informed. Finally, NIMBY activists should see themselves as part of the situation that the project will address, instead of focusing on just the narrow issue of opposing the project. They must see the larger picture and be willing to offer and maybe help implement alternatives to the project.
References
Freudenburg, W. R. & Pastor, S.K. 1992. NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the Syndromes. Journal of Social Issues, 48: 39-61.
Morris, J.A. 1994. Not In My Backyard ö The Handbook. San Diego: Silvercat Publications.
Years ago, there was once a small town called Chaves Ravine within Los Angeles, California and this town was a poor rural community that was always full of life. Two hundred families, mostly Chicano families, were living here quite peacefully until the Housing Act of 1949 was passed. The Federal Housing Act of 1949 granted money to cities from the federal government to build public housing projects for the low income. Los Angeles was one of the first cities to receive the funds for project. Unfortunately, Chavez Ravine was one of the sites chosen for the housing project, so, to prepare for the construction work of the low-income apartments, the Housing Authority of Los Angeles had to convince the people of the ravine to leave, or forcibly oust them from their property. Since Chavez Ravine was to be used for public use, the Housing Authority of Los Angeles was able seize and buy Chavez Ravine from the property owners and evict whoever stayed behind with the help of Eminent Domain. The LA Housing Authority had told the inhabitants that low-income housing was to be built on the land, but, because of a sequence of events, the public housing project was never built there and instead Dodgers Stadium was built on Chavez Ravine. Although Chavez Ravine public housing project was the result of the goodwill and intent of the government, rather than helping the people Chavez Ravine with their promise of low-income housing, the project ended up destroying many of their lives because of those in opposition of the public housing project and government mismanagement.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New
Many situations present the important synchronization of internal versus external negotiations. Many individuals have studied how each side in the negotiation is able to manage the internal opposition to agreements being negotiated. This can also be known as “on the table”, or what exactly is on the line in a heated argument. Each individual involve in an argument has a particular position to be managed, and often times own personal interests are widely expressed. This paper will expand upon the case of Fischer collecting needed funds from Smith with proposals and ideas for a manageable negotiation.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN-13: 9780073530369
Black’s theories on law, specifically “Socio Economic Status” and “Organization” and its bearing on the application of law, will be used to analyze the MOVE II incident. MOVE had established a compound for their members in the Powelton neighborhood of the City of Philadelphia. The organization wanted animals freed and treated as equals to humans. They protested animal treatment, spewing their mantra at community events (McCoy). These protests were part of their naturalist movement, which is how they lived their lives.
Despite attempting to predict the eventual outcome of the negotiation, I did not anticipate the confrontations between Local H-56 and the management of Hotel Zinnia. Although they initially agreed to engage in integrative bargaining, the union and management subsequently entered an intense negotiation. When Local H-56 presented its proposal of wage increases and health insurance, management immediately responded with a counterproposal that surprised the union. Both the union and management eventually behaved confrontationally, accusing each other of bargaining unreasonably and focusing on the trivial aspects of the negotiation. Moreover, as the union and management felt increasingly frustrated, they suffered from a lack of unity in their teams. The union could not fulfill its objectives because its lead negotiator prevented other team members from contributing to the negotiation. On the other hand, several team members of management struggled to assert their authority as the lead negotiator. After observing these issues, I ultimately believe that the union and management failed to achieve their individual objectives. Moreover, by approaching the negotiation with a zero-sum strategy, I assert that the union and management failed to reach a mutually beneficial contract. At the same time, both sides of the bargaining table lacked cohesive teams and therefore struggled under the pressure of the negotiation.
Writing has been part of my life ever since I learned how to spell my first words. As I use the writing process I had to evolve and learn grammar, orthodoxy, and punctuation. I learned all this in my language which is Spanish. The writing rules are very different in different languages and after having an idea on how to write in English, I always refer back to what I learned in my early years. As I write in English I have faced many challenges to include learning to think in English before I write. I am use to think in Spanish and therefore the words flow as a river with minimum effort on my part. I have tried to think in Spanish, translate my thoughts and then writing in English but has proven to be the most difficult process to follow. As I wrestled with the idea of writing in English and learning to think in English, my writing has become better with each assignment. As I reflect on how my writing has evolved, it is my intention to compare how the different tools and genres of writing had helped me write academically papers and how I expect to continue to better myself for mu future, even after I graduate from college.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2006). Negotiation Readings, Exercises, and Cases Fifth Ed. Bill Brubaker, Mark Asher, A Power Play for Howard Negotiation (pp. 616-626). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Irwin.
Negotiations and back-room dealings happen in any possible setting at any possible moment. Regardless of whether a bargain is two people negotiating a business deal, eighty people silently weighing the pros and cons of drawing attention to themselves, or one single person unconsciously deciding to give up individuality to wrest some semblance of power from the system, a choice is being made between various options.
Negotiations always occur between parties who believe that some benefit may come of purposeful discussion. The parties to a negotiation usually share an intention to reach an agreement. This is the touchstone to which any thinking of negotiations must refer. While there may be some reason to view negotiations as attempts by each party to get the better of the other, this particular type of adversarial negotiation is really just one of the options available. Among the beginning principles of a negotiation must be an acknowledgment that the parties to a negotiation have both individual and group interests that are partially shared and partially in conflict, though the parameters and proportions of these agreements and disagreements will never be thoroughly known; this acknowledgment identifies both the reason and the essential subject matter for reflection on a wide range of issues relevant to a negotiation. (Gregory Tropea, November 1996)
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
Wilcock, D. A. (2013). From blank spcaes to flows of life: transforming community engagment in environmental decision-making and its implcations for localsim. Policy Studies 34:4, 455-473.
However, their purposes for writing are sometimes not the kind valued by Western academic communities. The nature of academic literacy often confuses and disorients students, “particularly those who bring with them a set of conventions that are at odds with those of the academic world they are entering” (Kutz, Groden & Zamel, 1993, p. 30). In addition, the culture-specific nature of schemata–abstract mental structures representing our knowledge of things, events, and situations–can lead to difficulties when students write texts in L2. Knowing how to write a “summary” or “analysis” in Mandarin or Spanish does not necessarily mean that students will be able to do these things in English (Kern, 2000). As a result, any appropriate instruction must take into consideration the influence from various educational, social, and cultural experiences that students have in their native language. These include textual issues, such as rhetorical and cultural preferences for organizing information and structuring arguments, commonly referred to as contrastive rhetoric (Cai, 1999; Connor, 1997; Kaplan, 1987; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 1996; Leki, 1993; 1997; Matalene, 1985), knowledge of appropriate genres (Johns, 1995; Swales, 1990), familiarity with writing topics (Shen, 1989), and distinct cultural and instructional socialization (Coleman, 1996; Holliday, 1997; Valdes, 1995). In addition to instructional and cultural
...vantage of the overall network design and implement usable subnets with virtual local area networks. Use encryption and encapsulation to secure communications of public segments to enable extranets and cross-Internet company traffic. Use items such as intrusion detection systems and firewalls to keep unauthorized users out and monitor activity. Taken together, these pieces can make a secure network that is efficient, manageable, and effective.
- Study position, Interest, and reasons. -Honor other’s possible roles. –Incorporate both interests. - Find Rules of fairness. –Temper the size. (Lecture 6, slide 8,9). Furthermore, the integrative negotiation approach has also key steps that can be combined with the guidelines previously mentioned in order to have a more comprehensive understanding of the problem as well as a more detailed action plan. The key steps are: Identify and define the problem, surface interest and needs. Generate alternative solutions, and evaluate and select alternatives (Lewicki, 2011,