Negotiation Law Blog - Open Source Negotiation of Public Works - Comments http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/ Southern California Arbitration Mediation & Conflict Resolution: Settle it Now Dispute Resolution Services: Serving Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Century City en Copyright 2012 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:59:54 -0800 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:59:54 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.32-en http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Joe Markowitz CEQA already provides substantial opportunity for public comment in these types of situations. The internet of course facilitates public comments. The real problem is that the decision-maker often does not place a lot of weight on the public comments. And oftentimes, the public comments really don't help much in addressing the issue of the feasibility of the alternatives to the project that endangers the historic resource. What is needed is for the decision-maker to step back and tell the interested parties that they have to get in a room together and work out their differences otherwise the approval of the project could be delayed for some time. That is how we saved the Cinerama Dome. That is how the LA Conservancy just recently saved the Century Plaza Hotel. Unfortunately, we did not save the Ambassador Hotel, and the reason was that the judge was in no mood to delay the proceedings, and had no interest in ordering the parties to try to reach a compromise.

]]> http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/negotiation/open-source-negotiation-of-public-works/#22722 http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/negotiation/open-source-negotiation-of-public-works/#22722 Negotiation Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:43:11 -0800 Victoria Pynchon Joe Markowitz Here is the announcement on the Century Plaza Hotel: http://laconservancy.org/centuryplaza/index.php
I was not involved in that one, but I was very involved in the Ambassador Hotel and Cinerama Dome cases. All of these cases underscore the point that mediated solutions to these problems can be found if the developer understands that the project will be delayed unless the developer is compelled to satisfy the preservationists.

]]> http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/negotiation/open-source-negotiation-of-public-works/#22723 http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/negotiation/open-source-negotiation-of-public-works/#22723 Negotiation Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:43:11 -0800 Victoria Pynchon John Folk-Williams Thanks for this interesting post - I need to add something, though, about the use of mediation in settling public disputes. It doesn't necessarily imply secrecy but can serve in tandem with the usual process of democratic decision making. It's my sense that mediation of public disputes probably occurs more often in public than in secrecy. Formal mediation ordered through a court proceeding would be closed, but public agencies also convene dispute resolution processes outside of a litigation context - and these are subject to open meeting laws. Not only do public meetings require public comment periods but many collaborative policy groups seek wider public involvement to keep concerned communities and constituencies well-informed about potential agreements. After consensus is reached, agreements have to undergo further approval or ratification steps. Each of those takes place through a public process that has its own requirements for citizen review and comment. Even agreements reached under a court's guidance often require public appropriations for implementation - or face some sort of public review.

Part of this can be a quibble about what should or should not be encompassed by the term "mediation." But whatever term is used, there's a lot of public policy dispute resolution taking place in public.

John

]]> http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/negotiation/open-source-negotiation-of-public-works/#22724 http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/negotiation/open-source-negotiation-of-public-works/#22724 Negotiation Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:43:11 -0800 Victoria Pynchon