|
A middle-class suburban neighborhood borders a golf course that soon=20
will be hosting a prestigious international competition. After that,=20
the club plans to expand, but not in a neighborhood friendly way. A=20
dead-end residential street becomes a heavy truck route. And its=20
residents will be exposed to the noises and odors coming from a=20
relocated maintenance facility.
The residents understand the recreational needs of the club members but=20
they don=E2=80=99t want to be shortchanged. Their #1 choice would be chan=
ging=20
the expansion plans in the way preserving the tranquility of their=20
neighborhood. But, realistically, they can only hope to get some of the=20
perils alleviated if they manage to negotiate this with the club. For=20
example, the club could underwrite soundproofing of their homes.
Is there space for a contract under these circumstances? The only=20
incentive for the club to negotiate with the neighborhood is preserving=20
its world-wide reputation. It is more vulnerable at the time of higher=20
media attention, i.e. before the tournament. That=E2=80=99s why the resid=
ents=E2=80=99=20
presentation of their proposal could bear an implied threat of the=20
club=E2=80=99s publicity damaging. How should the residents handle such a=
=20
sensitive diplomacy, in order to avoid being accused of extortion?
The second question is related to the need of pledging some=20
consideration by both parties of the contract. Suppose, the residents=20
will be entitled to a particular remedy if (1) they don=E2=80=99t engage =
in a=20
public discussion of the club expansion and (2) the expansion leads to =20
certain losses for the neighborhood.
What would be a reasonable penalty imposed on the residents who=20
publicly scold the club if the approved expansion plans don=E2=80=99t lea=
d to=20
the enumerated losses?
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:50:56 -0400, Mike Landorf
<admin@forum.edina.mn.u_s> wrote:
Is there space for a contract under these circumstances? The only=20
incentive for the club to negotiate with the neighborhood is preserving=20
its world-wide reputation. It is more vulnerable at the time of higher=20
media attention, i.e. before the tournament. That=E2=80=99s why the resid=
ents=E2=80=99=20
presentation of their proposal could bear an implied threat of the=20
club=E2=80=99s publicity damaging. How should the residents handle such a=
=20
sensitive diplomacy, in order to avoid being accused of extortion?
One way to avoid it would be to avoid posting to public newsgroups
using details which could only identify one situation, using ugly
words like "extortion" and asking for ways to avoid being accused of
it
|
| |
| |
On 24 Apr 2008, Mike Landorf <admin@forum.edina.mn.u_s> said/asked in
substance:
[ Residential neighbors abutting and otherwise near
a golf course are concerned that the club's planned
expansion may not be "neighborhood friendly" -- e.g.,
might include truck traffic through a now dead-end
street whose residents also fear they might become
exposed to noises and odors from a maintenance facility
that might be relocated on club grounds near them --
are debating negotiating and related tactics. These
include whether to hold, or maybe instead only pretend
to predict ["threaten"?] that they will hold, a protest
demonstration coordinated with the club's planned hosting
of a prestigious international competition, and some of
the affected club neighbors wonder which tactics will be
probably most productive for them and which if any might
realistically expose them to claims that they are engaged
in extortion. ]
* * *
The only incentive for the club to negotiate with the
neighborhood is preserving its world-wide reputation.
You do not say how nor, actually, even that you know what any
incentive of the club is (much less what is its"only incentive")
because you do not report anything whatever about what (if anything)
the neighbors have done to verify what exactly the club's expansion
plans are and also the degree to which those plans do/don't comply
with the affected municipality's and county's zoning and related land
use laws, with state or county road usage requirements, with what
might be (some combination of state or federal) law- required
environmental study and environmental law required mitigative steps,
etc., etc. -- any one grouping of which might take some time to
resolve and offer opportunities for negotiation -- and yet SPECIFIC
information in all these respects (OBVIOUSLLY!) is needed as a
precondition to intelligent decision-making.
In political/psychological terms, meanwhile, you allude to the
possibility that demonstrations may be counterproductive as much as
their possibly being productive but without enabling anything close to
a probably dependable evaluation about which alternative is more
likely because in this connection, too, you do not report any
particularized information about probable attitudes of the club's
controlling officers and most influential members (or, for that
matter, about the sponsors of whatever is the tournament to which your
refer, including whether any combination of club officers and
competition sponsors would even notice, nor care in any way about even
if they did notice, the (how many realistic participant?)
"demonstration" you (realistically?) have in mind (an isolated picket
sign or two or three, maybe directed by a court to be held in some
sort of oxymoronicly so-called "free speech zone" a mile away if the
club sues for such relief? major sit-down/traffic-blocking actions
[which, if so, the local and extra county and state police who
probably will be assigned for traffic control will allow to occur]?
other). Etc., ETC., ETC.
[ If the residents are realistic in believing they may
be able to achieve just some of what they want (e.g.,
club-provided reimbursement for soundproofing of
their homes), i]s there space for a contract under
these circumstances?
This is more a tautology just disguised as if a "question" merely by
the expedient of your ending it with a "?" symbol instead of with a
period than it is an actual question. OBVIOUSLY: parties will
discover "space for a contract" if they each decide, in their own
respecxtively self-defined self-interest and also mutual interest that
they ought enter into a contract. HOWEVER (and also: obviously!),
whether/how they probably will do this in the scenario/relationship
you vaguely summarize will depend on SPECIFIC analysis of ALL the
relevant facts not least about how apparently best to resolve the very
questions you do pose but, because of your factual vagueness, prevent
rather than enable meaningfully evaluating.
The second question is related to the need of pledging
some consideration by both parties of the contract.
Suppose, the residents will be entitled to a particular
remedy if (1) they don't engage public discussion of the
club expansion and (2) the expansion leads to certain
losses for the neighborhood. What would be a reasonable
penalty imposed on the residents who publicly scold the
club if the approved expansion plans don't to the enumerated
losses?
If ever one wished to point to disengenuous question-begging, this is
certainly one good example.
Perhaps more to the point, if ever there was a solution to the riddle,
In what sorts of circumstances does it make good
sense comparatively to shop for and obtain actually
law-knowledgeable, experience-based legal analysis
and advice from a smart, tough-minded, and practical
lawyer who knows about this sort os Stuff and worse
than worse bad sense not to do this?
the above summarized scenario is certainly a good candidate.
|
| |
| |
On 24 Apr 2008, Mike Landorf <admin@forum.edina.mn.u_s> said/asked in
substance:
In political/psychological terms, meanwhile, you allude to the
possibility that demonstrations may be counterproductive as much as
their possibly being productive=20
I probably distorted the meaning of a question by its sloppy rendering=20
and created a wrong impression of planning a non-ethical act.
But what have I done to create an illusion of contemplating street=20
protests vs., for example, a Web-based action? The original post had=20
absolutely no references to demonstrations planning (that would be=20
silly indeed). Maybe not only I would be interested in learning the=20
answer to avoid unintentional side effects in the future?
Back to the situation: I believe fighting a resourceful entity on=20
compliance grounds is not productive for a small-scale neighborhood. =20
Especially in a city where golf courses share a zoning class with=20
single-family dwellings.
That's why a more general question remains: what kind of references to=20
the counter-party's publicity impact (if any) are considered proper in=20
decent negotiations? Finding an optimal solution, that is not=20
necessarily the cheapest one, but avoids destroying the neighbors'=20
small universe, might be a true desire of the club due payers concerned=20
about the long-term impact vs. this year's bonus...
|
| |
| |
|
