The Crux of the Conflict

A small community erupted in conflict over a project, dividing residents, stakeholders, professionals and policymakers… 

“We expected there would be some opposition… We didn’t expect it was going to be as deep as it turned out to be, so that was a bit of a surprise.” - Board Chair of the project

(Sound familiar?)

What do you imagine was the “project” that tore the community apart…?

• Hazardous waste site?
• Zoning law change?
• Roundabout?

Nope! It was none of those…

It was a week-long nature camp for kids to get off their devices and learn (of all things!) how to better deal with conflict.

(The kids have gotten a lesson before the camp even gets built!)

As you might’ve guessed, opponents aren’t against the camp or its mission, just the location.

But don’t assume that’s the whole story!

Years ago, 37 acres of picturesque countryside were donated to create a permanent site to host fourth- and fifth-graders. Currently, the camp rents spaces far from its school districts, which creates a burden for staff and logistical complications for shuttling campers.

What sounds innocuous to those of us who aren’t inheriting the camp is distressing for residents of the rural area.

Most often, "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) is used to dismiss such opposition... We encourage you to see it differently. NIMBY is a form of conflict, and as far as we can tell – no two conflicts are exactly alike, even when they look identical on the surface.

Getting to the crux of the conflict is critical.

Narrowing in on the nature of the objections comes with some categorization, but we have to be careful not to shortcut our understanding of what's at the core of the conflict.

Using both the art and science of Consent-Building, we can listen for clues that take us from a generic term like “NIMBY” to a deep understanding of what belies the opposition… Often, what we discover are more nuanced layers of objections than opponents can even express.

That’s in part why all the recommendations by staff, private consultants, and official analyses of the impacts (issues related to wildland fires, evacuation routes, and water resources) tend to allay all but the opponents who raised them. I'm not suggesting those opposed to the camp don't care about those issues, but there are signs that those concerns are probably only skin-deep and aren't fueling their strong reactions to the plan. 

Most likely, the reasons they think they’re opposed are likely not the crux of their (own) opposition. From what I read, opponents never seemed to vocalize outright what I suspect concerns them the most about the summer camp. Yet those (unsayable) concerns weren't hard to parse out from the concerns they did voice.

 

Not only did this lack of clarity cause staff and board members to be surprised by the potency of the opposition, but it also seems to have resulted in the opponents' recent defeat when their concerns were reviewed by another governing body.

There are many more hurdles for the plan to be finalized and implemented, which gives opponents time to find other surrogate "issues" or to clarify those that (I suspect) are motivating their opposition.

Will this project survive?

It’s too early to tell for sure, but I suspect the acrimony and conflict will endure until those underlying issues are better addressed.

What we can learn from it in the meantime: unearthing and articulating other objections (especially those the "opponents" aren't) could unlock the conflict from showing up at every next step in the process.