Gaining a use permit to start a new quarry or just expand an old one can be a grueling task without community support. Gaining that support early in the game will greatly minimize the number of residents huddled in the city council chambers, screaming “Not In My Backyard.” And understanding the NIMBY mentality will aid proper community relations.

The driving forces behind community outcry are typically misconceptions and fear of the unknown. All NIMBYs want to protect the quality of their lifestyles, but don't understand how a quarry fits into the community. Their knowledge of quarries is often based on rumors, fears, fantasies and quasi-facts with little relevance to the actual project. So it is critical to eliminate this activist fodder with a timely education for the public, says GCA Strategies President Debra Stein.

GCA Strategies is a San Francisco-based community relations firm specializing in controversial land-use projects. Stein is author of “Winning Community Support for Land Use Projects” and “Making Community Meetings Work.” She is often called into action when a company's project is up against a barrier of disgruntled citizens.

Educating the public, however, does not mean a mass mailer mandated by the zoning board. “The scariest way to learn about a mining operation is some confusing legal notice,” Stein says. It tells the community that something big is about to happen and sends the public into a frenzy. Newsletters, advertising, coffee-and-donut meetings and going door-to-door are better options. “Personal outreach can take more time and resources,” Stein says. “But, letting Mrs. Jones' cat shed on your lap is cheaper than shutting down a mine.” Softening the initial shock and remaining open with the public helps minimize the risk of an uprising.

The Silvi Group Vice President of Environmental Public Affairs Uday Pantankar, however, says such tactics may still have little impact. Being new to the community, weakens arguments before the zoning board and public.

Pantankar is no stranger to such uprisings. He was once a consultant for a joint venture between Miller & Sons Paving and H&K Materials, where he endured an eight-year legal battle before securing the permits for the Plumstead Quarry in Philadelphia in 1996. “We fought it at the zoning level. We fought it at the (Department of Environmental Protection) permit level. At both levels we prevailed.” But it was an excruciating and costly procedure. At the very first meeting he was greeted by about 150 angry residents. “It always starts out with a bang,” he says.

The worst place to tangle with the community is in the public arena of boards and councils. “Citizens are much more likely to act in an aggressive and uncooperative manner if they can be faceless members of an enormous mob,” Stein says. “People come to meetings to express anger and emotion, not to learn about a mining opportunity.” And they often regress to shouting matches. Meetings also create mingling opportunities for opponents looking to organize and collect a weaponry of data.

As the voting army of NIMBYs spouts off concerns, the board takes notes and often requires the company to hire independent specialists to address their concerns. In the end, even if the company wins, the NIMBY-prolonged process can cost millions. “You add the cost of the land, on top of that you add the cost of your legal fight, your legal fees, and then on top of that you add the cost of all your experts,” Pantankar says.

You must have a game plan and be ready to address those concerns in a long, drawn-out battle. Pantankar says that before entering the permitting process, a company should pick experts to address the typical concerns about health, water, traffic, aesthetics and property values.

The issues that interest NIMBYs are routinely “quality-of-life arguments” that are difficult to debate with logic, Stein says. Their arguments are fairly predictable, but occasionally they'll throw a curve ball.

“William Penn was a curve ball,” Pantankar says. “And in this neck of the woods (Philadelphia), the Penn charter is like a holy grail.” In the Plumstead Quarry battle, the community claimed that a hedgerow on the property's perimeter was created by Penn.

But that was disproved when the company cut down the largest tree in the row and proved that it was only 60 years old. Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, died in 1718.

“The NIMBY people come from a fairly emotional level,” Pantankar says. But because they are grass-roots organizations, they are rarely held accountable for the statements they make. “Whereas you as the applicant, you as the legal owner of the land, you as the person trying to open a quarry, everything you say is put under the microscope.”

But despite the NIMBYs' approach, a public relations person can never act in anything but a professional manner. “You have to keep in the norms of good etiquette and smiles,” says Pantankar. “And not show disdain or anger in your facial mannerisms in any of the proceedings that are happening.” This builds rapport with both the community and the board that is constantly watching the interaction.

Stein says community members who take up a cause often act aggressively in public to compensate for a poor social image or to restore prestige. And if they feel threatened or humiliated in front of their peers, they would likely make shutting the operation down their life's goal.

“Leaders need attention and to receive public admiration and respect,” Stein says. Failure to recognize that need would lead to the NIMBYs frustration and exacerbate the problem, despite all concessions and mitigation.

Both leaders and followers could actually be involved because of the merits involved. Or, they could be engaged in anti-mining activism for mere social opportunities. This need, however, can easily be provided for the project supporters with a barbecue prior to the hearing.

Without visible support for a project, the community may adopt the most dangerous misconception that everyone is against a project. In this instance, Stein says, supporters are likely to repress pro-mining attitudes or adopt the opposition's stance out of fear of condemnation.

Active supporters are the best ammunition for subduing opposition, Stein says. They should be rallied before the first meeting, usually by using “quantity-of-life arguments,” offering tangible benefits, opposed to emotional security. And, just like the NIMBYs, support can wear buttons and T-shirts with pro-quarry messages.

Silvi Group recently earned the respect of the police and fire departments in a community resisting a current project. The company turned an abandoned building on the property into a shooting range for police and a place for safety drills for the fire department.

Property taxes generated by the future quarry could help purchase a new fire truck. Tax dollars also could be used to provide books for a decaying school system, which would persuade the school board to support the project. The County Tax Payers Association and the Chamber of Commerce are other potential support groups.

Support already in the bag includes all of the local building contractors that will reap cheaper delivery fees for having a closer supply. Those contractors and all of their employees should provide written supporting petitions and endorsement cards.

Indirect beneficiaries of a mining operation include county voters interested in jobs and the economy. These groups can approach public officials with encouraging words, write letters to newspapers and politicians, or recruit other organizations. Usually, it's the voters that sway the zoning board's vote.

Public opinion polling and focus groups often portray an accurate assessment of the public's political stance. “With millions of dollars at stake, it is foolish to try to guess what messages will motivate supporters to turnout or what concessions will placate opponents,” Stein says. Often a company will dedicate time and money to correcting a fear or misconception and end with the same number of opponents. “It is only important to correct those that are influential and persuasive,” she says.

Stein once encountered an environmental group that said a development project would “kill off this pathetic mouse that had these big Bambi eyes.” And even though that was probably false, Stein and her clients allowed them to continue pouring effort into the mouse argument because opinion polls determined that the public didn't care about the mouse.

It also is important to understand what does or does not motivate the public official to vote for or against a project. Some politicians analyze facts to make decisions.

“These public officials want information and input from citizens about the merits of the project,” Stein says. Others are persuaded by intuition and emotion. Those officials need to hear the individual stories about the formerly unemployed man who can now feed his family with a paycheck from the quarry.

When logical and emotional appeals do not work, it may be time to negotiate and create concessions for the community. Perhaps there has been a thorn in the community's side, where the operation is concerned. Remedying that situation, complimented with other benefits, could rally support. Putting landscaping around a rusty barbed-wire fence is one example.

If the project is a greenfield site, the benefits will have less value to the public. Stein says people value the status quo three to 20 times more than future benefits, so it is much easier to stir up opposition than turn out support.

To substantiate future benefits, it may be necessary to prepare a detailed view studies. Instead of just stating that a quarry means more jobs, the company could create a memorandum of understanding with a community-based job training and referral agency to require the quarry to take specific steps to maximize local hiring. A quarry could also work with the local college to provide first-interview opportunities for students.

It is essential to secure a potential site that has no less than 150 acres. That creates enough of a buffer for mitigation and concessions. In Pennsylvania, blasting cannot take place withing 300 ft of a residence. Ample space also is needed to build a berm around the quarry and route the road in such a way to maintain the aesthetics along the perimeter, which is how the Plumstead Quarry was created.

Now it serves as a good example of what a quarry should look like. From the outside, the berm looks like the perimeter built around a high-end, single family home, Pantankar says. The site now serves as proof that a quarry can occupy an area in harmony with the community, which will continue to have positive influence on future quarries. Pantankar says it is important that the community can identify the differences between today's quarry and those built in an era of relaxed standards with ancient machinery.

Each community requires different tactics, but in the end it all comes down to the votes. “You don't need everyone to love you,” Stein says. “You only need one person to love you, and that's the swing vote on the board of supervisors.”

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media, Inc.