Negotiation and Conflict Transformation Case
I.
Introduction
The real estate development company Texas Central Partners is proposing the construction
and operation of a high speed passenger rail that will connect the cities of Dallas and
Houston using the Japanese N700‐I Tokaido Shinkansen train system and its proprietary
electric track. The planned rail will span approximately 240 miles and will shorten the
commute time between the two cities to about 90 minutes, at a speed of over 200 miles per
hour, and would be the first passenger train of this caliber to the United States. Also, the
economic impact of this project is staggering, with early estimates from an impact analysis
report stating that this project will create $74 billion dollars of direct and indirect economic
benefit to the state of Texas. Additionally, this project will create 4,000 permanent
operational jobs and also 35,000 indirect jobs resulting from other related developments. Tax
benefits of this project will amount to an astounding $7 billion dollars of combined tax
revenue benefit from 2015 to 2040.
II.
Negotiation-Conflict Transformation Objectives
This $12 billion dollar proposal has been met with overwhelming support from both
Dallas and Houston municipal officials, but faces opposition from homeowners, law
enforcement, and other organizations like Texans Against High Speed Rails. Many of the
rural landowners whose property lays in the path of the proposed track have banded together
to vehemently oppose the building of the track. In addition, the project must ensure that its
project is aligned with the many regulatory bodies like the National Railroad Association
approve of its objectives and pass the stringent economic, environmental, and safety
requirements put forward by their guidelines. The objective of this negotiation is to address
the concerns of the opposition and abide by the guidelines put forward by the regulatory
bodies in a timely manner so that it can begin its proposed construction on time by 2019.
III.
Individual Obstacles
Individual obstacles faced by Texas Central Partners are few and far in between because the
key individuals involved in the decision making process only benefit from the high speed rail
and its impact on the state and municipal economy. Because Texas Central Partners has
decided to fund its $12 billion dollar solely from private institutional investors in lieu of
federal or state grants, it has managed to avoid all political complications with State and
Federal Legislature with regards to taxpayer money. Mayor Sylvester Turner of Houston has
expressed vocal support for this project because of the economic and political benefits it will
bring to the local and state economies. The synergy of connecting the two largest cities
containing half of Texas’ population was enough to convince him, not to mention the billions
of dollars of development and tax revenue that will result from the completed rail.
IV.
Environmental Obstacles
The largest environmental obstacle that this high speed rail faces is the end destination of the
proposed train route in Houston. The spot that Texas Central Partners chose is the currently
vacant Northwest Mall due to budget constraints and the Federal Railroad Administration’s
denial of a downtown Houston train station. The chosen destination is located about eight
miles north of Houston’s downtown and while the current Northwest Mall will be
transformed into a bustling hub of travelers, it is located at the intersection of two of
Houston’s busiest highways and will require additional transportation for commuters to go
into downtown Houston. This is problematic for many reasons. The most significant being
that it will fail to serve the downtown area as effectively and also fail to serve as a prominent
city landmark and instead take the appearance of a more industrial and drab mall.
V.
Organizational Obstacles
Texas Landowners
In between the two bustling metropolitan centers of Houston and Dallas contain the most
vocal critics of the high speed rail: the rural landowners whose lives will be upended by the
construction of the high speed rail, which will lead to the loss of private property. Much of
the hostility has been further fueled by Texas Central Partners’ claim that it has the authority
to take land by condemnation if necessary. While about 30% of landowners affected by the
rail have agreed to land purchase options, those who oppose and stand strong have been met
by threats of seizure by right of eminent domain, which proposes that it has the authority to
take away private property for the construction of the rail. Furthermore, tensions have risen
among those who have also claimed that surveyors have trespassed on their property in order
to conduct land surveys and have disregarded the landowners completely. Many have taken
to town halls and centers to protest the building of the high speed rail,
Federal Railroad Administration
After conducting a corridor analysis and releasing an environmental report, the Federal
Railroad Administration has eliminated the preliminary plans that proposed to place the end
terminal directly in downtown Houston. According to the FRA, the plans to do so would
have caused “significant environmental impacts thereby resulting in higher per mile costs”.
While this could have potentially derailed the project completely, TCP has decided that
another proposed location at the Northwest Mall is also a good alternative. However, this
decision has caused strife among the citizens of Houston and Dallas because of the additional
complications that come with building a major train station in an area that has no connections
to downtown Houston. Solving such an issue means that Texas Central must work with
Houston Metro to develop some system for travel into the city. The end terminal in Dallas on
the other hand connects directly into the downtown area. In any case, for the busy commuters
that TCP is trying to attract through this rail, it will detract from the plans because of the lack
of direct downtown to downtown travel with no additional stops or transfers. For many, the
advantages of a downtown station are paramount because they serve as urban centers,
facilitating access by walking, taxi, or public transportation. Lastly, while less important, the
lack of a ‘grand central station’ in Houston will mean that the project will not have the image
that it seeks. Compared to the grand stations of Paris, New York, and London, this proposed
destination will lack the same appeal.
Local County Law Enforcement
Another opposition group to the high speed rail has been the local law enforcement of the 10
counties situated between the two metropolitan centers. This opposition has stemmed from
the apparent lack of communication from TCP regarding the rail and its potential disruptions
on public safety and first responders. In response, the sheriffs from eight of the 10 counties
held a news conference asserting that they have been unjustly ignored and did not give
adequate input on the development plans for the construction of the rail line. According to
Law Enforcement, TCP has bypassed local officials, town commissioners, and road and
bridge coordinators in the planning phases of development. With over 147 miles of rerouted
roads, the impact on life in the areas affected will be felt and is a cause of concern for many
of the residents who fear that first responders will not effectively be able to handle the
changes. Lastly, law enforcement has expressed concern that it is currently unable to support
the construction phase as its resources are already spread thin and such a project will require
much additional overtime hours on the part of law enforcement.
Texans Against High Speed Rails
The group Texans Against High Speed Rail has been very active in its opposition against the
construction of this rail. Recently, the group has been very politically active in finding ways
to shut down the rail, including requesting an endangered species report to find out whether
this railroad will affect local wildlife. Other measures taken include those by the chairman
Leman, who is the Grimes County judge presiding over commissioner’s court. As of last
year, the commissioners have passed a new permitting requirement in attempts to disprove
that TCP has the right to use eminent domain as a last report stating that it does not quality as
a railroad company.
VI.
Win-Lose Solution
For Texas Central Partners, putting the concerns of the opposition aside is of utmost
importance. First, to address the homeowners and Texans Against High Speed Rails, TCP
should apply threats of greater power by initiating lawsuits against the homeowners who do
not want to reach land purchase agreements. Such an action is the only recommended winlose option because as of all standing measures, it has the legal authority to do so and until.
any bills have been successfully passed, that is the approach that must be used in order to
stay on track for construction to begin in 2019. This approach has many pitfalls, especially
regarding staying on schedule. While it is more than likely that TCP would be able to win in
court and obtain the right to survey and build, it will cause a negative cycle of retaliation by
the individuals. The last thing a developer wants is to anger the local residents who will
create backlash and in more extreme cases, sabotage. For the law enforcement involved, the
solution of threatening greater power is also not advised, as negotiating with those with
political weight is a dangerous game to play. The officers if faced with threats of greater
power are likely to form a political entity with other opposition, which could likely delay or
shutdown the plans for development. The distributive outcome for such a heavy-handed
approach is akin to bullying, as being forced into losing something without reasonable
compensation would be the end result of such lawsuits. Because of this flaw, other more
reasonable options must be considered. When dealing with large organization with political
power, one must be very careful to either mirror their opposition or network by building
allies. While city officials in both Houston and Dallas approve of the plans, making it clear
that the law enforcement are at odds with the city officials is a surefire recipe for disaster.
Extreme demands are also unlikely to help, as being hard and reasonable was the cause for
the strife in the first place. While TCP has never directly imposed the right to lawful seizure
of private property, in a state like Texas where the motto is “Come and Take It”, the
underlying threats are not to be trifled with. Therefore, it is in the opinion of the author to not
take any win-lose approach to this conflict as it will only lead to further strife.
VII.
Win-Win Solution
For TCP, achieving win-win results is the ideal option both in the short term and in the
long term. Since both federal regulatory bodies and city officials have expressed enthusiastic
support for the high speed rail and its positive impact on the Texas economy, TCP must deal
with its opposition in a way where it must bridge the gaps and create conflict resolution by
making concessions and compromises. For its most pressing opposition, the homeowners,
TCP should ideally offer reasonable trade for the land that will be trespassed upon. One such
option that is already effective for the 30% of landowners is the land purchase agreement,
where TCP will pay an upfront cost for any properties that lay on its 3 proposed routes. Even
if the train does not end up being built on their property, the money given should be allowed
to remain in the hands of the landowners. Part of the reasonable compromise that TCP must
make is offering above market rates for the land that will be used. Such disruptions from land
surveyors could also be compensated with smaller amounts that show gratuity instead of
force. Such an approach should also be used for Texans Against High Speed Rails and the
local law enforcement who have taken to town centers to express concerns. For these
organizations, the best approach is to offer reasonable trade and deliver on the demands that
these organizations have expressed. These concerns have ranged from overtime pay from
sheriffs to loss of cattle land and farmland. Simply meeting these requests with a comparable
monetary compensation should prove to be win-win and serve to the ideal outcome.
However, even a plan like this does not come without hitches. For some, the concerns voiced
cannot be stifled with a monetary payment and even a reasonable compromise will not be
taken. For example, if 90% of homeowners have accepted monetary compensation, and the
other 10% refuse. The first option is obviously to slowly and incrementally increase the
compensation until their concerns are stifled. However, once that is accomplished, the other
90% will now feel that they have not been fairly treated. Thus, the situation deepens into a
cycle of unproductivity. In the author’s opinion, it is a better option to take the win-lose route
with any holdouts and pursue lawsuits instead of increasing monetary compensation.
Contingency plans for opposition are to band with the city officials and government bodies
who have given the green light for development and have them use their political power to
make sure that those opposition forces stay in check. For example, since the Mayor of
Houston has expressed his undying support for this project, the contingency plan is to go to
the Mayor and ask him to appeal to those who feel unjustly treated and have a session of
discussion. Another contingency plan is to network with members of legislation who very
much support this development in order to combat the small minority of legislation who
oppose it. Doing so will create support within state representation, which is important if the
other side is reaching out to state legislation in an attempt to stop the development.
VIII.
Creative Solution
For many of the organizations and individuals opposed to the development of the high
speed rail system, a simple monetary compromise will suffice. However, for those that
remain immovable, approaching the situation from a creative standpoint is very important.
For example, for the remaining homeowners who do not want to sell their property or give up
land rights, giving them tickets to the new high speed rail is one way to appeal to the hardest
nosed opponents. In the opinion of the author, the creative solution should only be used for
those who do not take the win-win or win-lose outcomes. One huge issue that will definitely
require a creative solution is the end destination of the train station in Houston, while the
FRA has repeatedly denied plans for a train station in Houston, TCP may be able to
compromise with the FRA by demanding a secondary rail be built using state funds through
existing transportation like Houston Metro to create a direct line into downtown. This is
absolutely necessary in order for the train station to succeed and no other method is possible
but a creative solution. In appealing to lawmakers and officials, the case for TCP’s request
should be undeniable and work in the best interest of the city to do so. Otherwise, the
estimated benefits for the city may not come into fruition. If the train station in Houston must
be built on the site of the Northwest Mall, a train station of epic proportions should be
negotiated. In conversations with the owners of the Northwest Mall, one recommended
provision would be the use of an international architecture contest to pick the best design for
the train station. This is win-win for all parties involved and a creative outcome because it
will leverage the attention grabbing aspect and flashiness that this high speed rail needs in
order to overcome shortcoming in transportation logistics. By reaching out to city officials
and offering them free train rides for a year in exchange for a city sponsored architecture
contest, that could be an easy to overcome the challenges and ensure that the public interest
does not wane. A creative solution can also be reached with the local law enforcement. Since
many local county departments are underfunded, TCP can pledge that 10% of its generated
tax revenue will go to local police departments and improvements to the local communities
involved. For all the towns that are directly impacted by the railroad, TCP should offer to
help build a community center in the towns in order to appease local communities. However,
the downsides to all these creative approaches is the capital requirements involved to do so.
With a tightly constructed budget, TCP does not have funds necessary to throw around
lightly. In this case, a third party solution might be more ideal.
IX.
Third Party Solution
As an alternative to a creative solution, using a mediator to negotiate for minimal
peaceful coexistence is a highly advised alternative. Instead of the capital requirements of
compensation in order to appease the landowners and organizations, having a stage where
those people whose lives will be impacted by this development can publicly state their
concerns to TCP and have them addressed and considered in a peaceful way is also an
approach that has much potential. Another contingency plan is to establish constructive
ambience. Instead of throwing money around and approaching concerns with a end all be all
approach, establishing a level of individual appeasement and dialog could be enough to
appease opposition. Ensuring in a public manner that all concerns are being actively
addressed and supervising implementation of all promises will win support among even the
staunchest critics. Establish conversation, listen to concerns, dissolve assumptions in a public
meeting with TCP leadership and management so that a face can be put on a nameless
identity. Ensure that the public knows that TCP’s top priority is serving the Texas People and
making the State of Texas great. These ideals however, also seem lofty in a world that is run
by equity not love. In approaching this conflict with third party, one can expect backfire if all
TCP does is talk but not deliver on its promises. Whether or not TCP ends up using a third
party mediator or not, following through on all threats and promises is paramount and part of
a professional attitude that is essential when disrupting the lives of many individuals for the
sake of the collective public.