LET'S SUSPEND BRIDGE LITIGATION SO REASONED DIALOGUE CAN OCCUR

[CITY Edition]

Buffalo News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print Media Edition: Financial edition

Buffalo, N.Y.

Aug 13, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authors: KEVIN P. GAUGHAN

Pagination: C2

Abstract:

Several months ago, a series of meetings was held to examine Peace

Bridge

expansion. These design "charettes" included the Peace Bridge

Authority,

but did not invite all concerned citizens. A strong sense that

sustainable

agreement could not be achieved without inclusive discussion grew even

stronger.

This month, we're having yet another go at creating community consensus

through open, unfettered debate. Funded by both taxpayer and

philanthropic

funds, the Public Consensus Review Committee has retained renowned

consultants

to assess all alternatives, and recently heard public comment for some

20 hours.

But an absent Bridge Authority did not hear a single word. Our progress

has thus been from one process in which not everyone could participate,

to another process in which not everyone would. At this rate of

dysfunction,

Hillary Clinton will soon be explaining that as 4-year-olds, we Western

New Yorkers heard our grandmothers and mothers argue over bridges, and

were thus forever scarred.

Full Text:

Several months ago, a series of meetings was held to examine Peace

Bridge

expansion. These design "charettes" included the Peace Bridge

Authority,

but did not invite all concerned citizens. A strong sense that

sustainable

agreement could not be achieved without inclusive discussion grew even

stronger.

This month, we're having yet another go at creating community consensus

through open, unfettered debate. Funded by both taxpayer and

philanthropic

funds, the Public Consensus Review Committee has retained renowned

consultants

to assess all alternatives, and recently heard public comment for some

20 hours.

But an absent Bridge Authority did not hear a single word. Our progress

has thus been from one process in which not everyone could participate,

to another process in which not everyone would. At this rate of

dysfunction,

Hillary Clinton will soon be explaining that as 4-year-olds, we Western

New Yorkers heard our grandmothers and mothers argue over bridges, and

were thus forever scarred.

Of the reasons the authority offers for not participating, one is

somewhat

understandable. With litigation pending, and as the body with sole

decision-making

responsibility, the lawyers advise the authority to remain mum. That

counsel,

accurately reflecting the authority's remote and unaccountable status

under

present law, is perhaps sophisticated, probably expensive and certainly

wrong.

For it leaves us with yet another process lacking integrity for want of

inclusiveness. Worse still, it affirms the authority's decision to

create

public policy in confrontational court. Warring over a symbol of peace

advances neither cooperative governance nor community renewal.

And heaven help us if, in this age of collaboration, the take-no-

prisoners

legal culture that produced both O.J. Simpson's trial and Bill

Clinton's

deposition drives our public interest. (You can almost hear an attorney

explain, "It depends on what the meaning of the word plaza is.)

Rather than demonize the Bridge Authority and curse its dark impulses,

let's light yet another course by which the authority might endorse

collaboration.

To their credit, the City of Buffalo, Buffalo Olmsted Parks Conservancy

and Episcopal Home waited until the last possible moment to file suit.

The authority then responded with its own, and the battle was pitched.

A respected commercial litigator estimates that with motions, argument,

appeal and reappeal, resolving Peace Bridge lawsuits may take until

2002.

Other social and economic challenges that require our attention cannot

wait that long.

Commencing litigation has accomplished its original goal, to create

time

to craft an alternative design that will garner broad public support.

With

that now in progress, the imperative of authority involvement outweighs

the importance of spilling legal blood.

We who believe that our magnificent city and region deserve a soaring

landmark

bridge that conveys to posterity who we are and to what we aspire know

that this conviction shall carry the day in any discussion.

Nevertheless, I believe we must take one final, good-faith step and

encourage

all sides to suspend bridge-related litigation. Toward that end, I have

prepared and sent a "standstill agreement" to each of the parties and

challenged

them to sign it.

Under this agreement, everyone preserves their right to future claims,

but for now interrupts all legal maneuvers. It compels parties only to

stand down, not give up -- so should the need exist after a full and

open

process, everyone would be free to resume battle stations.

This bold gesture would create an unthreatening climate from which

reasoned

discourse can emerge, and may inject the Bridge Authority with

sufficient

courage to come into the light of day and defend its work.

KEVIN P. GAUGHAN, a Hamburg attorney, founded the Chautauqua Conference

on Regionalism.

For writer guidelines for columns appearing in this space, send a

self-addressed,

stamped envelope to Opinion Pages Guidelines, The Buffalo News, P.O.

Box

100, Buffalo, N.Y. 14240.

Caption: Kevin P. Gaughan

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

=============================== End of Document

================================