[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.We have not tried to enumerate the full list of rel-evant stakeholders in Los Angeles; rather, we discuss the types of issuesaround which stakeholder groups are likely to organize and the levelsof governance at which they seek to exert their influence, citing specificgroups to illustrate these general categories.We also consider the mostcommon mechanisms through which stakeholder groups influence thedecisionmaking process. 150 Moving Los Angeles: Short-Term Policy Options for Improving TransportationStakeholders may organize by location or jurisdiction (home-owners associations, for example), but they are also apt to assemblebased on shared interests in such issues as mobility, economic develop-ment, the environment, and equity for lower-income or other under-represented groups (and, in many cases, stakeholder groups embracemultiple goals).The Automobile Club of Southern California (AutoClub) and the Mobility 21 Coalition are two examples of stakeholdergroups with a primary interest in mobility.The L.A.Area Chamber ofCommerce and the L.A.County Economic Development Corpora-tion are concerned primarily with economic issues, while the NaturalResources Defense Council (NRDC) focuses on environmental con-cerns.The Bus Riders Union (BRU) works to foster the goals of mobil-ity (primarily bus transit) and social justice.In certain cases, stake-holder groups may form to either promote or lobby against specificprojects.Friends 4 Expo Transit, a group that has worked to developgrassroots support for the Exposition Light Rail Transit Line (ExpoLine) project, is an example in this category.Stakeholder groups can also be characterized based on the level ofgovernance at which they seek to influence policy and planning deci-sions, although many groups work simultaneously at multiple levels.The Auto Club and NRDC are both involved in state and nationalpolicy debates, for instance, while BRU and Friends 4 Expo Transithave exerted their influence to a greater degree on regional and localdecisions.Homeowners associations typically focus exclusively onlocal planning decisions.Finally, stakeholder groups have various means at their disposalto influence policy and planning outcomes.Stakeholders can engage inthe political process through at least four broad avenues:Lobbying and financial influence: One of the key ways in whichstakeholders can influence policy is by lobbying elected officials,expressing their positions on pending legislation.They may alsodonate to the campaigns of leaders whom they feel will supporttheir causes.By the same token, they can withhold financial sup-port when elected officials take actions that they oppose.Whilecampaign-contribution limits are intended to prevent any single Consensus-Building Recommendations 151individual from wielding too much influence over elected offi-cials, a stakeholder group can still wield considerable financialpower when a large share of its members decide to support a par-ticular candidate.Citizen action: Stakeholders can also employ information andactivism to influence policy outcomes.For example, parties canpetition, boycott, or use the media to call attention to the prac-tices of organizations (businesses or governments) with whichthey disagree.In this manner, small but vocal stakeholder groupscan affect major decisions of interest, and even significant policychanges can begin at the grassroots level.1Direct democracy: Another option is the ballot box, through whichgroups can pursue initiatives (which create laws), referenda (whichcan revoke laws), and recalls (which depose elected officials).Stakeholders can play a role both in gathering the necessary sig-natures to place a measure on a ballot and in developing supportfor the measure among the general public prior to an election.Legal recourse: Finally, numerous federal and state environmentaland civil-rights laws provide opportunities for stakeholder groupsto challenge planning or policy decisions.Examples of relevantfederal statutes include the National Environmental Policy Act(P.L.91-190) (NEPA), the Clean Air Act (P.L.88-206) (CAA), theClean Water Act (62 Stat.1155) (CWA), the Endangered SpeciesAct (P.L.93-205) (ESA) and the Civil Rights Act (P.L.88-352)(CRA).There are many comparable statutes at the state level,including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).Under theseand similar statutes, citizens are empowered to review and com-ment on agency plans and decisions before those plans are imple-mented.If public comments are not adequately addressed, or ifan agency s action has violated or would violate certain statutes,1Giuliano and Hanson (2004) noted that citizen action was partly responsible for land-mark changes in transportation policy reflected in the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (P.L.102-240) (ISTEA) and that local efforts related to climate change maybecome an important driver of federal transportation policy in the future. 152 Moving Los Angeles: Short-Term Policy Options for Improving Transportationstakeholders have grounds for a lawsuit to prevent further action [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]