To: The Commissioner of the Department of Corrections in the State of Concern
From: XXXXX
Re: Prison location
Date: 10/5/2004

Building a new prison to accomodate convicted Level 3 sex offenders would be highly beneficial.  This bears a resemblance to the situation in the 70's and 80's in Minnesota's attempt to establish a hazardous waste management factility.  In both cases there is general agreement that the facility would be desireable, but residents every locality have a much stronger desire that it not exist near them.  

The first effort to find a site for a hazardous waste disposal facility was treated as a technical problem that did not require citizen input.  It began as an effort by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to develop a demonstration facility under a federal grant.  The plan was announced to the public as sites were being selected, it met with vehement protest from both citizens and local governments.

As a reaction to this, the PCA attempted an approach involving limited citizen involvement.  PCA organized meetings in the Minneapolis and St Paul area to take public input on criteria for site selection.  Based on newly redesigned criteria formulated in part from that input, they selected new sites.  Despite public misgivings they attempted to move forward, but were stopped by protests while evaluating sites.  At this point, the PCA abandoned attempts to pursue the gran.  

The legislature took the initiative at that point, reanalyzing and restructuring the problem.  After an initial study reaffirming the importance and urgency of the waste disposal work, they commissioned the Waste Management board, which dealt with both solid and hazardous waste.  The legislature also mandated that this board represent various geographic parts of the state, rely on extensive citizen involvement, and remain responsive to a wide range of potential solutions.  

The board drew on a wide variety of public and citizen sources to select candidate sites for the facilitity.  Through a serious of public meetings, the board educated citizens, took their input selection priorities, and showed them how they were used in the selection process.  Simultaneously, the board drew on the expertise of the land management branch of the state government, and then the local population to select candidate sites.  These were then reviewed by the PCA, and narrowed into 4 potential locations.  

They completed a study of the hazardous wastes produced in Minnesota.  The report explained what they wastes were, where they came from, where they were currently going, and outlined options for dealing with them.  It also recommended a goal of reducing the hazardous waste output, while treating all treatable wastes.  Additionally the report indicated how citizen input had influenced its recommendations.  

As the decision was nearing its final stages, complications arose.  Waste management companies were reluctant to get involved, due to uncertainty in interpretation of the legislation regarding whether their treatment procedures would be sufficient.  Additionally, local communities where sites were proposed began once again to protest the decision.  

At this point, the legislature intervened.  The stopped the site search.  Eventually, they unanimously mandated that a volntary site be used, and offerred funding to any county interested in planning for the facility, which was accepted and acted upon. 

Making sure that all relevant stakeholders are involved from the beginning.  It's striking how in these analyses the late inclusion of new stakeholders necessitates starting over.  But most importantly, the all important role that the local governments and property owners took in the final analysis bears careful examination.  

The benefit to the state was surely greater than the harm to the community where the site would be located, but to the particular community forced to endure that harm, this benefit would be slim compensation.  The initial approaches was an attempt to use state coercion to sacrifice the good of a local area against their will.  The next two approaches, both the immediate response to citizen outcry by the PCA and the tactics taken by the waste management board, were to attempt to persuade the technically best communities to accept the facility siting by sharing the full decision making process with them.  It was ultimately necessary to offer substantial compensation for the costs the project imposed, and find a community willing to accept it.

The department of corrections should embark upon a search using some of the methods ultimately used by the Minnesota legislature.  Education about the requirements and consequences of a prison site should be distributed along with offers of benefits in return for the burden thus imposed.  Finding a willing community avoids a protracted and expensive search for a technically ideal site which is politically untenable.