In this negotiation, I believe that I prepared well. Though I did not know exactly what she wanted to achieve in this negotiation, I used the information given to determine their general mindset, which was to maintain the integrity and essence of the Bullard Houses as a community landmark. I was correct in my assumption because she started off by raising Downtown’s concerns about the future use of the Bullard Houses and expressed concerns about the potential commercial use for the property. This presented an initial problem because those desires were in direct conflict with my client’s plans to create a high-rise hotel. At this point, the negotiation became centered on what to disclose and what not to disclose and I chose to not disclose this information to the representative because I did not have the authority to reveal that information and because it would have inevitably lead to the deal falling through. Rather than disclosing this information, I chose to focus on the fact that the exterior of the Bullard Houses would be preserved. I repeatedly reassured her that we had no intention of destroying the Bullard Houses, nor did they have any plans to prevent the public from use of the property. By making these statements rather than outright telling the Downtown representative about the high-rise, I was able to seemingly align our interests because I was able to dispel the stigma attached with commercial use of the property and be truthful, for the most part, about what would happen to the Houses. She seemed satisfied with my descriptions that the overall essence of the Bullard Houses would be preserved and that the primary use would not solely be commercial, so we were able to move forward with price negotiation fairly quickly. Because the negotiation was now centered on the specific terms of the agreement, I
I chose to be upfront with my “demands.”