UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The public hearing process : public participation in municipal planning : a case study of the Terra Nova… Callow, Kathleen Ann 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8_2 C34.pdf [ 5.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098435.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098435-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098435-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098435-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098435-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098435-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098435-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098435-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098435.ris

Full Text

THE P U B L I C H E A R I N G P R O C E S S : P A R T I C I P A T I O N IN MUNICIPAL PLANNING  PUBLIC A  C A S E STUDY  OF  THE TERRA NOVA LANDS RICHMOND, B . C .  DECISION,  by  KATHLEEN B.A.,  A  The U n i v e r s i t y  THESIS THE  SUBMITTED  ANN  CALLOW  of B r i t i s h ' Columbia,  IN P A R T I A L  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  MASTER  OF  THE  1986  F U L F I L L M E N T OF DEGREE  OF  ARTS  in THE THE  SCHOOL  We  F A C U L T Y OF OF  THE  COMMUNITY  accept to  GRADUATE  this  AND  thesis  the required  U N I V E R S I T Y OF  (c)  Kathleen  REGIONAL  as  PLANNING  conforming  standard  BRITISH  October,  STUDIES  COLUMBIA  1990  Ann C a l l o w ,  1990  In  presenting  degree at the  this  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department  of School o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  October  10th, 1990  ABSTRACT This decision of  thesis  i s a case  i n the Township  study  o f Richmond,  public  hearings  a s a means  municipal  rezoning  aspect  A there  l i t e r a t u r e review i s no  public  need  making this  likened  f o r widespread  process  theory  while  elected their  stress  representative  behalf.  effective  along  representative  democracy  Although  been  as a  planning  popular  process,  decision-  theorists  critize  contemporary  i s to create decide  control,  outlines  issues  an on  according  political  to  equality,  rule.  continuum  towards  the public  legitimate  i n the  i s described  i n the planning  the democratic  governing. viewed  democracy  of  Classical  Instead,  will  that  or the role  democracy,  democratic  that  the use  i n the  indicated  society.  of the public  and m a j o r i t y  participation  o f democracy  society.  government  including:  choice,  Public  the role  Representative  principles  movement  that  theories  participation  contemporary  analyses  process.  to participatory  public  lands  participation  a democratic  as u n r e a l i s t i c i n a modern  theorists  four  theory,  of public  of democratic  accepted  Nova  B.C. w h i c h  of the planning  participation within  democratic the  single  of the Terra  a more hearing  means  process  from  participatory  participatory process  to involve  i t i s increasingly  represents  being  a  to  form o f  has t r a d i t i o n a l l y  the public  questionned  i n the as  appropriate. The  Terra  Nova  the  evaluative  six  communication  rezoning  framework  public  of Glasser,  characteristics  hearings Manty,  were  analysed  using  a n d Nehman b a s e d  and s i x p a r t i c i p a t i o n  on  i i i  objectives. interviews  The d a t a with  was  twelve  collected  from  key p a r t i c i p a n t s  the results using  a  of  pre-designed  questionnaire. It was  was  concluded  i n h e r e n t l y flawed  participation preceptual  an  the  along  Nova  conclusive hearings  answer  council  i n favour  lands.  were  o f and opposed however,  question  o f democracy  for their also  be v i e w e d i n that the  made  of the O f f i c i a l firmly  prior  to  Community split  t o development d i d not provide  the appropriateness  to this  on t h e c o n t i n u u m  must  public  that  I t was  had been  for public participation  The answer  accounted  indicated  members  The a n a l y s i s ,  regarding  a s a means  process. position  lines  lands  the adoption  the municipal  political  Terra  with  Nova  and a l s o  process.  which  process  meaningful  process  public hearings  context  the Terra  hearings  and t h a t  planning  the participants  Nova  and p o l i t i c a l  public hearing  to provide  the public hearing  the Terra  to develop  rezoning  Plan  the  that  with  Nova  i n i t sattempt  d i f f e r e n c e s among  historical  decision  the Terra  i n the municipal  dissatisfaction concluded  that  on a  of the public  i n the planning  rests  on an  between  individual's  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and  participation. Nevertheless, supplement flaws in  recommendations  the public hearing  and p e r c e p t u a l  the municipal  c a n b e made  process  d i f f e r e n c e s thus  planning  process  t o overcome moving  closer  These  initiatives  and t h e u s e o f an i n d e p e n d e n t ,  commission.  ,  include  to  democracy.  rezoning  suggestions  t o enhance o r  local  the inherent  public  participation  participatory area  planning  non-political,  iv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT TABLE LIST  OF  CONTENTS  .. i v  FIGURES  v i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  . . v i i  1.0  OF  i i  INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6  Problem Statement Purpose Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s Significance Research Methodology Organization  1 3 3 6 7 9  2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: DEMOCRATIC THEORY AND THE P L A N N I N G PROCESS 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 An O v e r v i e w o f D e m o c r a t i c T h e o r y 12 2.2.1 C l a s s i c a l Democratic Theory 13 2.2.2 Contemporary Democratic Theory 14 2.2.3 P r i n c i p l e s of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e Democracy.16 2.3 P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s . 2 0 2.3.1. D e f i n i t i o n o f P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n 21 2.3.2 Purpose of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Planning 22 2.3.3 E v o l u t i o n of P u b l i c Involvement i n Planning 23 2.3.4 Roles of Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n 27 2.3.5 Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n Techniques 30 2.3.6 Evaluation of Public P a r t i c i p a t i o n Techniques 31 3.0  4.0  A C A S E STUDY OF RICHMOND'S TERRA NOVA LANDS 3.1 Introduction.... 3.2 H i s t o r i c a l Background 3.3 The O f f i c i a l Community P l a n P r o c e s s and Public 3.4 The R e z o n i n g P r o c e s s and t h e P u b l i c  34 34 the 36 45  AN A N A L Y S I S OF TERRA NOVA'S P U B L I C H E A R I N G P R O C E S S 4.1 Introduction 52 4.2 Analysis: Communication Characteristics 53 4.2.1 Degree of P u b l i c C o n t a c t A c h i e v e d 53 4.2.2 D e g r e e o f I m p a c t o n D e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . . . . 57 4.2.3 Degree of User S o p h i s t o c a t i o n 62 4.2.4 E a s e o f Use and P r e p a r a t i o n 65 4.2.5 A b i l i t y t o Respond t o V a r i e d Interests.67 4.2.6 D e g r e e o f Two-way C o m m u n i c a t i o n 70 4.3 Analysis: Participation Objectives 72  4.4 4.5 5.0  Analysis: Alternatives to the Public Process Summary o f A n a l y s i s  C O N C L U S I O N S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Conclusions 5.3 Recommendations 5.4 Further Research  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix Appendix  Hearing 75 ..82  85 85 92 96 98  One: Two:  List Copy  o f Key I n f o r m a n t s of Questionnaire  Interviewed.102 103  VI L I S T OF FIGURES F i g u r e One  5  vii  AC KNOWLEDGEMENT I  would  continued  like  support  encouragement also Henry  like  t o thank  t o thank  Lastly,  Brahm Wiesman,  the completion of this  the other  Julia  I would  understanding,  advisor,  t h r o u g h o u t my g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m m e  towards  Hightower,  my  members  Gardner,  like  I would committee:  and Ray Young.  t o thank  and support.  and f o r h i s  thesis.  o f my d e f e n s e  for his  my  family  f o rtheir  patience,  1  Chapter 1.1  One:  Problem  Statement  Public planners  Introduction  participation,  as an e s s e n t i a l  as a concept,  part  of the over-all  process.  In f a c t ,  public participation,  hearings,  has been  entrenched  in  British  the  first  planning  Municipal 1979). Act  I n B.C.,  (Section change  bylaw  planning..."  rezoning  matters  under  of the  Chapter  290,  the Municipal  o r any subsequent  amending  bylaws  land-use must  designation  be  subject  and/or  any  to a public  gives  not a requirement  a municipal  Planning  and a  of the  council the option  Commission,  made  of the municipality, to  respecting  however,  i n land-use  land-use,  these  up by a t advise  (and) community  questioned  and a p p r o p r i a t e  the municipal  s t a t u t o r y mechanisms  decision-making,  are being  r e s o l u t i o n of land-use  -within  Columbia,  since  (Section 955).  process,  constructive,  statute  Community  of residents  Increasingly, participation  process  Official  In a d d i t i o n , although  "...all  planning  d e c i s i o n by c o u n c i l c a n be r e n d e r e d  Act, the Act also  on  of public  considering  designation  a final  two-thirds  council  when  any  e s t a b l i s h i n g an A d v i s o r y  least  the  Bylaws  In e f f e c t ,  adopted.  Municipal  hearings  land-use  before  of B r i t i s h  by  planning  a requirement  municipalities are required  Zoning  956).  to a  hearing  a c t i n 1 9 2 4 a n d i s now  public  Bylaws,  i n the form  i n the municipal  Statutes  accepted  municipal  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s by p r o v i n c i a l  Act (Revised  to hold  Plan  of  Columbian  i s widely  means  the  effective,  of involving the public i n  conflicts  planning  as  specifically  for public  process  by a l l o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s including  planners.  2  developers, Planning  council  Institute  Institute  participants opinion  on  November,  planners,  participation,  the timing  on  and t h e l e v e l  meeting  hearings,  i n November  Planning  public's various  Council  by  of B r i t i s h  a wide  range  of  of public  o r medium f o r into  those  that  of those  members,  oppose that  concerned  viewed  the planning should  public  the public hearing  and e f f o r t  soliciting  i n terms process  Planners  which  tends  of the  clearly  as o n e - s i d e d  of planners  the development. of time,  as an  on a  expressed to create  use of resources.  on g e n e r a l  specific And  effort,  inefficient frustration a Given  and t h e . p u b l i c  a n d comments  -  and n o t  b e n e f i t from  costs  public hearings  inefficient  were  and  to discuss the  c o n s u l t a t i v e atmosphere.  public opinion  directions,  be an  than  called  the development  input.  process  much  time  with  process  At a  Institute  the views  the process  would  attack.  Development  Columbia,  the public hearing  of including  prior  a r e under  process,  criticized  rather  to  of public input  i n the rezoning  Developers  money,  policy  offer  as t h e o t h e r  of the concept  i n particular,  confrontational  to  as w e l l  of participation  i n the development  representative  with  process  1989 o f t h e U r b a n  participants  dominated  method  Development  of influence public participation  Institute  role  outlined.  and  and Urban  joint  the d e c i s i o n .  Public  the  (notes,  1989) .  several characteristics the type  have  Columbia  specifically,  i n the planning  participation:  process,  and t h e p u b l i c  of B r i t i s h  meeting,  Practicing  members,  i s  devoted  plans  and  rezoning  finally  that  appear  the public  3  criticized decisions which  the process are i n effect  are not intended  Instead, legal  they  who  on  the  1.2  i n the recent both  by which  community's  with  past,  lack  input  fulfilling i t s  was  made,  of effective  Municipal Act.  Vancouver  well-organized, of a  hearings  to the process.  the provincial  the substance  land-use  to the public  i s merely  i n Greater  the decision  perceived  public  that  have n o t  vocal  land-use  community  decision  specifically  involvement  and  the  and i n f l u e n c e  decision.  Purpose In  light  of growing  practice  of public  the  that  fact  statutory public  public  to  i n f l u e n c e land-use  purpose public  participation  of this  alternatives  1.3  Scope This  government public  this  the current  use decision-making are often  the only  decisions i n the rezoning  process,  i s t o determine  In d o i n g  public  hearings  over  i n their  to the current  participation,  i n land  available  a s t h e means  process.  conflict  to the public  thesis  hearings  rezoning  community  participation  of  of  real  the council  i n accordance  opposed  process  to gain  believing  made p r i o r  few m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  experienced, groups  already  believe that  obligation Indeed,  the  as i n e f f e c t i v e ,  for public  so, t h i s  thesis  hearings,  the  i n the rezoning  of  of  i n the  investigates  s t a t u t o r y requirements  means  efforts  the appropriateness participation  and  potential  public  process.  and L i m i t a t i o n s thesis  i s an e x a m i n a t i o n  planning  process  participation  process.  o f one a s p e c t  - the rezoning  - specifically,  of the municipal  process  public  - and t h e  hearings  role  - within  4  This  examination  participants  involved  is  illustrated  in  the  recent  Municipal  Council  to  rezone  a  commonly  referred  to  as  "Terra  residential land  construction.  located  Richmond  within  the  study  i s an  exercised  is  not  the  illustrate  the  intended or  surrounding  Greater  Vancouver  the  land-use role  means, As  context  a  the  issues  and  Richmond  and  land, permit  is a  parcel  Municipality  rapid  of  the  of  of  of  the of  issues  this  and  the  study, role  undertaken. to  view  the  the  case  surrounding  of  case  i t is  a g r i c u l t u r a l land  focus  decision  controversial to  plays  hearings.  comprise  these  used  urban  issues  the  or  land  study  the  in  the  established  high-profile, controversial  central  Lands  is  p a r t i c u l a r , the  public  development  a  decision  participation  In  which  Although as  Lands  p a r t i c i p a t i o n as  mechanism  study  Nova  was  which  the  the  lands  public  participation within  theories  from  of  process.  analysis  decision  albeit  by  Lands",  Nova  Nova  role  public  region.  Terra  process  a  the  background  democratic planning  be  public  The  of  and  conflict,  of  process. one  lands  of  agricultural  Nova  corner  non-preservation  issues  of  the  statutory  to  of  Terra  Terra  rezoning  description  Nova  the  examination  preservation  Terra  of  municipal  by  study  One).  study  to  The  a  decision  parcel  North-West  Figure  case  exclusively  The  in  (see  This  the  by  one, a of  this  the as to  public  a  case  review  case  remains rezoning  study  illustrate  is  just  this  theme.  of  various  participation in  review  Nova  thesis  municipal  literature  This  Terra  of  case  establishes study.  the  the  the  5  Figure  One:  Map o f R i c h m o n d , B . C . , s h o w i n g t h e T e r r a N o v a L a n d s (Source: V a n c o u v e r S u n , A u g u s t 1 6 , 1 9 9 0 , p., B l )  6  1.4  Significance Although  focused tended  on to  public  case  that  solicit  studies  have  public  on  been  input  various  public  on  local  area  planning  committees  committees  assigned  to  Few nature are  studies,  the  statutory  often  the  only  land-use  neighbourhood  and  Further,  on  a  Bilingualism  in  it  on  remains  elected public  the  policy  table  and  municipality  directions.  are  experimental  citizen  task  or  working  work  towards  on  of  a  the  Greater  and  of  the  examined  participation public  profoundly  a  use  Goods  more  for  the  which  input  impact  into  their  influence  a  final  of  and  by  subjects.  level,  regularly  a l l  Recently,  conducted Services  often  a  Tax  series  of  and  the  conduct  public  issues.  use  they  hearings,  commission,  local  land-use  when  public  government  Vancouver  what  of  variety  the  widespread  make  to  advisory  federal  On  representatives  public  will  of  great  Canada.  uncertain  policies  form  with  the  specifically  community.  some  a.variety  spite  of  that  dealing  of  have  i s widespread  scale,  municipalities  In  larger  government  hearings  hearings  by  specific  available  decisions  with  national  public  have  schemes  round a  measures  means  there  conjunction of  out  up  general  or  however,  of  levels  studies  these  set  participation  carry  have  goal.  case  specific  in  public  research  p a r t i c i p a t i o n programmes  broad,  the  specific  academic  voluntarily  Among  a  and  p a r t i c i p a t i o n methods,  concentrate  processes to  other  and  scope  public  public  hearings  deliberate decision.  of  the  have  hearings on  formation  of  7  This public  thesis  analysis  specifically of  Richmond's  Research The  a  Case  Study  precedent approach thesis,  and  The parts.  with  position  of of  associated the  Nova  and  part key  their  planners,  Law  measure  the  Municipal  Act  Lands  by  using  a  of  case  of British  study  decision.  used  as  a  approach  Sciences  in  this  as  the  well  in  and a  and  In  attempt  this to  interactions  more  general  is  comprised of  newspaper of  of  analysis  law  consisting  sequence  that  methodological  an  thesis  as  is  disciplines.  events  applied  to  case  represents  of  thesis  legitimate  documents  files  this  t r a d i t i o n of  be  uses  in  study  study  can  of  issues.  events,  council  study  consists  These  individuals  involvement  knowledge  Four be  case  informants.  The  process. can  the  unique  special  process  statutory  sense. of  two  municipal  articles. the  and This  issues,  and  involved.  d i f f e r e n t groups  rezoning  case  case  establishes  second  basis  a  employed  Social  data  part  reports  interviews  in  Nova  adapted  that  study  participants The  of  hearings,  specific series  first  documentation  of  a  The  in  Nova  value  case The  Terra  Common  been  Terra  of  provincial  the  has  from  something  public  methodology  analysis  the  outlined  Approach.  from  to  abstract  the  examination  Methodology  research  originates  the  an  p a r t i c i p a t i o n as  Columbia,  1.5  is  of  events  informants of key  were  participants groups  identified:  members,  with  the  of  the  and  of  case  which  them  on a  into to  took  part in  officials, as  chosen  giving  chosen  participants  developers  were  insight  also  municipal  personal  be  samples  in  the  the Terra  including  represented  by  the  8  Terra  Nova  public  hearings,  Although can  Group,  be  other  and  such  Cabinet,  identified  above  interviewed  All  hearing  those  twelve asked  Save  the  as  and  the  the  represent  p u b l i c who  Richmond i n the  judicial those  Farmland Terra  Agricultural  to  process  Commission,  the the  the  Society.  Nova  Land  system,  closest  attended  four  the  groups  municipal  process.  Individuals  public  of  participants involved  Provincial  be  members  i n c l u d i n g the  identified,  rezoning  the  i n order process  to  participation  the to  interviewed  provide and  opinions the  each  of  the  facilitate  and  s e l e c t e d agreed  persons to  representing  rezoning  be  of  the  Terra A  process  chosen  as  of  of  One.  regarding  to  the  Nova  list  i n Appendix  suggestions  rezoning  were  understanding  interviewed.  i s found and  an  groups  lands.  the  They  were  public  illustrated  in  the  i  Terra  Nova  found  i n Appendix For  lands  the  most  case  part,  to  allow  reflect  on  questions  conduct  personal  employed  note  the and  structured  copy  the  of  the  questionnaire  p a r t i c i p a n t s to outlined  interviews, because  thought  questionnaire  is  interview,  The  of  the  Township's  an  but as  was  mailed  s e c t i o n B.  more to  It  not  as  loose  provide  a  for  is  now  mail-in provided  i s important  intended,  as  a  outline for  focus  to  of  responses  were a  and  planners  made  their  to  i n t e n t i o n was  convenience  allowance  section B  well  section A  the  to  as  complete  for  answers  format,  delivered prior  but  that  in  was  s e c t i o n B.  those  questions answer  in  one  Canada,  Generally,  well  that  question  the  in central  responses. lengthy,  and  A  Two.  meeting  participants,  study.  on  to rigid a  public  9  participation conducted To  over  serve  to  provide  of  the  focused  the  on  the  planning process.  five a  week  analytical a  as  well  this  r e s e a r c h and  planning  issue  statutory  thesis  the  one  purpose  Chapter work  two  related  chapter  examination measure planning  of  the  of  which was  public  to  case view  study the  conducted.  role  allows  employing  literature  into  the  of  and  results  The  review  participation  participation  both  within  empirical  particulars  and  the  case  research permits of  for generalizations  hearings  i s comprised i s an and  a  a  specific  r e g a r d i n g the  municipal  of  a  literature  rezoning  role  process.  public  of  Chapter description  the three of  the  of  the  issues  -  an  study's  provides  of  the  the  an and  the the  study  work of  theoretical  provides  case  to  participation  participation and  chapters.  review  r e c e n t example  public  five  significance  is a to  of  introduction  establishes  process  discussion  a  and  public  Chapter  This  1990.  Organization This  and  review  role  academic  investigation  both  from  and  methodology  detailed  1.6  the  mid-July,  were  process.  Overall,  of  framework  theories  as  from  Interviews  foundation f o r the  literature  democratic  them  period  theoretical  study,  planning  study  a as  an  case  within  and  and  undertaken.  democratic  i n the  of  public  analytical  theories  planning  background  use  establishes  the  for  process. an  statutory  hearing  -  framework  in  the  for a  significance. introduction participants  to  the  case  involved.  study In  and  doing  10  so,  this  study  chapter  and a c h r o n o l o g y Chapter  chapter as and  also  four  Nehman's  Sinclair  changes  five  setting  f o r the case  events. the results  of the interviews.  of the public rezoning  using  f o r e v a l u a t i o n as adapted  hearing Glasser, by  This  process Manty,  Margaret  1977, p. 1 0 5 ) .  summarizes  and c o n c l u d e s  to the existing  requirement  an h i s t o r i c a l  an a n a l y s i s  framework  analysis  both  i n t h e T e r r a Nova  (Sinclair,  Chapter  of  presents  provides  illustrated  study  provides  f o r public  the findings  and r e s u l t s  of the case  w i t h .some r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r  public  hearings  participation.  as t h e m u n i c i p a l  11  Chapter  Two;  Democratic 2.1  Public Theory  democratic  the  of  on  the  role  society  democratic  theory  democracy, theory  society.  Both  participation associated emotional equated  of a  part  and  Process  public  and  focus  participation the  criticize  this  of  believe  that  election The  to  the day  first  part  emphasis these  and will  of  a  define  some  or  merits public  of two  ballot this  a  of  of  a  democracy  study  accepted  of  public  confused  with  its  with  society  is  society.  theorists  is  role  process,  democratic as  the  other  theories  unrealistic society.  public  and  Some  participation  is  box.  chapter  will  theories  role  of  are  briefly of  examine  the  democracy:  theory.  Particular  public  participation  literature  principles  that  the  democratic  democratic of  in  democracy,  Western  form  a  universally  democratic  participation  This  the  a  often  alternate  the  theories.  no  concept  because  a  be  on  is  decision-making  of  different  placed  the  democratic the  debate  within  is  example,  in  universally  there  and  democratic  discussion  •representative  to  beneficial  the  one  contemporary  democratic  include  not  stability  only at  characteristics classical  the  continuing  theory  within  expressing  dangerous  is  society of  theorists  even  the  conditions,  for  Christian  level  of  participation  participation  difficult  the  public  consequently  connotations: a  of  democratic  are  Although  on  Planning  There  principles  with  public  are  theory.  accepted  of  and  Introduction Arguments  of  Participation:  or  review  will  characteristics  fundamental  to  its  in  also of  operation,  12  as  well  as  a discussion  of the duties  and o b l i g a t i o n s  of  elected  representatives. The public  second  part  of this  participation  reviews  the rise  of public  outlines  the various  the  Glasser,  Manty,  evaluation hearings 2.2  surrounding  The of  many'  and in  Fifth  operated people  the rezoning  formed  by t h e Greek  meaning  as t h e method their  as a system  with  policies.  both  citizen  term  historian  defined  Herodutus,  who  process addition,  public  system f o r the public  Nova  meaning  Lands.  'the people'  thought  their  t o have  democracy  p a r t i c i p a t i o n where a l l  permitted process  a s " o n e who  and expected  to  of the state. participates"  thought  t o have  Indeed, by t h e  coined the  democracy. The  Athenian  democracy  fundamental  elements  today,  as m a j o r i t y  popular  such  control  carried  or principles vote,  of public  with  i t many  associated  equality  officials.  used  government and  The A t h e n i a n  i s also  i s 'the r u l e  c i t y - s t a t e of Athens,  society  citizen  an  Greek  'demos'  the f i r s t  i n the decision-making was  In  'democracy'  The Greek  participate Athenian  This  of the Terra  words  were  can play.  f o r analyzing  o f the term  of direct  a franchise  discussion  f o r evaluating  of structuring  public  This  Theory  'to rule'.  B . C . , was  on t h e r o l e o f  i n the planning  be o u t l i n e d .  t h e framework  translation  determining  system  of Democratic  Century  democracy  will  direct  'kratein'  process.  the public  a n d Nehman  establishes  focus  participation  roles  techniques  Art O v e r v i e w  will  i n the planning  and  participation  chapter  before However,  of the  with  democracy  t h e law, and the system of  13  government small  operated  scale  Western  by  the  v e r s i o n of  democracies  Athenians  modern,  operate  Western  through  participation  by  electing  participation  of  a l l franchised  sustain  Athenian  Regardless principles  and  transformed basis  f o r the  countries exists that  practices  around  United  States  present  which  i f a  Although  a  democracy,  this  through of  or  Democratic democratic  dictates  are  several  theory  the  direct to  equal  that  the  exist  republic  bicameral monarchy  in  is a  of  by  a  values  of  conflicts,  the  classical  system  that system  or  theory  norms  decision  of  must  be  democratic. theory  as  is the  of  less  decision  emphasizes  i n the  which  public  the  theory  classical  government  which  o p p o r t u n i t y of  depth  the  in various  normative  the  participation  and  provide  Canada.  to  democratic  range  the  been  parliamentary  is generally characterized  decision-makers,  democracy,  centuries to  variants  process  full  public  necessary  have  considered  the  public  the  day  be  with  influence  indirect  i s to  concerned  classical  as  certain  system  substance  the  Today's  was  democracy  theory  that  the  through  a  Theory  with  widespread  which  democracy  such  concerned  The  of  modern  the  constitutional  political  there  system  citizens  Athenian  forms world:  classical  democracy  of  the  Classical The  considered  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , r a t h e r than  translated  f u n c t i o n s as  2.2.1  be  democracies.  i t s d e v i a t i o n s from  current  i n the  a  not  democracy. of  and  can  and  more  reached. value  decision-making  of  process  a l l members  o f the  provides  opportunity for  interests  democratic  an to  theory  be  public  heard.  relies  upon  To the  to a  resolve  14 principle weight.  of In  Rousseau,  the  fact,  that  regardless  structure  of  democracy  creation the  of  governing of  can  likened  degree  the  of  the  be  offer  In  as  that  view  unrealistic.  can  this  the  a  which  in  J.S.  the  equal  Mill  and  without  J.J.  the  decision-making  established  way,  as  part  in  of  to  the  role  generates  a  above  responds  which  the  of  public  Indeed,  mind  set  educated  a  public:  to  the theory  demands  a  high  processes. participation  in  classical  participation  theory  classical  ideal  considered  of  in  the  the  citizenry  electorate  able  to  Theory has  such  theory  in  given  complete  been as  as  contemporary  participation  realized  are  but  decision-making.  theorists,  Specifically,  democracy  decision-making  better  Democratic  and  democracy  the  a  of  c l a s s i c a l democratic  democratic  in  part  standing  from  through  additions  elitist  widespread  become  as  exist  one  entity  derived  only  resulting  Lipsett,  society  is  an  educational.  or  can  not  c l a s s i c a l democratic  who  carries  institutions  system  contemporary  whether  Government  view  Contemporary The  only  theorists  constructive  2.2.2  not  institutions  participation  process  cultivated,  vote  such  public  participatory  believe  democratic  the  does  considered  public,  public  theorists  are  to  democratic  each  government.  public.  Classical  which  theorists,  of  the  structure  wishes be  of  itself.  the  in  democracy  participation  Institutions not  rule  classical  believe  widespread process,  majority  attacked  Schumpeter, both  naive  theorists  democratic  the  and  Dahl,  and  and  question  decision-making  complexities  range  by  depth  of of  a  modern  interests.  15 Even  more  important,  participation Contemporary  itself  as  theorists  destabilization inherent  critics  of  a  inability  to  should  rise  with  a  result,  formation account  of  for  operating from  due  conflicting that  minimum  an  the  existing  democratic  examination  voter  turnouts  that  of  democracy.  to  l e a d i n g to  the  the  system's  interests.  participation  by  Indeed,  the  i s necessary  as  a  it  i s the  political  a  contemporary  to  responsible government  election  and or  of  public  public  to  continue  the  the  responsive  of  process.  attempts  dp  by  of  not  to  on  the  adequately  present  contemporary  in  an  theory  functioning  participate  democratic  set  of  theorists  institutional  i s derived democracies  (e.g.,  view  low  system  of  governing.  of  the  as  a  and  whole,  According  to  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as.  government: and  democracy  arrangements  established institutions,  democracy  demands  concentrated  elections).  electorate  self-rule  control  a  democratic  the  The  experience  responsive"  to  meet  or  theory,  and  answerable  the  method  operation  "responsible  the  contemporary  represents  popular  of  that  have  empirical evidence  society. of  theorists  theory  for municipal  Generally,  willing  contemporary  democratic  all.members  is  of  ideal  participation  society  with  the  a  where  the  greater  suggest  above  very  elections. As  that  see  cope  theorists  the  desirable aspect  democratic  contemporary never  a  question  r e s p o n s i b l e because i t  responsive public.  In  because this  context,  government  does  not.refer to  the  but,  instead, to  people  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s as  exercised  i t is  through  selfthe the  a  16  Unlike public  i s not to decide  government this  that  theory,  periodic In  the c l a s s i c a l  this  way,  contemporary  subject are  a r e made,  distinct,  2.2.3  through  public.  which  theory  a  According  to  to the  on e l e c t i o n d a y .  c a n be  "political  system  likened  to  basis,  control  by  at periodic  (Mayo,  public  representatives  of p o l i t i c a l  freedom."  democracy.  ... i n w h i c h  elections  equality  and  1970, p. 7 0 ) .  p r i n c i p l e s o f democracy  which  under Four  c a n be  Mayo's d e f i n i t i o n .  These  as the cornerstones  o f a modern  free  principle  elections.  principles are representative  The p r i n c i p l e  second  exercised  social  control  of  The e l e c t i o n r e s u l t t o make  of popular  authority  flows  wholly  and economic  provides  to  the  on b e h a l f  i s based  and s o l e l y  o f democracy  the franchise.  policy-makers  decisions  control  are selected  principle  through  Democracy  i s popular  f o r representatives  representatives  various  choice  of the  system.  political  The is  from  first  authority  behalf.  of representative  P r i n c i p l e s of Representative The  that  on t h e i r  democratic  popular  of p o l i t i c a l  regarded  democratic  but to produce  to exercise  on t h e p r i n c i p l e  distinguished  the r o l e  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s limited  as a  y e t interwoven,  generally  issues  on a m a j o r i t y  to effective  conditions  directly  offers a definition  democracy  conducted  o f democracy,  democracy.  Mayo  defines  policies  decide  of the public  representative  Mayo  issues  the function  right  H.B.  will  theory  of the  on t h e b e l i e f  from  the people  serve. i s political  Although  there  barriers to political  e q u a l i t y and may  be..-,  equality, the  17 principle upheld.  of universal Political  principle choosing  equality  of popular  decisions,  proportion  i n power.  The  principle  third  political is  freedoms,  guaranteed  secret  persuasion The  of  unable,  popular  voted  refers  of since  a  f o rthe  to a variety of  choice.  This  of procedures, coercion  principle such  as the  and undue  based  any degree  i s majority i s resolved  at a given  however,  of voters  behind  have  to prevent  will  does  rule.  time.  will  only  The that the  that  prevail.  on r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,  This  by t h e d e c i s i o n  not dictate  prevail,  of the representatives  with  support  system  a conflict  rule,  of government  participationin  the legitimacy  effective  of representatives  the majority  are  would  and  following the  of the electors,  o f democracy  that  of majority  step  accepted  public.  principle  of the majority  system  attempts  of the voting  the majority  will  them  a refined  establishes  principle  a  which  fourth  principle of  through  ballot,  on b e h a l f  o f democracy  among  i s both  greater  increase  of the public  representatives  adults  logical  because  will  made  among  i s a  control  representatives  government greater  suffrage  the w i l l Indeed, i n  representatives  of c e r t a i n t y , to determine the  specific  public  policies  between  elections. According representation election  to the contemporary i s seen  democratic  as the instrument  of representatives  the i m p r a c t i c a l i t y of direct  by  a l l members  of the p u b l i c  of democracy.  as d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  to  theory, The  i s necessary  due  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decision-making  in a  large,  modern,  complex  society.  18 However, essence public that  i n spite  of the democratic i s that  element  distinguishes  Participation the  of this,  public's  legitimize  participation i s still system.  of a governing  i t from  a l l other  i n government  representative  democracy,  decisions  rests  popularly  controlled  According  with  the p o l i t i c a l through  t o Cohen  between  what  believe  i s i n the best  the public  the dual  act  i n the r o l e  the  public  were  of public  deputy  the  and o r  their  duty  On  i t was  the other  who a r e  however,  i s a  a  divergence  representatives This  dilemma  either  (a) t o  (b) t o a c t i n t h e r o l e o f  hand,  would  and apply would  that  of public i t was  i t to the issue  that  o f t h e community,  t o do. they  In t h i s  regardless  of the  believed  trustees,  their  with  believe  of the public i f  the w i l l  i f representatives  believe  be u n a b l e  policies  as d e p u t i e s  to endorse  to a c t i n the capacity  endorse  interests  t o make  there  of representatives:  saw t h a t  information  want.  duties  to  i n a  (1^71),  interests of the public.  be a c t i n g  chosen  would  and what  serves  process.  c a n r e s u l t when  would  public  authority  through  trustee.  representatives  the  also  Thus,  Democracy  Representatives  public.  which  the election  wants  system  i s guaranteed  representatives  i n h i s book  f o r representatives  political  of government.  elected.  the ultimate  dilemma  they  forms  decision-making  of those  as the  p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the  democratic  election of representatives,  the decisions  illustrates  Indeed,  valued  duty  that the  to gather  a thoroughness case,  would  o f what  they  that  representatives  be i n t h e the public  best may  19  Cohen by  their  one  suggests  dual  roles  of p o l i c y  of  policy  of  the p u b l i c  the  other  to  representatives  determining  of  the representative and  hand,  vote  according  a c t as  a  policy  clear  c u t way  decision  and  to solve  an  the representative  duties.  In any  case,  representatives  of  trustee  and  interests. this  is still  with  deputies  or  vote  the  decision  representative  a  this  their  the to  appears  between  i s often  democracy,  On  according  line  a dilemma  trustees,  deputy  the p u b l i c .  Although  dilemma,  faced  i s one  t o a c t as of  posed  made i s  implementation,  implementation  in a  a c t as  a duty  to the wishes  a public  t o be  I f the d e c i s i o n  have  i s one  best  t h e dilemma  i f the d e c i s i o n  would  i f the d e c i s i o n must  solve  implementation.  i s i n the community's  be  and  by  o r one  representative what  that  a  blurred  of  opposing  whether  role  i s one  of  decision-maker. . The process of  of the p u b l i c ,  prior  occasions It  the  along  being  at elections  between  i s these  election  therefore,  to the d e c i s i o n  representatives  other  a  role  other  process  and  elections occasions  that  provide  the continuum of democracy  more  participatory  More  specifically,  beyond  the e l e c t i o n  public  today  as  responsibility community  form  life.  have state  individual  somewhere i n both  available for public an from  input.  participation  beyond  f o r movement  representative  democracy  to  governing.  for public  tremendous  and  choosing  i n a l l the  for public  opportunity  assumes  i n the  (a)  (b) p a r t i c i p a t i n g  the occasions  t h e modern f o r the  rendered  of democratic  process  rests  participation  significance  f o r the  increasing  growing  influence  over  20  In have  the  field  continued  development occasions Indeed,  of  for  the  represents towards  a  to  of  planning,  expand  both  the  public  their built  positive  more  role and  various in  government  influencing  natural  participation  i n t r o d u c t i o n of a  where  are  participatory  along  form  particularly  the  of  the  environment,  public participation  movement  agencies  in  democratic  the  significant. planning continuum  representative  democratic  government. 2.3  Public  Participation  and  Edmond  Burke  defines  planning  Urban  Planning  Approach means  to  for achieving  p.195).  This  planning  i s an  activity approach  According  an  seven  initial  one,  to  1990, two  as  step  the  the  three  involves  be  distinct  the  possibilities  Participatory  and  deliberate  goal" to  (Burke,  1979,  i t , implies  involves  planning  a  to  a  that  thoughtful,  be  involves  of  the  factual  information  in  step  planning  task. the  flowing  seven  planning  e s t a b l i s h i n g the  the  from  steps  In  planning range  four,  are  of  from  step  task, goal  and  are  step or  Step  surrounding  task  be  (Wiesman,  process.  steps-four  the  can  accomplished,  through  drawn  process  d e c i s i o n , step  definition  planning  generated  the  task  accomplishing  options,  which  inter-related,  making  process  identified for  yet  of  gathering  similar  A  decision-making.  d e f i n i n g the step  book  conscious  others  Boothroyd,  accomplished  possibilities and  of  planning  to  previously  Peter  in his  Process  o b j e c t i v e or  process  to  Following  goals  or  distinct,  final  p.l). of  to  and  Planning  "...a  particular  definition,  step-by-step,  viewed  a  as  the  the five,  generated  relevant  created.  The  options,.  21 therefore, defined an  are  goals,  assessment  options.  It  activity  are  made b y After of  plan  and  the  step  economic  participation  and  process.  range  of  varied  plans  to  complete  planning  of  can  issue. of  consequences  step  seven,  which  process  has  a  an  Step  six is  each  of  of  the  planning  decision is  been  analyzed.  i s completed, and  the  the  outcome  e v a l u a t i o n of  the  out.  within  this  essential  process  component  constraints limit occur  at  example, from  apathy.  i s no  of  any  given  the  of  of  the  are  has  long  been  planning. amount  stage. other  of In  However, public  addition  intense  can  be  faced  in  with  problems  public early,  and  stress  through  the  a  outright opposition  these  to  considerations  public participation  planners  Indeed,  Public  to  the  out  the  participation different  means  things or  the  Participation  consistent, widely-accepted,  public participation  several  in  implementation  involving  i n the  the  i s monitored  responses,  Definition  involved  that  constraints, there  For  accomplished,  process.  There of  time  the  planning  2.3.1  and  that  with  importance  planning  be  disadvantages  options  is carried  budgetary  associated  the  activity  vital  and  Finally,  of  to  involved  stage,  participation a  task  advantages  this  one  the  facts  analyzed.  process  and  upon  the  i s at  planning  considered  time  of  seven  Public  both  and  choosing  the  the  based  to  within  different the  same  situation  definitions  of  the  planning  things people  being  to  single  process.  different  depending  considered.  public participation  definition  upon  Public  people the  and  even  issues  Nevertheless, can  be  found  in  the  22  literature what  and a r e u s e f u l  i s meant  by t h e c o n c e p t .  Arnstein  states  redistribution presently be  i n establishing  o f power  excluded  deliberately  41).  power  from  enables  defines  c a n be  makers.  Public  participation  is a call  decision-making  of the people  who  Purpose  1969, p.40-  participation  i n planning  as a c a l l  f o rthe  and t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  will  decision-  f o r the involvement i n be a f f e c t e d  by t h e  Participation  purposes  process  i n Planning  for including  c a n be  public  participation i n  i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e  (Burke,  p. 89). The  process  first  plans  purpose  i s to provide  information  that  are to serve. decisions  planners  with  assertion  belief  that  of including planners  can only  planning  This  the public  of Public  broad  planning  1979,  to  activity.  Three the  processes,  (Arnstein,  seen  o f power  2.3.2  citizens,  1977, p. 7 2 ) .  sharing  planning  between  the  p a r t i c i p a t i o n a s " . . . a means  of public  i n planning  "...is  and economic  (Fagence,  the d e f i n i t i o n s  parameters f o r  the have-not  i n the future"  Fagence  participation  participation  the p o l i t i c a l  equalization"  Although vary,  public  that  included  Similarly,  towards  that  some  come  additional forms  be  a  from  t h e community  improved  data  source  that  because  on w h i c h  of a planning  o f wisdom  and  f o r whom t h e  the effectiveness the public  t o base, t h e i r  a p r a c t i c a l argument  the results  i n the planning  with  I t i s assumed will  the public  that  process  stems with  of  provides decisions.  from the  public  23  participation  w i l l ' more  accurately  reflect  the  needs  of  the  community. The means  second  to  organize  legitimize public  purpose  plans  of  support through  public for  consensus  building  plans.  public  p a r t i c i p a t i o n process rather  participation  approval.  is  than  This  used as  as  a  is  is  an  In  this  means  to  act  attempt  as to  sense,  to  a  the  enable  a  device  to  merely  manipulate  including  public  participation in  consent. The  third  planning  process  and  individual  for  the  the  public  is  will  This  this  not  purpose -  in  society  states  2.3.3  the  of  and  the  to  that  on  Regardless  of  how of  the  a  public  ideal a  public  authorities  the be  of  to  to  affect  in  Planning  to  participate.  be  both  them.  is defined  emerged  However,  participation not  subject public  or  participation exercise  has  of  democratic  will  has  rights  public  right  participation  process.  processes  of  opportunity  the  right  the  collective  an  that  that  the  has  that  planning of  felt  theory  basic  concept,  inclusion  the  providing  belief  public  public  both  inadvertently,  the  a  unquestioned of  or  the  for  i t is  Involvement  public  p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as of  the  the  issues  Public  s p e c i f i c purpose  to  that  heard  from  By  c i t i z e n s have  planning  of  ingredient  heard,  beyond  Evolution  public  public.  be  stems  goes  participation  informed  of  protection  deliberately,  belief  which  provide  voice  participate  Indeed,  of  to  rights  public's  misuse. should  purpose  as  the in  occurred  an  what  may  be,  essential  systematic the  and  planning  quickly,  but  24  stems  from  years,  gradual  ever-expanding 1950's,  field  and  planning  was  elite  best  left  to  at  this  community  opinions  were  influential The public,  1960's a  peace  the  movement.  With  a  a  at  the  the  planners  in decisions that turned  twenty-year found  in  the  master  to  1977,  p.10).  Interest  decaying  However,  an  rose  in  process  select  group  to  planners  the  i n order  of  provide  of  awakening  expertise.  and  level, poor  and  the  the  whole such  civil  women's  call  for  range  as  the  rights rights  increased  This  projects viable  social  p r o j e c t s and  city soon  the  rally  occurred  for as  problems massive  strategies  (Se-well, became  existing  1970's  large-scale,  planning  the  and  in cities  them.  growing  popular  of  1960's  groups  renewal  of  the  developing  solving  in defiance  A  society,  poverty  affecting  parts  for  decision-making.  local  forces, destroying  groups  a  accompanying  Urban  these  technical  by  movement,  were  to  experts  Public  to  a t t e n t i o n of  p r o j e c t s became  rebuild  destructive  plans,  highly  experts.  a t t e n t i o n from  inner-city.  transportation means  their  a  as  whose  disenfranchised, economically  voice  fifty  leading businessmen,  i n government  planning,  as  a u t h o r i t y and  came  to  public. unquestioned  time  movements,  these  forty  plans.  was  environmental  involvement  Within  to  past  limited  solicited  of  disarmament  was  usually  1970's  brought  movements,  public  and  were  planning  their  the  the  viewed  time,  for  questioning  and  was  leaders,  backing  for  planners  the  directly  i s s u e s were  saw  roles  the  participation,  of  e v o l u t i o n , over  During their that  of  a  as  Coppock,  seen  as  neighbourhoods.  planning  establishment  a  25  and  the decisions  Vancouver, renewal  of the building  These  for  their  communities  the  existing  into not  concern  groups  means  but also  to this  the planning  process.  one o f p a r t n e r s h i p  induce  the co-operation  urban  viewed  renewal  by p l a n n i n g  acceptance  of plans  participation  was  However, one o f  before  introduced  of was  opposition, injected  of the public  was  a s a means t o  i n such  As p u b l i c  and, u l t i m a t e l y ,  7).  consultation;•instead  planning  activities  p a r t i c i p a t i o n came  as a n e c e s s i t y  formally  to the plans  (Ley, p.  the role  of the public  bodies  Expressway i n  expression  existed  initially  projects.  over the  opposition  the public  grass-roots  o r even  p a r t i c i p a t i o n was  brought out  i d e n t i f i e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with  p a r t i c i p a t i o n than  public  as  expressed  In  of the urban  neighbourhood  of the Spadina  not only  them.  the impacts  as d i d c o n c e r n  of consulting  a response public  made w i t h o u t  over  opposition,  Toronto.  broader  being  f o r the Strathcona  community  consequences  As  were  f o r example,  proposal  organized  that  i n order  to gain  to legitimize  institutionalized into  t o be popular  plans,  public  the planning  process. Indeed, process part  the role  has become  so e n t r e n c h e d  of professional  question rather  of whether  how  Beyond  planning  that  ethics  i n the planning statutory  i t h a s come  practice.  effective  professional  various  participation within  o r n o t t o have  to achieve  participation through  of public  I t i s no  public  public  requirements  t o form longer  a  basic  a  p a r t i c i p a t i o n but  participation.  and p r a c t i c e ,  process  the planning  however,  public  has been i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d that  seek  to legally  26  ensure the  an o p p o r t u n i t y  Municipal  hearings  addition, various  Act of B r i t i s h  be h e l d  application  when  many  federal  or form  public  participation  Government Federal of  their meet  who views  issues  saw a c o n t i n u a t i o n raised  the resurgence  specifically,  concern become  rezoning  planning  and housing  o f members  when t h e  hearings members  deterred  from  as  part  of the  presenting  access  i f they  of the middle  demanding  a greater  input  input  that  and r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e  issues  and,, i n c r e a s i n g l y , t h e s e  public  review,  decades.  into  previously  participation  seen  preservation  has  of the public are  council  i n spite  i n the planning  have  r e s i d i n g i n suburban  members  seem t o h a v e  More  overwhelming  Neighbourhood class  i s evident  and 1990's  become an  municipal  i s occurring  This  movement.  t h e 1980's  of the p u b l i c .  t h e watchword  requirements  i n Federal  public  of the environmental  i n urban  f o r more  to encourage  to f a c i l i t a t e  i n previous  locations  demand  that  public  F o r example,  financially  In  and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n o f  holds  funds  require  conduct  evident  assessment  with  rezoning  criteria.  and causes  suburban  impact  are provided  1980's  levels  public  Community P l a n .  i n order  legislation.  themselves  established The  with  find  commissions  of Environment  a  statutes  are particularly  i t senvironmental  public  Official  F o r example,  that  considers  and departments  Increased  environmental  Department  requires  and p r o v i n c i a l  advisory  participation.  Columbia  to their  agencies  public  t o be h e a r d . .  a municipality  o r a n amendment  government  hearings  f o r the public  decisions.  The  of the statutory  provided  process.  adequate  I t has been  argued  27  that  this  demand is  a  rise  for a  result  increases advances greater public  of  changing  i n the  f o r the  societal  level over  public  to  increasing  not  such  the  with  tendency to  of  on  experts  to  directly  accountable  to  Public  Participation  the  create by  the  public  and ability  interest,  bodies  officials  public  a  the  lives  and  government  non-elected  process  citizen,  their  i n the  the  general  helped  have  decisions  powers  as:  average  have  and  planning  increased concern  decisions  render  decision-making  therefore,  that  disillusionment  officials the  of  f o r change  i n the  factors  systems  that  plans  public  awareness,  impacts  growing  finally,  delegate  of  the  to  educational levels  i n communication  elected  and  opposition  greater role  communities, of  in public  to who  are,  (Langton,  1978,  p.40). 2.3.4  Roles  of  Perhaps  the  lack  of  a  single  participation  i s the  result  has  public  participation  played  essential  as  component  Edmond within  the  Burke  of  the  of  can  identifies  be  seen  the  variety has  planning  planning process  participation  definition  five  as  a  continuum  over  decision-making,  public  influence  over  decision-making.  outlined of  i n her  participation  public  from  article are  participation  the  "A  listed in  of  p.74).  influence  i s adapted  theories  Ladder below  of  public  roles to  the  form  public an  process.  public  continuum  of  evolved  roles  (Burke,  of  public The  roles  starting  increasing Burke's of  participation  with to  five  Sherry  decision-making:  public  the  the  order  least  most  stage  Arnstein  Participation".  i n ascending  of  as  These of  roles  greater  28  review  and  comment  consultation advisory shared  decision-making  controlled The is  a  first  passive  planning public so  decision-making. role  role  agency  that  public  information  process  example  of  "review  limited  to  a  have  no  real  this  type  the  step  along  suggests  from more  preceding  the of  role  p u b l i c by  a  two-way  yet  falls  dialogue  to  develop  makers.  In  other  between  the  encouraged injection  of  this  public  the  the  role.  input  into  gives  The  input  planning  The the  result  of  an  that  the  elected  is  actively  of  role  the  and  are  for  decision-  information  is a  and  opportunity  process  planning  plans  planning  consultation  than  providing  is  the  "consultation"  where  loops  is  the  the  decisions.  public, planners,  multiple  participants in within  is  planners.  in  the  being  proposed  i t maintains  render  communication  between  words,  to  role  which  role  decisions  explain  This  where  their  participation  that  the  This  Although  public  measures  of  public.  on  continuum  short  process  impact  in  authority  comment".  participate,  democracy  the  the  planners  influential  sole  to  and  one-way  to  leaflets.  public participation  solicited  of  where  representative  next  involves  is  opportunity  meeting  least  representatives The  of  public  information  information  i s the  traditions  the  they  An  distribute  is  provides  made.  and  the  which  is afforded  limited  for  exchange  not  'one-shot'  process.  An  example  29  of  this  role  attitude  or opinion  The This  usually  purpose  the planners  these  Commission  citizens  o f t h e community,  municipal The public  i s anticipated  groups  mutually made  specific  shared often  role  that  that  they  agreed  occur  i n conjunction  are placed  within  p u b l i c to develop  plans  type  with  Advisory made u p o f  department.  a partnership their  forces  and p l a n n e r s , problems,  i s a  between  work  decisions that  Task  as a  team  will  or working assigned  t o work  a r e examples o f  of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n can  local  communities that  body,  body  of advising the  Through  reach  specific  select  an a d v i s o r y  on t h e continuum  involves  plans.  This  form  by t h e p l a n n i n g  step  would  upon  or solve  decision-making.  planners the  decision-making"  up o f p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s tasks  will  the task  developed  role.  authority with the  The m u n i c i p a l  o f t h e p u b l i c and p l a n n e r s .  reflect  on  "shared  i s the "advisory"  of a formal  assigned  on p l a n s  of public  f o r t h e p u b l i c where  citizens  i s an example  participation  members it  council  role  and d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s .  Planning  survey  issue.  by t h e p l a n n i n g  that  such  on t h e c o n t i n u u m  involves a formal  are recruited  expressed  or other  on a p a r t i c u l a r  following step  citizens  for  i s a questionnaire  will  area  planning  and work serve  offices  with  where  members o f  community-defined  objectives. The  final  influential In the  this  resource  role  role,  final  role  on t h e continuum,  f o r the public,  i s "controlled  the public exercises  policy  decision.  to the c i t i z e n  ultimate  Planners,  group  representing  charged  decision-making".  a u t h o r i t y i n making  i n this with  t h e most  case,  a c t as a  t h e a u t h o r i t y t o make  30  decisions. degree  Because  of participatory  controlled  example  institutions referendum,  The in  a degree  the planning that  participation information types  of c i t i z e n  Participation  preceding  techniques  process  that  participation  some  to  i s lost;  the public  of the public  Anthony  plays  participation  process.  according  Cantanese  techniques:  and i n t e r a c t i o n  techniques  of brochures  advertising  Public to the  describes  three  information-giving,  or  refer  and r e p o r t s ,  and media  Other  information-exchanging  the public  graphic  displays,  and  information-giving techniques  techniques  and c o l l e c t e d  Information-exchanging area  t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n and  coverage.  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , a n d comment  forms  techniques  and l o c a l  planning  represent  o p p o r t u n i t i e s where i n the planning  refer  by t h e p l a n n i n g  seminars,  participants  as an  i s put forward  roles  c a n be c l a s s i f i e d  Information-receiving  to  seen  i f government  i n the planning  i n f o r m a t i o n meetings.  surveys,  of  1974, p. 9 5 ) .  distribution  are  of the five  i s exchanged.  Information-giving  public  however,  be  decision-making  outlined  a r e employed  information-receiving,  high  bodies i n  could  an i s s u e  a  Techniques  discussion  techniques  of public  (Cantanese,  i f a n d when  represents  a r e few examples  Referendums  decision-making;  determine  Public  there  w i t h i n government  democracies.  of c i t i z e n  decision-making  democracy  decision-making  representative  2.3.5  controlled  to various which  of  are distributed  authority.  include.open  strategies.  a dialogue  types  houses,  These  techniques  or interaction  process, i s p o s s i b l e .  among t h e  Cantanese  also  31  lists  public  technique,  hearings  although  lower-order, In  of  in  the  in  the  become  and  are  of  place  public  alternative  planning  public  the  as  a  only  form  by of  participation  to  process  hearings,  legitimate  often  interaction  hearings  t r a d i t i o n a l approach  public  a  participation  device.  municipal  Indeed,  have  planning  would  range  the  hearing.  tradition,  public  others  available,  participation public  a  information-giving  spite  techniques  as  achieve  has  been  their  the  long  public  available  public  participation  forum  for  public  participation. 2.3.6  Evaluation Various  systems  to  evaluate  techniques  An is  in  the  final  The was  used  because  to  the  of  to  public  test  the  public's  framework  to  the  analyse  i t seemed to  framework  the  public  considered  agencies  have  developed  p a r t i c i p a t i o n techniques  s a t i s f a c t i o n of  which  Techniques  or  p a r t i c i p a t i o n programmes effectiveness  the  of  participants  wishes  were  taken  or  public  involved, into  and  account  decision-making.  the  Device"  the  planning  evaluative  available  In  public  attempt  Participation  and  evaluation  an  participation, degree  Public  authorities  programmes.  the  of  to  assess  be the  offered  a  data the  of  Glasser,  collected most  public clear  in  any  assessment  hearing and  Sinclair's article (Sewell/Coppock,  of  "The  1977,  this  appropriate  Public p.105),  Nehman  thesis  was  evaluative  comprehensive  this  and  process.  participation characteristics in  Manty,  that  At  the  that  chosen framework same  understanding  should  time of  be  kind. Hearing she  as  a  evaluates  Participatory the  public  32  hearings  held  by t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l  water-related Sinclair Manty,  problems  employs  communicate public  (b) t h e i r  participation  • There  degree  decision  makers,  preparation,  to  of public  These  The  gain large  public ability  to of  p.107). They  achieved, degree  to varied  a r e as  of impact  ease  interests,  technique, there  The o b j e c t i v e s or educate,  and s o l v e  on  o f use and and  degree  problems,  characteristics  ares i x  of public  to identify  or reach consensus,  to Margaret  hearings there  public  quick  Glasser,  participation problems  to receive and, l a s t l y ,  are described  and  feedback, to  implement  i n more d e t a i l  in  Four.  According  the  by  to achieve the objectives  sophistication,  evaluation  to inform  conflict  solutions. Chapter  studies  border.  characteristics.  contact  of user  objectives.  to get ideas  resolve  (a) t h e i r  1977,  to respond  to this  as f o l l o w s :  public  degree  to  of  which  communication.  participation  values,  ability  (Sinclair,  ability  According  are  the evaluation  a r e s i x communication  follows:  two-way  bases  technique devised  techniques according  and  Commission  the Canadian/American  the evaluation  a n d Nehman w h i c h  participation  of  along  Joint  hearing  and r e l a t i v e l y  groups  numerous  are both  a s a means  advantages  public  Sinclair's  input.  of public  and, thus,  people with  advantages of public  way  public  a r e seen  a broad-base  of the I.J.C.  and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f  participation.  hearings relate  inexpensive Further,  analysis  t o i t sease  f o r public 'authorities hearings tend  to  interests.  to  attract  as h a v i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l of  as a  to reach  33  The of  disadvantages  the a c t i v i t y  formal  itself.  to allow  addition, attract  suggesting  because  that  they  authority  and  the public Planning  means  by  use  The  statutory  lands  public  above.  questionnaire participants  and  i n t e r v i e w and  are  presented  in  was  an  analysis Four.  the background  study  criticized  the  planning  and  as  a  n o t as  a  process.  minority  interests  decision-making  majority opinion.  conducted  analyzed, as  a  participation  i s based  distributed  i n Chapter  provides  the case  analysis  a  are  hearings  to manipulate  be  plans  participation  i n the planning  process  to  f o r the Terra  technique f o r  of the s i x communication  i n t h e T e r r a Nova  the  Three,  will  both  to the public  represent  hearing  i n terms  public  represent  the s i x public  This that  which  they  process  participation  plans  process  that  public  rezoning  characteristics listed  hearing  the sense  hearings by  often  to attract  can use p u b l i c  the public  groups  In  a r e opposed  the a b i l i t y  public  other  to sell  public  the p u b l i c  creating  Nova  tool  who  nature  as t o o  to develop.  to manipulation  authorities  to involve  Alternatively,  lack  Finally,  than  to the  c o n f r o n t a t i o n since they  of the p u b l i c  open  relate  are c r i t i c i z e d  discussion  hearings  audience.  relations  sincere  can  public  hearing  hearings  create  members  a r e more  techniques. public  hearings  those  representative  Public  f o r meaningful  public  only  of the public  on  the responses  to twelve  rezoning  and  o f t h e T e r r a Nova  process.  following description Lands  to the  of the key  o f t h e T e r r a Nova The  objectives  The public  results  hearings  chapter, of events  rezoning  of  Chapter involved  hearings.  34  Chapter 3.1  Three:  Case  Study  of  Richmond's  Terra  Nova  Lands  Introduction The  viable  Township  farming  location  for  communities  this  Richmond  community  have  conflicting  of  land-use  conflict  agricultural  industrial,  more  land,  i s met  land is  be  with  a  so  of use  long  recently,  h i s t o r y as as  land  Richmond  use has  re-fined that  i t commercial,  these needs  At  any  faced  the  as  a  with  present, development  residential, by  rich,  two and,  urban  resistance  a  attractive  been  priorities.  impassioned  an  However,  different  municipality  rural-urban  both  development.  distinctly  the  has  and,  residential  consequence,  on  A  or  Richmond  residents. Chapter recent, Township  three  high  profile,  of  Richmond:  agricultural of  background  of  context  Terra Plan  Nova  lands  Canada  the  1800's  settled  in  as  on  was  in  the  to  view  Nova  Terra  and a  permit  the  process  through  to  the the  rezoning  the  most  the  the construction  historical  study.  from  of  in  the  settlement  made,  Nova  study  conflict  brief  case  outlines  case  use  first  the  a  re-designate  provides  since  1984  to e s t a b l i s h  Following through  Official Supreme  by-laws  the  which  the  Community  Court in  of  1990.  Background recognized  possessing  1860.  Terra  d e c i s i o n was  Historical Richmond  to  Three  started  decision  as  three  which  land  decision  Township  Chapter  process  the  known  the  i n t r o d u c t i o n to  urban-rural  Chapter  from  background,  3.2  land  dwellings.  the  i s an  The  early  valuable  government  by  the  C o l o n i a l Government  agricultural encouraged  land  and  settlement  was by  of  first farmers  35  to  provide  next  food  twenty  for  years  the  Royal  brought  a  Engineers  steady  and,  as  a  result,  the  migration  of  farmers  to  the  Township  in  the  area. Richmond Province an  of  network and  an  system  roads  electric  marketability continued  to  the  Township's  timely  of  improvements  and  commercial,  Canada,  Bridge  in  an  system,  and  .guaranteed  not  City  systems,  of  and  the  a  Vancouver,  increased  the  community  of  as  to  was  the an  continued  was  and  to  growth  convenient the  location  drawn  War  locations  residential  close  across  Further  improvement  opening  of  housing  It  Oak  in access  Street  for  Richmond  because  municipally-serviced land.  s u b d i v i s i o n spread  the  zones.  fringe  c o n s t r u c t i o n of  were  parkland,  f o l l o w i n g World  attractive  People  into  the  residential  urban  unprecedented  inexpensive,  1960's.  areas  immediately  Enjoying  drafted  delineating  for  unlike other  in part,  Richmond  after  such  the  sewer  Engineer  plan  demand  increase  development.  abundance  1950's  to  town  the  experienced  due,  1957,  Subdivision  to  and  produce  industrial  f o l l o w i n g W.W.II.  residential of  and  since  Richmond,  Vancouver  established,  improvements  Municipal  comprehensive  II.  to  was  water  bridges  farmland  Richmond's  undertaking  years  a  Following incorporation,  schemes,  These  as  prosper.  began  the  1879.  connecting  construction  across  dyke  Richmond's  first  Indeed,  civic  railway.  1940's  residential, a  in  and  of  incorporated  Columbia  irrigation  of  In  officially  British  organized  including  was  the  to  Knight  development  the the  Township  the  the  transportation  Street in  in  Bridge, Township  into  the  36  1970's  and encouraged  developments.  With  both  every  commercial new  experienced  the loss  the  marginalization  further  pressures  placed  Although eastern  development to  western  land  by  Richmond.  i n the western  as  addition  Nova  throughout  the Province  development  as p a r t  Reserve  established  was  (R.S.B.C., designed  Chapter  to stop  agricultural lands 3.3  remained  spite  as p a r t  municipal  was  Nova.  These  land"  land  t o be  uses  statute  designated urban The  Land  Commission A c t which  was  conversion  t h r o u g h o u t B.C.  Plan  i n 1973, t h e  from  Land  zoned  p.1-15).  Reserve.  the rapid  o f t h e A.L.R. u n t i l  of  The T e r r a  i t sremoval  Nova  i n 198.7.  P r o c e s s and t h e P u b l i c protection  of the A g r i c u l t u r a l zoning,  so  farmed,  remained  1979,  protected  a provincial  actively  zoning,  Land  pockets of  lands  (Ross,  agricultural  of the provincial  agricultural  and were  agricultural  seen  Community  policy,  not converted to  by t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l  f o r urban  as p a r t  The O f f i c i a l In  lands  land  what  land-use  were  o f B.C., w e r e  1980),  i n the  o f Richmond  of the Agricultural  9,  place  large  "agricultural  other  uses.  some  as T e r r a  like  due t o  of t h i s ,  to municipal  lands,  land  as,  of urban  to municipal  t h e h o u s i n g boom  known  as w e l l  remained  took  the majority  according  portion  land,  t o urban  construction  In s p i t e  use during  as the area  In Terra  residential  limited,  t h e Township  agricultural  Richmond  of the farmland that  of t h e Township,  was  residential such  of productive  industrial  development,  on i t by i t sp r o x i m i t y  some  portion  urban  and  Land  of the Terra  Reserve  discussion  and t h e  on t h e f u t u r e  Nova land's use of  37  the  Terra  Nova  preparation An the  Official  objectives  A the  and p o l i c i e s  facing  Among in  background the issues  Richmond.  Issue  Paper  concern  land  development  need  base  was  Gary  Commission that  Richmond,  integrated  Following background  land  land  the author,  i n June  states h i s  with  land  from  urban  land  the  related  to support  "... t h e  i n Richmond  i n order  beyond  t o remain  planning  Indeed,  a vital  must  become  Runka  component an  process.  of the twenty-four  1985, an " I s s u e s  to  the Agricultural  3, p . 5 ) .  planning  land  Perspective",  of agricultural  planning  (OCP N o .  the completion  were  of agricultural  and other  preservation  of the overall  that  were  preparations  "Agricultural  loss  land-use  reports  of the key i s s u e s  i s prompted  foragricultural  reports,  These  as p a r t o f  completed.  property  and Reserve"  agricultural  part  commissioned  due t o t h e p r e o c c u p a t i o n  Runka  use and  by t h e p l a n . "  O.C.P.  Runka,  further  of residential  agricultural  land  the future  entitled  (CP6.3a),  respecting the  o f t h e O.C.P.  were  f o r p o s i t i v e and a g g r e s s i v e  specifies in  studied  And, as a r e s u l t ,  secure Land  reports  f o r the potential  Richmond's  uses.  3,  study  the course  In a r e p o r t No.  for their  a detailed  Over  were  945(1) o f  of the broad  government  covered  reports  preparations  Richmond.  i n Section  statement  i n the area  the Township's  (O.C.P).  i s defined  of the local  of background  to provide  twenty-four  Plan  Plan  o f e x i s t i n g and proposed  requirements  Township's  i n 1984 w i t h  Community  A c t as " . . . a g e n e r a l  series  intended  formally  Community  and c h a r a c t e r  servicing  began  o f an O f f i c i a l  Municipal  form  lands  and  O.C.P. Choices"  38  statement summary  of  outlined the of  was  published  the  issues  various  the  the  options,  options  displays  The open  at  1986.  In  this  issued  spite  agricultural  of  land  "Agricultural public  public  shopping  Municipality  in  the  a  was and  designation  public  Agricultural  Land  future  public  information  outlining was  participate meetings,  completing  by  viewing  questionnaires.  p a r t i c i p a t i o n programme,  a  of  Official  draft  the  statements within and  the  draft  800  Reserve,  the  background  the  comments  Plan  acres  Community  encouraging  opposing  of  the  including  held the  the  report  further the  in of  entitled through loss  the  of  non-agricultural  within  465  Plan  the  preservation  received  supported land  of  awareness  public  found  over  the  campaign  to  a  and  brochures  advertising  and  reports  raising  invited  offered  initial  the  land,  report  guide  d e l i v e r y of  further  Perspective"  of  a v a i l a b l e to  media  centers,  This  background  i n t e n t i o n of  p a r t i c i p a t i o n programme  agricultural  the  house-by-house  houses  Following  Township.  options  a v a i l a b l e and  conducted. attending  With  a  the  raised  growth  Municipality.  by  acre  the  provincial  Terra  Nova  site. Because  the  redesignation urban  uses,  Although  Commission review land  of  of  the  contained  within  of  either  Act,  Plan  submitted  review  community  within  land  i t was  the  requirement  draft  the  i t is  the  Land  by  the  Commission  Municipal  i f the  Reserve.  to  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land  to  standard  plans Land  Plans  the  reference  Act  practice plans The  Commission  or  the Reserve for  i s not  a  for  review. specific  t h e . A g r i c u l t u r a l Land  for  the  Commission  involve  the  redesignation  role  of  the  Commission  to  in  of this  39  review  i s purely  inconsistencies of  the  portions  of  boundaries The  Land  municipal will  be  overall  Commission favouring the  agreed the  plans  to  Municipal  Council,  critical  by-laws  suspended first  the  of  farming  and,  the  O.C.P.'s  Nova Ian  Paton,  land  Richmond  plan  In  the  was  general  his  the  (1)  A.L.R.  policy land land  report of  Terra  to  Nova  citing  the  p a r t i c i p a t i o n programme  since  of  O.C.P. was  the  early  1986.  commented the  plan  on of  Department Plan 700  in  the  draft  the  recommended  of  from  of  198.6  were  land  the  agricultural the  majority  plan  agricultural  February  acres  removed  Although  for  of  the  that  to  urban  use,  of  the  specified  land.  A.L.R. were  those  opposed  approval  which  on  the  Among  the  Terra  Nova  as  a  plan  in  participated redesignation  Richmond's  in  Planning  of  scheduled  lands.  and  Community  exclusion  lands  part  the  draft  Official  the  other  significance  preserve  public  conducted  A.L.R.  and  remain  A  the  the  Lands  resource.  commissioning  disagreed  Richmond's  historic to  The  the A g r i c u l t u r a l  Reserve  need  1986  statement  from  diminishing second  in July  but  Richmond  urgent  the  invalid.  within  the  of  boundaries  inconsistent  areas  and  the  favourable.  Chairman  that  and  with  agricultural  Lands.  avoid  d r a f t O.C.P.  agricultural  some  recommended  that  therefore,  the  of  31  conflict  with  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land in  that  to  agricultural  of  states  reviewed  the  by-laws  Section  response  Terra  Commission,  Act  p r i m a r i l y to  Plan  Reserve.  exclude  the  i s used  Community  preservation  including  Land  and  Commission  Commission  their  with  between  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land  Agricultural  and  advisory  With  over to the  be  40  municipality's  designation  "agricultural"  to  earmarked acres  of  320 the  recommendation supported In which plan the  purpose  "a  held  to  local  No.  application The holding vital  holding  of  the  for  issues  agricultural the  Agricultural  proposing  the  other  addressed  in  in  issue.  other  In  not  issues,  Richmond's  Community  Plan  the  be  from  besides  the  an  in place  in  be  a  the  the  (1) community  bylaw  also  block  Plan  for to  the  proposed  Plan,  hearings,  was  held  subject  to  comply  Act,  since  application for therefore, and  were  the  A.L.R.  they  felt be  against that  lost  Commission opportunity  loss  Further,  procedurally, was  a  956  Commission  O.C.P. w o u l d  afforded  on  recommended  the  was  representations  were  Land  because  The  Department  adopt  Community  the  145  Course.  Section  not  Community  words,  O.C.P.  make  public  Commission  hearings  Act,  hearing  submit  Official  Land  a p p l i c a t i o n should,  Official  The  exclusion  joint  critical  to  Golf  -  Commission.  shall  hearings  had  development  Planning  contained  the  block  would  to  from  Township  Quilchena  public  Official  considered  public  a  lands  housing  Municipal  matters  Reserve.  the  Planning  public  the  Nova  the  public  both  these  by  The  Agricultural of  the  4700,  the  government  respecting  consider  future  covers  B.C.'s  allowing  11.1  from  for  Advisory  with  M u n i c i p a l i t y was  that  site  Terra  reserve"  redesignation  hearings.  exclusion  the  that  of  Section  land  Richmond's  By-law  public  with  on  for  government  bylaw",  the  acre  accordance  states  of  bylaw,...without  local  to  by  the  "residential  acres 465  of  of  the  was to  other the  Commission  the  after  single  concerned comment  agricultural  reviewed  since  to  the  land,  felt  that  the  application  was  41  considered  an  implementation  measure o f the O f f i c i a l  Community  Plan. In  the end, the j o i n t  evenings, i n October four  evenings,  submissions considered  were many  statement  on  the  Nova  Terra  important that  and  redevelopment  the  land,  lands,  The  of the land  were  one  relating  per cent  In hearings  File  addition and  as  by  written  Community  Plan  general  the single Indeed,  stated  of  most  65% o f  concerned  from  with  over  the Township  those  about  their  opposition  t h e A.L.R.  and t h e  to the exclusion  three during  o f t h e p e t i t i o n s were  In t o t a l ,  7,172  people  their  opposition  the public also  signed  to the  of  thousand  to the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r exclusion.  indicated  No.  received  by  various Ninety-  exclusion  20796) . to the o f f i c i a l  petitions received,  correspondence Minister  Copies  of the  132  a broad,  were  of these lands  four  o f Richmond, t h e f a t e  became  wrote  over  f o r housing.  petition  received  Commission.  (A.L.C.  Nova  and  the O f f i c i a l  hearings.  that  held  the course  petitions indicating opposition  the  seven  Over  and o u t l i n e d  majority  of the Terra  process.  petitions  joint  were  at the hearings  specifically,  69% o f t h o s e  hearings Land  1986.  Although  issues  at these  including  signatures,  spoke  received.  land.  the removal  Several  people  complex  issue  spoke  and November  hearings  the d i r e c t i o n of the future  agricultural to  118  public  to elected  of Agriculture,  the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land  submissions the public  officials  to the public also  including  directed  the Premier,  and Richmond's C o u n c i l  Members  Commission.  o f t h e 71  Sixty-two  as  the well letters  42  received the  by e l e c t e d  Terra  received of  Nova  continues The  opposed  the Reserve  (A.L.C.  Society who  process,  that  began  to  development.  opposed  registered Societies  their  began  o f Richmond  information  flyers  was  Richmond  called  of the group  the  was, a n d  Richmond  loss  Nova  Richmond  Farmland  community  leaflets  was  formed  and t h e group Society  was  informing  of the Terra  group  hearing  f o r m i n g on c o u n c i l and  with  of Terra  campaign  Board's  indicating  their  incorporation,  a paid were  alerting which  the preservation  S.R.F.A.  up o f  The Richmond  blitz  A s i x member  official  Society  residents  petition  hearing  Nova  lands  of those  officially  under  B.C.'s  A c t i n J a n u a r y 1987.  With Farmland  stance  of the potential  as t h e Save  20796).  o f Richmond's f a r m l a n d .  administration.  t o development  No.  t h e c o u r s e o f t h e O.C.P. p u b l i c  t h r o u g h an a d v e r t i s i n g residents  urban  The g o a l  letters  public  made  o u t o f t h e c o n c e r n o f one  a pro-development  Richmond  File  Plan  group  of  to the exclusion  i n d i v i d u a l s had formed  Society".  saw, d u r i n g  the Township's  mobilized  Community  opposition  interested  Farmland  o f t h e 110  were  t o be, the p r e s e r v a t i o n  resident  for  from  to the exclusion  and seven  directly  organized,  and other  Richmond  within  opposed  One h u n d r e d  lands  a highly  residents  it  Nova  were  the course of the O f f i c i a l  process,  "Save  lands.  by t h e Commission  the Terra In  officials  membership  contacted them  sought  opposition  that  blitz.  the  Richmond  In a d d i t i o n , t h e  through door-to-door  to the current  to illustrate  of the Terra  intention  t h e Save  Nova  who  and a  wide-ranging  Lands.  everyone  debate  support  I t was t h e signed  t o the development  a  petition,  of Terra  Nova,  43  would  be f u l l y  discuss  the issues  The  efforts  attention as  involved  Club  legitimacy  debate  i n an i n f o r m e d  of the Society  financial  In  of the on-going  of national  the Sierra  little  aware  their  of the Society's  moral  overwhelming  redesignation  of the Terra  Nova  of  the Municipal  "residential of  final  Council,  Plan,  land,  the Plan  Lands  was  with  the Terra 1986.  respect A.L.C.  completed,  were  passed  of land,  Under make  Nova  final  i n place  Commission  one o f w h i c h  a block  o f 1987  was  i nthe respect  land,  hearings  Richmond  Council  f o r block where  an a d v i s o r y  separate  site.  governments can  exclusions.  t h e Commission  of block  role  formally  of seven  Nova  Act, local  i n the case  with  application to the  the Terra  11 o f t h e A . L . C .  plays  as  pockets  with  of agricultural  application f o r exclusion  merely  small  unaltered  and t h e p u b l i c  t o submit  decision-maker,  designated  as a g r i c u l t u r a l  virtually  a p p l i c a t i o n t o the Commission  individual  vote  for "residential  a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the exclusion  Section  to four  Lands  Although  Community  lands.  i n January  a block  Nova  retained  to the proposal  submitted parcels  t h e O.C.P.  by a f i v e  plan,  the non-agricultural designation  With  offered  to the  i n the O f f i c i a l  designated  the Terra  such  increased the  opposition  originally  was  the  groups  Law A s s o c i a t i o n  adopted,  i n December  i n the draft  particularly  the  4700,  reserve"  agricultural  reserve"  to  Bylaw  to  cause.  of seemingly  the Plan,  gained  Although  support  spite  Plan,  farmland  groups.  and t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l  be a b l e  manner.  to preserve  environmental  support,  and would  Unlike acts  applications the  and f o r w a r d s t h e  as  44  application and  the  with  Provincial  The  seven  exclusion  Richmond's  areas  agreed  parcels. three  the  excluded  were  that the  the  the  parcels, the  estimated  30%  the  signal  the  high  degree  regarding  this  be  20796) .  The  a p p l i c a t i o n was  Nova  site.  agreed  exception In  was  the  The an  of  August  in  with  for  the  Terra  the  subsequently  than 15  an  After  the  seven that  site,  not  considered  went  far  beyond  They on  in  an  Richmond's  lands  would  a g r i c u l t u r a l land reported  any  year  passed  to  input  application  history"  onto  the  dealt  (A.L.C.  Provincial  recommendations  regarding  order-in-council  for  Cabinet  public  Commission's  recommendation  1987,  of  Nova  of  of  Commission  pressure  magnitude  i t s nearly  the  Terra  Nova  time  Cabinet  currently  Commission  a l l of  four  that  in the  exclusion.  placing  the  the  to  were  review.  Commission  issue  i s greater  their of  of  that  application  No.  the  which  at  their  of  v u l n e r a b i l i t y of  noted  Commission  in  for  reserve  recommended  submitted  Further,  File  with  Agriculture  that  considered  exclusion  were  areas  exclusion,  Reserve.  of  by  which  of  exclusion  with  Cabinet  the  of  Commission  land  a g r i c u l t u r a l land  that  " [ i ] t should  the  forces  and  that  for  Commission  areas  the  conversion.  the  Commission  represented  A.L.R.  urban  on  one  urban  of  the  Land  i n d i v i d u a l seven that  to  therefore  application  application  emphasized  by  Township  from  submitted  residential  However,  of  Minister  a g r i c u l t u r a l to  Richmond's the  the  same  O.C.P. a n d  with  to  e s s e n t i a l l y the  O.C.P. p r e p a r a t i o n  studying  be  from  comments  Cabinet.  land  covered  redesignated  the  their  the  Terra  removing  the  45  Terra  Nova  agreed  land  upon  by  Cabinet.  The  Quilchena  Golf  from the  one  the  Land  A.L.R.,  well  Commission,  hundred  Course  as  was  was  as  four  signed  and  twenty-four  not  excluded  and  from  Reserve  other  parcels  the  Provincial  by  acre  site  of  remains" as  the part  of  the  A.L.R. The  removal  controversial fall  of  part,  1987  as  a  in  single  -  the  -  Association  Mayor.  Thus,  council  in  the  1987  members  of  the  to  and  -  -  RIVA  lines  The  five ("the  were  development  for  development  four  the most  New  Independent including  the  five  RIVA  the  or  council  Civic  with  on  the  member  right"),  the  highly  development  Richmond  drawn  and  of  nine  between  a  election in  fought,  basis  Lands.  left")  residential  was  the  split  remained  municipal  order on  Nova were  political  favour  and  campaign:  ("the  opposed  the  cabinet  Terra  of  NDP  Voter's  Democrats  the  issue  of  the  lands  Richmond  following  i n November  Democrats  New  the  issue  non-development elected  of  four  the  Civic  members  Terra  of  Nova  lands. 3.4  The  Rezoning  Process  The  Township  of  endorsed  policies  for  public type  only  rezoning  The  first  Township's land where  the  of  Zoning  within  an  employs  rezoning The  Public three  applications  p o l i c y which  different councilwith  i s used  respect depends  to upon  the  application.  policy  requirement  the  Richmond  participation.  of  and  applies  the  Bylaw.  for  a  simple  municipality  industrial  policies  to  the  An  is a  example  warehousing area  are  rezoning,  where  the  by-law  amend  the  to  would  be  the  zone  to  light  well  rezoning  established  of  manufacturing and  detailed  46  studies  have  p r e v i o u s l y been  notification that to  of  specified  allow  for  The alter  surrounding i n the  policy  lot sizes  applications  like  provides  conduct  a  is  carried  applies the  most  The and  The  third  necessitate to  applicant  have  encouraged land-use monitored  plans by  municipally  and  the  Planning  than  refers the  to  to  study  the  current  zoning  rezoning  the  with with  providing respect  areas.  to  p u b l i c meetings solicit  Planning  In  Plan,  this  case,  impacts  Department  p u b l i c meetings  is  be  given Act.  the  inform  the  the  may  before  This  policy  the with development  applicant is  feedback.  which  in addition  Bylaw.  the  preliminary  would  Municipal  municipality  to  who  notice  the  Further,  within  applications that  Zoning  intensively.  those  i n the  Community  Township's  i t  lot sizes  where  specified  as  that  information  from  boundary  Official  to  The  opinion  that  Department  the  lot size.  in  and  process,  application  public  area  For  the  by  solicit  to  surrounding  i s supplemented  to  sponsored  areas.  public hearing  the  of  held  a p p l i c a t i o n s made  existing  surrounding hold  change  is  to  heard.  the  area  according  public hearing  of  policy  detail  to  be  a  case,  i s given  inventory  larger  i s charged  on  and  for  this  owners  rezoning  to  review  an  p u b l i c most  considerable may  a  that  changes  the  to  the  a  study  changes  necessary  involves  The  of  by  and  study  is  prior  study  surveys  public  to  parameters  includes  affected.  the  the  lot size  area.  applies  impacted  out  to  meetings  to  be  parties  these,  detailed  would  Act  In  in established residential  Council  that  property  Municipal  interested  second  completed.  p u b l i c of This  also  their  process  is  conduct  submitting  a  report  47  on  both  the  Services Council  Committee prior  The this  process  Terra  latter  change  to  to  designation  Terra  320  acre  process was  Nova  placed  Richmond  afternoon  and  intention  to  preliminary  was  the  for  Terra  with  Terra  Nova  1988,  A  and  Terra  solicited  January  in  held  land  Nova  forwarded  to  the  considered  amending in  the  of  between  necessitate the  a  lands'  O.C.P.  to  developers them  212  known  acres  reserve,  residential  development.  the  on  local  Richmond  residents three  and  A  paper,  notice The  days  with  explained three  their different  questionnaire  from  the  separate  outlined  concept  began  the  house  and  short  of  open  notice  to  as  an  The  A  under  the  was  public.  preliminary  also  At  the  open  designs  were  viewing. the  Group  Development Nova  Development  residential  opinions  the  rezoning  land.  for  concepts.  public  Planning the  owned  hours.  showing  and  construction.  Richmond  developer  the  Plan  consortium  zoned  land  inviting  design  pursued.  from  site  develop  displays  In  the  which  evening  which  available  1987,  consortium  the  then  a p p l i c a t i o n would  permit  by  by  Planning  is  reserve"  the  the  which  Community  would  Nova  the  a p p l i c a t i o n was  the  rezone  sponsored  house  of  Times,  attached  since  Group,  Terra to  rezoning  which  to  hearings.  "residential  October  the  public  Nova  as  results  Council,  Official  "residential" In  of  policy  the  and  Group  Working  redevelopment  of  a p p l i c a t i o n was and  Planning  Services to  with  the  a  Terra  received staff  Committee  develop  the  were of  the  and  site Township  directed  Council  community  developers  by  Nova  plan  to for  their  by work the  the  48  consultants, reference  the  for  Planning  the  Throughout  the  next  including  Environmental  Health,  the  e s t a b l i s h e d the  terms  of  plan.  departments,  developers  Department  four  months,  Planning, as  well  Engineering,  as  and  their  consultants  final  draft  of  various  the to  School  municipal Leisure  Board,  discuss  Services,  met  specific  with  the  aspects  of  plan. The  completed  in April  Commission Council.  and The  Committees  and  the  the  Terra  submitted  Planning  and  passed  on  for  to  Sub-Area  the  was  the  Plan  Advisory  Development  sub-division plan  and  Nova  was  Planning  Services  subsequently  Committee  endorsed  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  the  by  of  both  municipal  council. To  process  the  necessary,  one  5110  -  Terra  from  residential  No.  the  5115,  to  O.C.P.  reading  of  The seven  Sub-Area  reserve  and  the  to  Zoning  permit  and  were  written to  residential  five  was  which  volumes  rezoning  With of  construction.  the On  and  be  were  Plan,  By-law  the  on  a  to  May  Over  minutes  public 17,  Nova  whole,  26,  First 1988  ran  100  speakers  were  recorded  lands those  the  by  the  hearing.  1988  exceptions,  Terra  By-law  consistent with  April  No.  lands  second,  construction. on  few  the  -  to  began  of  by-laws  r e d e s i g n a t i n g the  given  evenings.  submissions. the  By-law  passed  public hearings,  and  -  residential  Council  eleven  Plan  two  Community  residential  by-laws  over  application, Official  two  hours,  opposed  Nova  the  these  participated 229  amend  amend  revised  Richmond  to  rezoning  the  for  including  speakers  t h a t would that  forty-  spoke  were permit not  49  only  stated  offered  their  objections  well-thought  consideration  of  but  expressed  suggestions  the  issues  by  i n an  their  attempt  proponents  of  reasons  to  the  and  prompt Terra  a  re-  Nova  project. After history,  the  the  laws,  the  Terra  Nova  longest  running  public  Municipal  Council  gave  first Lands  However, and  several  Richmond  to  amend  to  the  court  Farmland  the  permit  public  hearings  final  O.C.P.  and  residential  hearings were  Society  their  in  Richmond's  reading  the  to  second  not  without  launched  by  the  efforts  to  have  the  to  construction  were  challenges  in  two  by-  rezone  the  i n June  1988.  controversy Save the  the by-laws  invalidated. The  S.R.F.S.  Community  Plan  reserve.  The  position while  as  Vice  the  the  the  Terra  procedural  public  hearing  adoption  Terra  of  the  the  Nova  of  as  basis  of  Planning for  from  O.C.P.  that  the  and  Terra  the  Olga  Illich's  Commission  Nova  A.L.R.  zoning  in  Official  Progressive  At  Group.  The  in  1987  the  same  amendment  i n v o l v i n g minor  appeared  the  residential  order-in-council signed  irregularities  notices  the  19-86  lands  the  Development  lands  the  on  in  in  Nova  Advisory  developer  challenged  citing  the  Land  challenged  the  Society  of  lead  the  challenged  Chairman  President  also  releasing  designating O.C.P. was  Construction, Society  challenged  time,  by-laws  defects  in  the  newspaper  announcements. On  December  Richmond's Nova  from  3,  Official the  1988  the  Supreme  Community  A.L.R.,  agreeing  Plan with  Court  and the  the  of  B.C.  order  Township  upheld excluding that  the  both Terra lands  50  were the  properly  removed  two b y - l a w s ,  been  given  final  from  which  t h e A.L.R.  had gone  reading  were  and r e d e s i g n a t e d .  before  quashed  public  However,  hearings  due t o t h e  and had  procedural  irregularities. In Nova but  light  lands  of the court  was  rather  introduced,  as p a r t  Zoning  By-law,  passed  i n 1 9 8 6 , was  enacted, changes  with  Nova  were  completed  1988 a n d J a n u a r y  hours  minutes,  and s e v e r a l  Bylaw.  plan  hearings weeks  to later  Public  These  pages  was  one  conducted  over  produced  thousand  t h e O.C.P.  twelve  with  hearings  were  t h e new  part.  on t h e r e v i s e d  evenings i n  hearings  four  Bylaw,  be r e -  1 9 t h , 1988, t o c o n s i d e r Nova  Plan,  Comprehensive  i n accordance  1989.  of proceedings,  revised time  the Terra  Sub-Area  amendment,  the Terra  i n four  Nova  bylaw  Zoning  set of public  to rezone  i n another  on December  o f which  recently  A t t h e same  repealed  beginning  second  December seven  5300.  the Terra  by-law  The bylaw  o f Richmond's  By-law  the by-law  n o t as t h e T e r r a  t o the Comprehensive  scheduled, zoning  ruling,  more  included  fifty-  volumes o f  o f t r a n s c r i p t s and w r i t t e n  submissions. These riddled  with  challenge. Society  This  favouring  court  those  and. e v e n t u a l l y  challenge  around  i n the spring  a statement  of the public  t o have  stated  development  that  made  of the Terra  another  Richmond  by Alderman  of development  hearings. he would  o f 1988 , w e r e  prompted  by t h e Save  h i s p r e d i s p o s i t i o n i n favour  conclusion  reported  like  controversy  centered  regarding the  hearings,,  Alderman not alter  Nova  lands  court  Farmland Hugh  Mawby  prior  to  Mawby i s his position  regardless  of the  51  outcome  of  the  challenged  hearings.  Alderman  decision-maker, public  hearing  Courts,  ruled  the  T e r r a Nova  to  the  By-law  The court  by  by  Court  charged  that part  had  that  a  five  he  vote  had  not  As  to  to  a  Farmland  as  an  statement  completed.  Mawby was  result,  four vote  Society  unbiased  made h i s  been  Alderman  By-laws.  Farmland  action  his  when  Richmond  final  i n favour  the  The  B.C.  entitled  to  vote  approval  was  given  by  Council  on  the  ruling,  pursued  1989.  Supreme  on  that  Save  right  1  proceedings  on  14,  Mawby s  given  however,  February  The  S o c i e t y , not  appealing  the  lower  Canada.  The  Society's  of  Mawby's and  satisfied  on  statement  this  basis  court's decision  formed the  with  lawyer,  an  to  Thomas  "apprehension  by-laws  should  be  the Berger, of  bias"  declared  invalid. The would  hear  Township the  the  of  Supreme  lower on  Supreme  the  case  of  Richmond Court  court's  the  Court  zoning  handed  by-law  Richmond  Farmland  have  been  permitted  determined.  to  statements The  Alderman down  which  Save  ruled,  Richmond  decisions that  lands.  hearings.  Canada  Save  and  T e r r a Nova  development  of  The  a  ruling  permitted Court  which  f u t u r e of  the  on  the  were  On  agreeing  Alderman  Alderman by-law  made  T e r r a Nova  Hugh  that  Mawby  to  i t  the  16,  B.C.'s  1990 two vote  c o n s t r u c t i o n on  arguments Mawby  given  had  from  should  his  preceding lands  August  with  residential the  1989,  Society versus  Mawby.  rejected  Society that vote  Farmland  Hugh  allowed  i n December  the  not  propublic  been  the  52  Chapter 4.1  Four:  chapter  illustrated this  i s an a n a l y s i s  i n the rezoning  analysis  interviews  Nova's  Public  i n eleven  approach.  of the groups  hearings: members,  of the Terra data  Nova  Hearing  hearing lands.  collected  of the twelve  These  that  municipal members  of the public  i s the research  using,  questionnaire each  of Terra  Process  Introduction This  for  An A n a l y s i s  interviews  a  a n d a member  basis  twelve  members o f Nova  (including planners),  of the p u b l i c ,  as  pre-designed  included  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Terra  officials  The  from  cases,  process  rezoning  council  of the development  community. The from  framework  Margaret  public  This  evaluates  In  process,  rezoning  role  hearing  f o r evaluating  by G l a s s e r ,  i n Chapter process  outline  according  i n land-use  t o improve planning,  tos i x  objectives.  the responses  a l t e r n a t i v e s to the public o n how  Manty and  Two a n d  and s i x p a r t i c i p a t i o n will  i s derived  to the  hearing  the public as seen  through the  process. presenting  results  interviews  'and  concerning  analysis  o f a framework  developed  public  chapter  or suggestions  participation  the  this  of this  introduced  characteristics  addition,  questionnaire  techniques  Nova  part  adaptation  f r a m e w o r k was  the Terra  communication  the  Sinclair's  participation  Nehman.  In  f o r the f i r s t  analysis  of the structured as w e l l  interviews public  this  as attempt  i n the context  participation  this  chapter  questionnaire  will  and  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the Terra  i n land-use  Nova  outline  both  informal of the results lands  decision-making.  of  rezoning  53  4.2  Analysis: The  six  contact user  degree  sophistication,  These  to  varied  of  ease  asked a  the  impact  and  interests,  and  degree  be  evaluation  Terra  public  The  following  participants hearing  and  process  is  the  on  the  an  of in  of  degree  communication  to  sections.  questionnaire an  of  communication.  following  provide  public  ability  two-way the  the  to  were  opportunity  to  characteristics  process.  assessment  represents based  of  hearing  an  to  intended  subjective  preparation,  detailed  responding  degree  decision-makers,  use  questions  Nova  on  of  participants  twenty-one  Characteristics  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are:  characteristics will Those  in  communication  achieved,  respond  make  Communication  of  the  analysis  of  framework's  responses  from  the  the  Nova  public  Terra  communication  characteristics. 4.2.1  Degree The  of  the  degree  public  hearing, In  of.Public  to  of  implies  public  reach  a to  attracts,  the  large the  contact  of  both  that  was  given  suggests  need  for  a  inform  hearing, public  to  the and  public at  become  the  of  in  of  people  communication  notification  to  achieved  in  the  order  upcoming  informed  this  time, of  a  the  the  to  case  the the  ability public  on  participation  characteristic  timing  commitment  same  refers  audience.  number  this  importance  the  Achieved  p a r t i c i p a t i o n technique,  addition  technique  Contact  to  part  put  commitment issues.  type  attract  the  issues  and  of  the of  the  public.  the  forward on  also  This  government  to part  public of  the  54  Finally,  the degree  assessment  o f how  regardless  of their  community. that  There  the hearings  Terra  Nova  British  Columbia's  nights,  the council  were to  s e t up  hearings. overflow  Two crowd  Richmond's of  public  and  hearing  agreed  that  both  history.  monitors  the Terra  o f Richmond  eighty  Extra  chairs  and t h e m u n i c i p a l h a d come  were  The  generated,  cafeteria  to attend the  installed  of minutes  Indeed,  holds  of the public.  that  volumes  For consecutive  comfortably  hallways  history  running i n  to allow the  largest  over  crowd i n  t h e two  and hundreds  series of  oral  a l l the participants Nova  public  hearings  r e s i d e n t s and people  attracted from  the Township.  Notification limited  nine  submissions.  large audience  outside  members  by t h e  f o r the S p e t i f o r e Lands,  to follow the proceedings.  hearings,  interviewed a  television  wider  hearings  surpassed  the longest  which  t h e l a r g e numbers  public  written  were  planning  chambers,  public  recently,  hearings  hearings  i n the adjacent  accommodate  Until  public  with  of the  submissions.  t h e T e r r a Nova  municipal  overflowed  i s an  the hearings,  the interests  and p r e s e n t e d  that  of Delta's  attended  achieved  the representativeness of the public  large audience.  municipality Richmond's  that  contact  defined  words,  i s no d o u b t a  visitors,  those  number,  In other  attended  attracted  well  of public  of the public  t o t h e announcements  Municipal  Act.  Section  that  notice  of public  than  2 consecutive  hearing  t h a t were  957(2)(b)  hearing  by t h e Township legally.required  of the Municipal  shall  "be p u b l i s h e d  i s s u e s o f a newspaper  was by t h e  Act states i n not  circulating  at  less least  55  twice  weekly,  announcement hearing,  the  The  admitted  notices  and  a  how  well  The  public  only  a  which  have  be  would  several  hearings  were  placement Indeed, have  the  been  council  call  the  that  In the  not  hand-made  whose  the  since that  Farmland  other public  words,  local  phone  Society  hearings  of  that  the to  with classified and  would  find i t .  that  the  but  by  the  advertised and  the  Society  must  pro-development  hearings  were  plastered  poorly  out.  road-ways.  Farmland  had.  to  public  campaigns  one  as  placement  actively  statement  were  but  carried  and  Richmond  public  this  -  Township,  i t prompted the  Municipal  paper's  order  members  the  to  development  was  specified  on  by  to  in  the  and  signs  campaign  comment  by  The  advertised  member  public  according  participants  poorly  a  local  delivered  bones"  hearing  the  that  door-to-door  effective  because  in  the  information.  among  very  the  proposed  subscribes  the  Society  "bare  further  announcement  of  also lands.  the  public  were  everyone  advertising  to  the  advertised,  large,  very  for  was  the of  of  This  of  notification,  Nova  disagreement for  members  through  Richmond!  admission  to  was  summary  necessitate  Farmland  member  advertized over  of  a  section  Act,  Terra  announcement  for  well  Richmond hearings  both  not  looking  the  hearings  legal  However,  the  to  Ch.290).  advertisement  Written  notification  the  legal,  Municipal  tremendous  paper  wording to  the  (R.S.B.C.  classified  Review.  advertising  a  formal,  legal,  number  felt  -  of  that  was  formal,  section  Save  the  provided  the  a  adjacent  municipal There  to  Richmond  owners  the  municipality..."  amounts  regulations  property Clerk  the  placed.in  newspaper, to  in  well  signs  suggests advertised  a l l  an by  the  56 Township  and t h a t  the public  themselves.  At very  the  responsibility  ultimate  hearings  lies  with  admitted  that  i t was  public  but that  regarding However, media  several  weeks  statement  the duty  extent  - also  Indeed,  ignores  of the Township  on t h e p o l i t i c a l  Nova  public  served  advertise.  became  that  the  of the council  of the local  to guarantee  Clerk  to inform  would  that  of public  will  hearings  the headline  the fact  the Municipal  the municipality  - i t made  the hearings  f o r the advertisement  the Township.  the Terra  coverage  this  i t depended  t o what once  least,  had t o a d v e r t i s e  news,  wide  paper f o r  a wide  audience  was  reached. Finally, hearings  represented  considered. between  and  expressed  while  and opponents  of development  hearings  were  believed  that  used  of representation  -  as f u r t h e r  served council were  to further members,  stacked  members  support  entrench  of the public  were  Both  stated  against  that  who  too intimidated  split  attended the o f Richmond  residents, made w e r e n o t  sides of  i n the debate representation this  positions.  hearings  and t h a t  to attend  issue  Several  the public  development,  be  development  And, i n d e e d ,  i n their  also  by t h e p u b l i c .  o f Richmond  - or the lack  people  biased  those  must were  of the residents  position.  in particular,  by those  Nova  achieved  that  community.  of their  community  the presentations  of the wider  attended the  interviewed  was  representative  believed  which  of the Terra that  representative the issue  Richmond  representative  opinions  proponents  the public  the participants  the representativeness  opponents  public  to which  the greater  Generally,  proponents  regarding The  the degree  other  the hearings  57  and  make  those  statements  supporting  members  attracted  by v o t e  difficult,  community.  that  as a  an  the  Perhaps  the sentiments  that  the ultimate  isolated  inherent  question  debate  among  4.2.2  Degree  o f Impact  influence  In  effect  of impact  that  the results  charged  case, that  written,  on  degree  on t h o s e this  democratic  this  with  reluctant chosen  during  i t  i s  i fthe  the public  Richmond  Clerk  would, b e a to call  referendum  them  because of  representatives.  hearing  should  process  participation  since  forms  n o t be since  methods.  participation  this  The seen  i t  i s  Indeed,  c a n n o t be  the basis  of the  theorists.  Decision-makers on d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s of the public the duty  communication  the submissions  had on Richmond's  certainty,  The M u n i c i p a l  test  of the public  theory  the entire  o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c a n n o t be  of representation versus  by d e m o c r a t i c  The  with  evident  process.  i n a l l public  they  development,  a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e audience  failure  but that  of the larger  political  as t h e p e o p l e ' s  raging  had  hearing  the public  of polling  regarding  of  by one o f t h e  that  community  to determine  the question  of achieving  answered  admitted  Short  position  councils are naturally  problem  who  o p p o s i t i o n to development  position  problem  on t h e i r  by t h e p u b l i c  commented  their  interviewed  The a t t e n d a n c e  acknowledged  at the hearings.  represented  answered  i s also  i f not impossible,  overwhelming hearings  of development.  the pro-development  n o t t o speak  community  and  development  of the public  hearings chose  i n favour  refers  participation  t o make  the-final  characteristic  at the public municipal  to the  council  decision.  refers  hearing,  both  members.  technique  to the oral  and  58  Ultimately, seen  i n other  the f i n a l  public  which  the public,  public.  This  discussed  of  decision  of elected  proposal,  public the  either  were  opinions This  relationship,  decision, when  i s opposition  i f those  representative  best  expressed  complicated  between  highlights the  there  t o the wishes  at public  of the public,  i n the long-term  i n determining  by that  to a  interests  by t h e  the  difficulty,  attended  of the majority  Farmland  Society  perceived implies  campaigns,  - a  lack  or  ineffective,  influence limited  the general public  i s that  the  public  i s their  assessment  vocal  the minority  regardless  speeches  choice  and t h e  influence  i s virtually  and r a i s i n g  t h e awareness i s sent  on e l e c t i o n d a y . over  from  groups),  effective participation afforded exercised  have  members.  responses  environmental  process  -  actions (e.g.  at hearings,  and n a t i o n a l  the  the  group  on d e c i s i o n s  The r e s u l t i n g m e s s a g e . t h a t  the only  of public  advocacy  of their  that  o f t h e Save  individual council  i n the planning  public.  the  local,  attendance  t o making  felt  d i d not influence  of influence  that,  strong  interviewed  nor d i d the presence  made b y  l e v e l s o f government  public's  hearings  members,  on t h e d e c i s i o n s  public's  petition  of the public  at the public  of council  impact  this  made.  i s further  o f t h e members  decision-makers  of  was  made  c a n be  population.  Richmond  the  i s to vote  earlier,  decisions  senior  that  representatives  dilemma  presentations  The  the expressed  or according  hearings  All  an  words,  on d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  the submissions  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e f i n a l  dilemma  of  of impact  as t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  hearings, and  the degree  to to  However,  decision-makers,  by t h e  59  public  members  interviewed,  council-members.  Although  whether  the p u b l i c  whether  the Farmland  is  or  i n other  words,  At  consideration  i s given  may  members  be  does  they  The  the  perceived  impact  final  decision  pre-disposed hearings  their  listen  least,  Terra  Nova  split  decision, on  their  not s p l i t  by  party  or opposed that  to  more  decision-makers  the p u b l i c . that  the public  on  decision, i t  suggests  the  by  and,  along  i n favour  split  input of  were  has  Indeed, during  several  public  t o say and  five  by  submissions  a review  of the p u b l i c disagreed  those  on  that i t  that  development  existed  Nova  the hearings members Clerk  hearings  determined  voting  pattern  conclusion  of the Terra  that were  stated,  unique  Nova  public  that  a  neutral  bias  before  both  the  e l e c t i o n had  and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , i t  four  council  members  i n favour  of  that  o f what  among  of the council  council  was  municipal  issue  to  A l l of the  the c o u n c i l believed  the Terra  Municipal  hearings.  t h e 1987  and t h e  of the response  interviewed  Indeed,  council  public  the public's  the n e u t r a l i t y of the municipal  against  before  The  impact  this  illustrated  words,  fought  development.  their  commented  t o what  conducted.  t o and  an were  members  interviewed  known  of c o u n c i l  made  decision.  f o r and  been  the assessment  position  specifically  regarding  were  well  opposed  the  by  c a n be  In other  largely  they  to public  t o t h e commencement  body.  made  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  participants  was  do  their  question  prior  the very  of council  hearings  that  from  influenced  Society  development.  than  members  hearings  i n t e r e s t i n g to note  lines,  differs  part  hearings  members.  hearings,  when  was  were  made  the  pre-  At the the f i n a l  vote  60  was at  taken, the  the  close  of  development. public  split the  This  interviewed  on  election:  on  regarded  political  culture.  political member and,  indeed,  five  made  representativeness  that  those  the  who The  must,  in  hearing was  and spoke end  be  process  the  and  is  of  in  hearing  council.  the  of  the  position  elections  part  policy of  is  issues  the  fact,  one  municipal  concerning the  council  politics  as  interests  or  process  of  no  hearings. did  the  development  Of  not  believe  larger believed  opinion. of  the  consequence the  the  the  council  majority  a  indicates  public  on  conclusion  yes  no  Canadian  council  against  which a  in  the  are  In  played  be!  development  considered  as  become  attending  the  to  of  the  representative  Knowing prior  of  members.  of  issues  neutral  council  after  strictly  must  members  expressed  itself,  public  rezoning  decision  those  on  culture.  the  should  represented  result  part,  addressed  words,  those  context  conventions  four  favour  submissions  population those  in  the  of  case  council  of  council of  of  Nova  matters  one  one to  by  in  municipal  no  Terra  policy  since  any  no  seen  issues  that  that  final  assumptions  course,  one  the  decision  political  And,  of  commented  The  as  political  agenda  be  various  generally  become  least final  must  Canadian  politicians  they  at  contention  favour  -  the  of  in  in  public  the  five  been  public  influencing  and  and  i t had  p a r t i c i p a t i o n , through  role  democracy  opposed  same a s  that -  this  four  the  supports  submissions  However,  remained  observation  hearing in  council  Terra  of  Nova  public the  no  public  rezoning  proposition.  provided  hearing  In  issue  other  opportunity  for  the  61  public  to influence  alternatives final  various  aspects  of the plan,  or to h i g h l i g h t consequences  d e c i s i o n was  made.  Nova  public  hearings  late  i n the planning  public  to influence  plan.  In the case  public  hearings  This  also  a s a means process  came  after  that  before  an o p p o r t u n i t y  i t has been  the  the Terra  participation  decision or various  Nova,  various  of the plan,  suggest  of p u b l i c  to allow  the f i n a l of Terra  may  or  came t o o  f o rthe  aspects  of the  shown t h a t t h e  the decision-makers  already  had a  firm  opinion. The makers  participants interviewed  should  solve  t h e dilemma  trustees  - i n the best  deputies  - i n accordance  Naturally, Nova  lands,  council during  Clerk,  the role  public  members public  the wishes  that  voted  However,  political  should  the majority the  parties,  e x i s t s among  influence  of  different  play,  hearing  made  deputies,  and t h e o p i n i o n s  public  believed  of the greater  as p u b l i c  two c o m p l e t e l y  Nova  interviewed  including planners,  process  of the Terra  the presentations  representative  or should  public  - or as p u b l i c  t o the development  have  decision-  of the public.  of the public  opinion  plays,  i n the Terra they  as e i t h e r  of both  that  the public  believes  to vote  of the public.  planning/decision-making participated  were  and s h o u l d  suggests  o f how  assumed  interviewed,  between  participants on  hearing  and c o u n c i l  split  with  have  to the wishes  informants  o n how  opposition  should  community  according other  their  the public  divided  i n t e r e s t s of the public  a l l o f t h e members  members  Richmond  This  given  were  of  Municipal disagreed. other  perspectives  i n the those  that  process.  the decision  made,  The and  that  62 ultimately Other  their  participants  aspect  of  the  ultimately, making  4.2.3  Degree  on  public  of  the  this  user  to  case  or  was  participate  be  the  understanding  and  consequences  on  was  informed  The  degree  educational technical experts,  by  of  required  of of  but  one that  of d e c i s i o n -  elected  user  levels  reports  are  by  process  the  get  Township  were  accountants,  onto of  second  about  the does  and  not  engineers,  such  the  well  to  the  Although  to  i t i s not  concerns  aspects of  user  public the  plan the  some  individuals  the  participate  aspect  the  refer  public.  concerns  well  of  kind  user  degree  how  terms  participants. by  how  In  the  specific  a d d i t i o n , the of  of  aspect  the  the  this  i n order  The  involved  presented and  first  regarding  sophistication the  aspects  of  by  process.  passed  public  level  i s required  assessment  was  assessment  the  public,  an  The  In  to  planning  itself.  plan. an  that  two  the  public  could  of  refers  the  is also  there  the  they the  by  information  required  involves  how  system  as  decisions.  i n the  considered.  public hearing  informed  final  understanding  study,  knowledge  sophistication  process,  political  sophistication  i n which,  to  the  render  decision.  User S o p h i s t i c a t i o n  sophistication  in  decision-making  characteristic  that  final  public participation  municipal  knowledge  manner  In  see  i n the  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e democracy  education,  communication and  a  of  i n order  assessing  the  prevail  to  and  should  degree  knowledge,  appear  because  i s based  The  should  planning  representatives  of,  will  was  public itself. formal,  very  as  generally  wildlife  63  considered  necessary  participate  were  in public  members  not  well-informed  they  could  development their  freely to  and  the  the  of  informed.)  been  with  several the  of  that  the  on  The  public  felt  planning  regarding decision.  of  end  i n order  due  to  given  of  public  hearings. were  the  flow  not  as  open  as  i t could  plan  or  process.  speaker's into  the  very  list  public  goes  influence  or  have  was  the  about  whether  record  beyond  over  a  Specifically,  systematically being  frustration  of  least,  complained  confusion  members  well-  at  the  the  becoming  with  interviewed  in  responses  (The  only  at  they  questions  or  a l l this  of  to  public,  of  lack  These  the  residents  this  group,  involved  plans.  problem  result  seeming  the  become  worked  were  of  to  they  on  lack  how  because  was  Nova  information  they  get  in  the  that  the  manner  tempered  stated  to  they  Terra  development  by  a  the  and  read  -  of  the  that  respondents  development  suggests  they  to  notification  about  to  on  indicated  process,  same  be  that  experts  nature  would  process  their  the  Township  how  the  these  Township  Richmond  hearings.  the  the  information the  or  that  responses  submissions  who  of  hearings  from  rezoning  themselves  interviewed  confusion  written  the  be  interviewed  municipality  Overall, this  information perception  the  nature  the  the  However,  adequacy  public  informed  of  inform  to  public  indicating  by  the  similar  regarding of  itself.  forced  process  the  participate,  statements,  provided  are  of  i n d i v i d u a l s to  hearings.  The  which  were  for  at  the  a frustrated left any  out  of  feelings  final .  64  In  contrast,  t h e members  of council  i n favour  and  the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the development  the  p u b l i c was  one  council  efforts,  planning  department  two  were  this  split  confusion  well  informed  over  how  process.  planners  given  planning  and t h a t  should  observation  may  t o keep  h a s some  through  a n d how  they  interviewed  whether  i n order  can  division  informed  the Township's  split  public  the public  i n response  o r n o t t h e p u b l i c needed  t o be  i n the p u b l i c  i s consistent with  the discrepancy  and t h e i s s u e s  better  educating  and  about  participate.  were  to participate  and  t o be t h e  plans  only  how  implication for  the p u b l i c informed  commented t h a t  also  disagreement  be o f t h e p l a n s  of development  happen  perceptions  considered  be  the  members.  i t could  department there  with  council  process,  one p l a n n e r  regarding  became  one a g r e e i n g  i t i s g e n e r a l l y regarded  process  This  previously  through  will  asking  process.  public  This  participants  educated  the planning  the  of the planning  by d i f f e r e n t  t h e same  the p u b l i c  of planners  Indeed,  participation  and  within  although  to understand  the pro-development  be a c c o u n t e d  that  o f the Township's  issue with  observed  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  involved.  question  who  that  responsibility  The  with  could  failed  agreed  and p l a n ,  T h e t w o members  t h e p u b l i c was  planning  i n spite  i n general,  well-informed  encourage  that  process.  community  of the process  d i v i d e d on t h i s  individuals  indicate  the  lamented  and one a g r e e i n g  Although by  member  the public,  municipal  public  well-informed  of development  - through  their  methods.  Most  own  means  over or  informed  hearing  t h e -issue  of opinion  to the  raised how t h e adequately  of the participants  65  elaborated hearing  on  their  process  participation the  allows  that  Township. that  sense  educated  regarding Society  the  "average  4.2.4  Ease The  refers  to  case,  use  the  planners  participatory measure  out  and  some  voice  to from  interviewed in  the  nature  public  information  involved  fact,  preparation required  particular  Terra and  Nova other  technique the  In  to  formal  and  informed  founder  of  their  the  the  of  the  opposition  in  protest.  the  public  planning/decision-making  to  the  public  this  by  The  is ultimately a  versus  ease  hearings  officials.  the  characteristic  participation  refers  because  costs  by  communication  public  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  of  access  educated be  the  Preparation  characteristic and  be  grass-roots  characteristic  municipal  a  plans.  came  and  a  for  as  could  use  preparing  efficiency  they  resources  this  preparation  on  the  public  participants not  how  although  require  need  on  Use of  the  authority this  of  does  several  that  easy  public  people"  ease  to  public  development  commented  that  the  the  stating  relatively  Further,  indicated but  response  technique. of  and  Richmond's  ease  of  use  and  reflection  of  the  hearing  a  characteristic  the  using  benefits  In  of  as  can  using  be  seen  the  public  hearing. The the It  public  quickest i s not  comparison  and  hearing most  process  convenient  inordinately costly to  a  planner-supported  public task  in  is generally ways terms  participation forces  to  which  considered  hear  of  time  method demand  from and  such both  as  the  one  of  public.  money  in  citizen-based  resources  from  66  planners  and  solutions  to  an  given  conducted  twenty-three  the length  (two s e t s  sessions),  cases  e t c . , as w e l l  whole  rezoning  process,  remains  appears  particularly  Nova.  disagreed to  several was  council,  at least,  beneficial be  means  were  f o r Terra  interviewed way  opposition  that  to  evolve  totalling  generated that  t o use p u b l i c  relevant  was  i n the Terra  public must  over  due was  hearings  100  to the  generated  a quick  hearings.  method.  believe  that  a  the p u b l i c ,  In and  suggests  less  This  cases  like  and c o n v e n i e n t  the time  This  the  interviewed  rezoning.  concerning  over  whether the p u b l i c  members  Nova  hours i n court  f o r large-scale rezoning  hearing  made  the  participation  a l lof the c o u n c i l  were  which  costly  i n cases  fact, money  that and  like  way  that  the more  Terra  Nova,  given  their  Nova,  a l l o f t h e members  agreed  that  because  criticisms  the public  the p u b l i c  of the process of the p u b l i c  hearing  but that  of the Society's  was  and t h e that  t h e most  the process  was  highly-organized  efforts.  responses  the p u b l i c  participation and  over  i t i s questionable  to involve  cumbersome  The  i n order  considered.  convenient made  the costs  to involve  Surprisingly, planning  easy  the public  holding  of time  of hearings  the p u b l i c  statements  wasted  should  an  Indeed,  that  involve  of time  as, the animosity  hearing  Terra  amount  issues.  However, were  enormous  hearing  when  entrenched,  to questions may  the issue  often  be  and an  comments  received  inappropriate  involves  broad  emotionally-charged,  forum  policy  suggests for public  implications  opinions.  In  other  67  words,  analysis  of the ease  suggests  that  but  the issue  that  public a  the public  hearing  public  process  in  four  hearing This  t h e most  further  members  may  members  doomed  support  members  e f f e c t i v e way  i n contrast, interviewed  that  the idea  hearing  process  with  of  o f t h e Save  nothing  the problem  was  with  expressed  The refers deal  ability  a range  council  members  interests suggests  that  wrong  of the public  the public  the public. and  council  Society,  with  hearing  to the  however,  the public  that  methods.  hearing  disregarded  the  as r e p r e s e n t i n g  those  Interests interests  characteristic  p a r t i c i p a t i o n technique  or attitude.  of the public  during  the public  participation  the council  to varied  and p l a n n e r s )  presented  that  of  o f Richmond.  of opinion  to the a b i l i t y  the public  and t h r e e  alternatives  Farmland  to Varied  t o respond  to the a b i l i t y  with  refers  t o Respond  of involving  officials  public  a t the public  of residents  Ability  the  that  of enhancing/supplementing the  Richmond  was  the majority  4.2.5  other  there  sentiments  agreed  to involve  of finding  public  process,  faulty  creating  disagreed  municipal  o r a method  that  n o t be  as f a u l t y ,  the planners  method  process  commented  seen  interviewed  hearing  president  may  s i t u a t i o n whereby t h e  t o be  public  The  a  itself  characteristic  situation.  effective  indicates  process  created  t h e most  process,  council was  no-win  was  the planning  the  was  the public  hearing  hearing  involved  confrontational, Although  o f use and p r e p a r a t i o n  In t h i s  authority  t o accommodate  the public  hearing  p a r t i c i p a t i o n method  case  -(i.e.,  study, i t  municipal  the opinions process. may  to  and  This  be u s e d  as a  68  means  to  reach  Although public  this  consensus has  hearings,  not  purpose  members  the  opinions  must  and  of  to  the  v a r i e t y of  views  with  process is  case  beyond  the  for  or  If  the  submissions  against  presentations variety  need  Indian  space,  land  Richmond, particular be  as  public  are  and  was a  as  well  at  of  the  the  viewed  a  wide  the  to  purpose  that from  of  the as  many  invites  conflicting  of  characteristic  this  nay  to  and  the  council's  concerns  raised  proposition.  council  in  a  to  deal  context  range  of  as  of  the  For of  The  with  and  opposing  the  public  variety  hearings  from  example,  some the  the  increased  tax  the  need  for habitat,  of  native in  jobs,  revenue  in  that  base.  by  and  made  of  housing  Richmond-based  or  the  a wildlife  more  for  interests.  evident  for  the  people  consideration  need  response  that  farmland,  the  beyond  community  preserving  creating  Township's no  of  is clearly  written.  jobs,  virtually body,  hear  refers  or  conservation,  construction for  to  issues  preservation  importance  gained  There members,  claims,  the  yeah  importance  heritage  the  however,  a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s agreed  the  the  as  development.  oral  were  aspects aspect  i n t e r e s t s heard  both  for  the  representing  raised  park/open  almost  of  submissions, issues  against  camps,  two  ability  -  disagreement.  interests.  first  aspect  Nova  of seen  is  which  The  second  the  possible  considered.  the  would  as  been  hearings  be  deal  terms  emphasized  the  during  the  public  variety  Terra  be  In  ability  The  of  public  a  mediate  traditionally  i t should  underlying of  or  the range  beyond  municipal of  issues  recording  the  council raised  by  69  submissions by  i n the public  individual  public  council  hearing  designed makers  members.  process  as a p u b l i c  to deal  record  itself  and a q u e s t i o n i n g o f This  since  participation  specifically  i s a reflection the public  method  that  and i n d i v i d u a l l y  submissions of the  hearing  i s not  enables  decision-  with  a variety  of  concerns. To  be f a i r ,  concerns when the  raised  an o f f i c i a l  i n the submissions  o n e member  of the public  transportation  study,  consultant  on b e h a l f  concerning  the v a l i d i t y  council  responded  Department issues.  Department Richmond generated not  received staff  variety  referred council  Nova  however.  and thus  during  are left result  assessments.  critique  of  by a  The  municipal  Engineering on t h e  the Engineering regarding that  the impacts would  - the data  base  issue  submission  of referral  by c o u n c i l  of responding  the course  to the  of the public  relevant given  to the d i s c r e t i o n  that  the issues  o f t h e members o f  decisions rather  on  be  specific  means  in arbitrary  F o r example,  and commenting  this  t h e ad hoc n a t u r e  of the  questions  raised.  hearing,  development  i s particularly  to staff  numerous  were  though  out.  conducted  the Township's  t o be an i n e f f i c i e n t  This  systematic  had been  to council  Even  to several  an e x t e n s i v e  of the increased t r a f f i c  of issues raised  hearings.  public  directly  a response,  appears  carried  a report reviewing  by t h e T e r r a  addressed,  which  of the data  subsequent  road-ways  response  presented  by r e q u e s t i n g  reported  was  of the developer,  to prepare  At a  municipal  than  was  to  70  Because actively  to  interests, fact, was  or  those  forced the  public  various  since  other  the  no to  in  hearing  process  interests,  the  favour  those  and  a l t e r n a t i v e s are align  themselves  public hearing  non-development  of  process  on  one  Nova  adversarial,  c o n f r o n t a t i o n a l system  planning  created.  was  Indeed,  development  community  nothing  development  the  the  project  developer  at  development property  was  had. in  the  instead  be  seen  in  greater  of  open  4.2.6  result been  as  an  Degree  of  degree  may  slated  have  public participation  the  various  specifically  a  dialogue  However,  the  primary  create  dialogue;  a  for  of  or  of  a  encouraged  in  was  of  not  doing  opposition. or  The  nonsince  as  the  residential  this  hearing  discuss  different a  an  the  short  the  public to  the  development  there  However,  opportunity space  that  development  the  or  result,  participated  Plan.  involved  participation  development who  on  In  must process  issues  such  configuration  reconciliation  of  views.  Communication  two-way  proponents  no  open  Two-way of  on  those  indictment  the  a  of  i t provided  that  focus  As  done,  pleased  opposing  issue  representative  have  respond  development.  the  public  have  two  focused  lands.  to  everyone  of  commented  Community  p r o v i s i o n of  space  The  the  side  of  could  would the  Official  that  as  group  that  already  reserve  itself  interviewed  a l l , that  believed  the  to  and  completely  Terra  unable  creates  opposed  presented  became  the  appears  communication  technique  and  opponents  between  purpose  i t i s to  to  of hear  refers  create of  the  a  to  dialogue  plan,  the  planner  the  public hearing  from  the  and  the  between  more  the  public.  ability  public. i s not The  to  of  71  opportunity beginnings occur  as  to of  the  municipal  question two-way  the  public  nevertheless  communication  council directs  departments,  to  the  since  further  planning  respond  to  suggests  interaction  department,  questions  the  raised  or  other  by  the  can  public. With public  did  exceptions,  hearings  develop fact,  two  on  between  one  not  majority  on  than  not,  there  in  the  clarification  of  provided  questions for  were  council queried  cross-examination  hearing  of  the  clarification  Terra of  and  seeking  some  positive  Further,  as  agreed  that  for  a  dialogue  the  project.  suggested  that  suggested  to  endorse  or  the  the to  In council  that  the  Terra  this  questioning  Nova  result,  Indeed,  for  the  diffused i t was  erroneous  repetition  of  dialogue  some  often to  a  a  public  to  ask  developers  even  potentially  suggested  information false  than  the  public or  more  amounted  intent rather  issues.  have  towards  presentations,  c o u n c i l members,  that a  signs  made  presenter's  a  by  one  is  not  information  until  i t  fact.  a l l those  Richmond of  case  may  As  to  who  opportunity  which  leads  accepted  development  of  i t was  only  planners,  interviewed  Save  instead  Nova  little  participant  group,  allow  interviewed  information  issues.  becomes  not  proponents  those  the  contentious  corrected  interviewed  plan.  Although the  and  c o u n c i l were  did  and  participant  dialogue,  development  when  Nova  opponents  public  want  Terra  a l l those  interviewed  Farmland  dialogue.  This  agreed  Society, appears  did  that not  somewhat  the  opposition  facilitate surprising  the given  72  that  an  could  identifiable  be  utilized  the  public  not  provide  planning  a  of  expensive  inability Society public  means  of  the  the  The  fact  probably had  to  process  inability  -  a  to  a  work  develop  the  rezoning  politicalization  of  the  development  the  political  4.3  of  dialogue will  Analysis: Six  of  that the  public  participation evaluation  solve  problems,  reach  consensus, The  the  to  and  to  which  purposes  sought of  from  history  exacerbated The  Richmond  nature by  of  and  Farmland  of  its  the  very  points  to  the  specifically,  issue,  the  and  generally.  the  Therefore,  is ultimately  and  feedback,  interviewed  a  test  of  to  Manty,  They  values,  education  to  resolve  and  are: get  are Nehman  to  inform  ideas  conflict  and and  solutions. were  understand  conducting  Glasser,  framework.  implement  to  Save  also  develop  problems  receive  participants  questions are  Sinclair  identify  did  hearings.  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  public  to  group  Objectives  by  educate,  for  council.  listed  and  Margaret  of  body  force  years,  fails,  process,  will  Participation  objectives  long  of  the  dialogue  of  degree  a  task  that  develop.  politicalization  the  of  volatile  that  planning  organized  confrontational  to  organization  proponents  number  with  process  dialogue  sort  between  highly  the  an  highly  r e s u l t of  over  to  a  some  the  and  Township  for  that  developed  cases,  provide  citizen-based  facilitate  points  allow  often  informal,  development  court  hearing to  is  can  The  to  that  further  nature,  an  authority.  confrontations  by  as  approach  opponents  group  public  asked  what  the  to  respond  to  participants  hearings,  generally,  two felt and  73  what  objectives  were  accomplished  hearings,  specifically.  hearings,  i n general,  public could  hearings be  following  interviews  The  conducted  first  and  public  three  educate  traditionally  reason  comes  Generally participants identify  public  the purpose that Nova  of  public  the purpose rezoning  of  process  listed  as  was  t o be  problems  the  final  hearing  - to identify  to receive purposes  the objective  to describing  to inform  the Terra  hearings  and  of to  the  hearings process. problems,  feedback,  t h e most  to  - are  conducting identify traditional  into  the p u b l i c ,  hearing  which  too late  Consequently,  be  t o be  the  hearings objectives  process.  i n the process  cannot  - to  and t o  of public  suggested  i n the f i n a l  of  objectives  representing  public  problems  are i d e n t i f i e d  decision.  as  too late  account  three  educate  as w e l l Nova  the majority  the o b j e c t i v e s  analysis  came  among  the f i r s t  - represented  taken  of public  public  the primary  that  of i d e n t i f y i n g  the  and  agreement  interviewed  the previous  public  objective  objectives  from  hearings.  there  by  the purpose Nova  applications,  accomplished  input  Nova  of the responses  of the Terra  the c l o s e s t  feedback  Given  assessment  the p u b l i c ,  problems,  rezoning  Nova  f o r the Terra  Specifically,  for public  receive  anticipated  concerning  regarded  hearings.  problems  on  i s an  the achievement  inform  establishing  i t was  conducted  the Terra  assessed.  The  and  By  by  that  the  Terra  for public  decision, achieved. considered  the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  the That i s , as p a r t of  of  problems  74  should prior  have to  occurred  earlier  public  hearing.  the  The  objective  both  the  purpose  that  was  accomplished  must  be  the  public,  the  and  public,  -  of  was to  to  and  public  identify  the  less  three to  than  And  Nova  public  have  because to  However,  also  of  be  to  that  as  a  forum  chosen  an  is  i t  one-way,  and  a l l  as  objective  However,  Township  to  the  from  public.  participants  limited  those get  to  last  viewed  the  role  of  and  three  educate  objectives of  the  only  a  to  hearing  objectives  exceptions  objectives does  responded  the  objectives  format  Nova  resolve  also few  the public  Terra  were  Traditionally, the  of  interviewed  were  three  as  first  ideas,  -  with  hearings.  public  the  purpose  to  indeed,  the  inform  are  of -  that  solutions  these  been  the  the  not  met  these of  not  public permit  these  achieved.  those  the  indicated  hearings  not  -  half  implement  by  Terra  problems,  underlying  that  purposes  referred  public  agreement  objectives  hearings.  objectives  and  hearings.  the  in  unanimously  suggests  the  process  general,  Nova  between  feedback  felt  hearings  Terra  was  in  feedback  view  general  receive  and  objectives  feedback  agreement  participants the  the  two-way,  formed  last  conflicts,  rezoning  hearings,  the  process  hearings,  the  that  the  comment".  and  hearings  at  unanimous  there  objectives  receive  public  not  rezoning  If  that  and  this  "review  public  of  considered  Indeed, in  to  in  that  public that  conducted  indicated  hearing  these for  the  these  were  a l l members  objectives Terra  objectives  Nova  were  not  of  met  rezoning.  as the  by This  the public  the  who  public  discrepancy  75  indicates what  the  words,  that public  the  a  lack  process, Nova  of  of for  in  hearing  the  process  be  must  satisfying In only  the  purpose  feedback. public  of  Yet,  identification  In  as  other  well  words,  extremely  very  or  the  the  although at  the  public  public  hearing  hearings  involved  in  an  what  they  saw  that  the  were  asked  understanding  may  rezonings.  or  Public a  of  changes  improve  the  to  of the  public  hearing to  that  the  receive the  Terra  to  the  the  an  the conflicts.  as Terra  objectives  of  Nova  including  resolve  Hearing  some  the  public.  hearings  series  of  between  more,  the  Terra  adoption  believe as  result  the  that  to  public  beyond  to  of  to  and  other  hearing  information  they  process,  was.  opportunity see  the  closer  indicated  of  be  public  the  In  than  the  indicated  process  time  participants gain  of  objective  planners  Alternatives  the  interviewed  an  the  come  same  process!  result  to  order  the  hearing  public  in  provision  providing  the  with  expectations  problems,  also  that  also  given  may  the  hearings  achieve.  divergence  of  public  to  this  this  went  attempted  beyond  hearing  public  high  suggests  planners  hearing  Finally,  This  accomplished  limiting,  Analysis:  the  public  these  as  too  earlier  least,  planners  public  4.4  made  supplemented needs  hearing  public,  been  limitations  contrast,  were  hearing.  from  possibly  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  At  and  more  could  opportunities,  having  expectations  format  expectations  public  1986.  expected  public  other  decision  O.C.P.  public  public's  limitations of  the  Nova of  the  Process questions  which  alternatives  current  system  participation  of  to  76  The on  following  the questions  outlined  Surprisingly, extreme  points  rezoning,  methods This  given  of view  those  comments  i s a review  were  interviewed  of response  to the closed  preceding  analysis  public  hearing  public  involvement  indicated  process  i n spite  the Terra  few  public  insightful  hearing  i n which  dissatisfaction,  the use of the p u b l i c  i n controversial rezonings,  the procedures  and  Nova  f o r the p u b l i c  process.  o f t h e comments  questions  strong  itself,  publicity  alternative participatory  to the current  interview  by  with  based  questionnarie.  of negative  generated  regarding  interviews  B of the  responded  occurred  responses  which  t h e amount  or observations  lack  i n Section  that  or improvements  of the informal  hearing  and  and  the with  the  hearing  for  t h e manner  process  were  in  carried  out. Regardless, interview some the  planning  regarding All a  common  i n doing  ground  why,  of the r o l e  informal provides  of the p u b l i c i n  so, a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the p u b l i c  a n d who  interviewed part  the p a r t i c i p a n t s could questions  i n Section  when,  those  B,  that  outlined  particularly  should  indicated  of the planning  elaborated  that  among  to the general  necessary  and  and,  to the  of the questionnaire  for consideration  interview  interviewed play  B questions)  process  responses  informal  of the responses  process.  Some  was  (Section  opportunity  hearing  the  a review  be  found i n  as a b a s i s  those  f o r an  questions  participate. that  public  process  the public  had a  i t i s increasingly desirable,  and  participation several  important from  of  role  the point  those to of  77  view  of the Township,  to include  the p u b l i c  i n the  planning  process. As many  well,  people,  a l lthe p a r t i c i p a n t s with  be  included  in  particular,  especially heard  and  during made  concerned  how  In  addition,  means  (a  that  t o be  one where  council public  members hearing  ground  Given  development  are  heard were  had  range  been  of  opinion.  to look  with  that  process  that  to  may  allow  in  the  i s ,  in of  degenerated  an u n p o p u l a r  reasonable  that  hearing  expressed  for alternatives  - alternatives  meaningful  contentiousness  situation  faced  public  made.  indicated  the p o l i t i c a l  seem  t o be  had  as  of the  decision  i n the rezoning  was  indicated  included  to the public  that  - a  be  Members  interviewed  i t would  eager  a  issue  the p o l i t i c i a n  process  process.  alternatives  the public  t o be  the public  i n the f i n a l  of the council  "no w i n " s i t u a t i o n ) ,  were  suggestions  interviewed  involvement  indicated  satisfactory. Nova  public  t h e common  for involving  Terra  that  included  and  the p r o j e c t  no  project,  were  a l l opinions  However,  should  this.  i n the planning  questions  general,  process.  that  as  a  participants  against  to ensure  important  regarding  members  those  of the  of receiving  These  that  as p o s s i b l e ,  Proponents  a l lof the p a r t i c i p a n t s  dissolved  The  a need  stressed  Questions  previous  only  hearing  as p o s s i b l e  process  that  i t was  input  process.  of opinion.  agreed  interests  the importance  to accomplish  that  public  into  was  the public  interviewed  the  sample  there  agreement  for  stressed  on  early  a s many d i f f e r e n t  i n the planning  representative  interviewed  choice  expect to the for a  less  78  politically  contested  stressed  the fact  meetings  were  legally  public  the  Terra  lack  that  open  conducted  required,  for  decision  input Nova  of concrete  decision  suggestions  the  council  interviewed  the  rezoning  procedure  may  i n turn  example,  lead  newly  for  increased  using  established  negotiations  local  council  area  discussed All  council  other  than  individual regarding The public  some  allow  for public In s p i t e  small-scale  increased  of public  Permit  of the members o f  which  For  of the role of  which  t h e Township  and  would  allow  applicant In a d d i t i o n ,  to the successful rezonings  into  changes t o  concerns.  Board  input  flexibility  an e x p a n s i o n  small-scale  and l o t s i z e  opposition  legislate  public  hearing.  that  of public strategies  are best  left  the public  interviewed  t o any changes  was  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the planning  of the aldermen  involvement (outlined  stressing to their  a task  process  that  own d i s c r e t i o n  force made  i n Chapter  the fact  i n the planning  favoured  to the  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n any  Several  d i f f e r e n t needs,  to involve  planners  forums  of the municipality.  voiced  rezoning  municipalities how  earlier  Three.  the public  t o accommodate  these  between  pointed  would  i n their  and t h a t  suggested  to the d i f f e r e n t levels  incorporated Three)  may  power  members  Act that  formal,  f o r alternatives, several  concerning  i n Chapter  Municipal  pointed  members  planning  to the  in particular.  Development  the discretionary  several  form  member  information  prior  d i d suggest that  they  years  opportunity  to a mitigation  one c o u n c i l  the  ample  Instead,  and p u b l i c  several  hearings  provided  lands  houses  over  public  t o b e made.  process. approach t o  up o f  citizens  79  and  planners.  The  the  collection  of  outline  process  invited  the  i n an to  Terra  a  remained. process  The  towards  issues.  The  was  This  to  refers at  committee.  politicians the  would  become  a  highly  motivated,  core  planners  group.  This  the  that  was  complete having  removal  the  members  not  the  planners'  planning  f o r m a l i t y to force  the  They  emphasized  the  suggestions and  the  is this  since  for  the  In  this  scheme, plans  continue  citizens the  planning  involve  working  s o l u t i o n s of process  to  the  be  influence.  the  council  task  force  for public exclusion  need  the  case  municipal  the  ratify  of  politicians the  public  developed  by  to  act  hearing the  committee.  council  increased-legislation  this  involved with  process  eliminate  task  or  would  political  of  the  that  would  through  workable  of  in  public  suggested  meetings  for  the  residentially  process  stressed  and  information  rezoning  work  and  by  would  stage  interested  would  consensus-building  with  Nova  pre-existing  decision-makers.  Agreeing  process.  a  Terra  next  a l l the  Planning  of  i n the  citizen-planner  for  not  p u b l i c meetings  did  final  i n the  that  public  where  information  However,  participation  change  initiated  available  The  large  public  not  the  options  The  element  operational  holding  stages  package  alternatives.  D i r e c t o r of  municipal  this  planning  proposed  was  in  consultant's  the  difficult  together  as  of  site  described  Township  (The  group  with  present  the  site.)  core  of  various  area  Nova  developed  some  the  been  was  complete  attend.  have  until  of  involved  meetings  would  a  in detail  consequences  process  of the  members,  the  planners  public participation importance  of  saw  i n the  l e a v i n g as  no  role  planning  much  80  flexibility  as  possible  the  in  The Clerk, the  possible  other  hands  a  that  to  the  number  effective  forum  altered  a  as  alterations allowing  specified 11:00 during not  been  hearing  ten  that to  this  The  speaker's  time  suggestion  was  would be  which  encourage  afforded  that right  the to  an  through limit  the a  better  felt range  opportunity  for  Act  more  example  to  a  the a  as  Township  motion  can  be  has  beyond  concluded  speaker's  policy  been  then  that  some c h a n g e s councils  of  a  to  between  opinion  clearly  by  the  list  has  the  The define  limitation  ten  given  to  to  Procedure  reasonable  speak.  has  reconvene.  municipal  of  the  on  and  more  the  such  hearing  suggested  was  i t a  policy  well,  as  did  changes  the  time  he  These  extend  provisions  make  limit,  seen  few  issue.  can  must  speaking  Clerk  Municipal speak,  the  may  As  but  allow  were  time.  adopted  also  would  no  has  referendum,  hearing  Nova  i f everyone  concluded  which  to  that  as  Municipal  particularly,  public  with  hearing  Township  Clerk  and  the  However,  that  procedural  rebuttal  participation  a  process.  Terra  of  of  there  changes  once,  However,  be  holding  policy,  the  and  public  municipalities.  public,  number speak  of  interviewed,  hearing  of  a.m.,  Municipal Act  of  the  public  the  the  Township's  minute  1:0.0  not  a  to  time.  Municipal  minutes,  the  the  heard, can  both  involve  a  p.m.  test  consequence  speakers  permitting  official  procedural  for  Indeed,  role  individual  public  of  Township.  the  beyond  political  alternatives suggest  of  municipal  commented  ultimate  on  the  limit  the  By-law. and  that  The  fifteen this  s i n c e , more  people  Clerk  suggested  those of  also  afforded  speakers  or  would  the those  81  who  can  make w r i t t e n  the  municipality.  hearings some  should  sort  of  members  in  more  intimate and  discover  stated the  the  issue  public  that  development to  was  or  issues the  by  open  meetings)  that  development.  In  there  is  nothing  with  the  wrong  a  development  versus  of  alternatives area  planning  community centres These  to  members  debate  members the  of  public  approach.  pride of  the  the  They  themselves public  associations  to  the of  saw  a  to  resolved -  the  participant  resolution by  the  the  stating  process  over  their  goals  of  the  that -  by  the  land.  interviewed  which  public  itself  controversy  hearings  planners  develop  hearing  emphatically  have  This  hearing  through on  three  easily  rezoning  continued  emphasized  perhaps  more  would  provide  public  hearing  dialogue  community  Nova  created at  public  that  public participation  public  who  with  municipal-sponsored  to  non-development  associations,  which  community  one-sided  the  the  to  land.  for  she  public  recommended  the  more  within  review.  the  and  vote  that  and  convene  Terra  of  fact,  participants  maintaining  Two  the  to  established  development  failed  of  i t was  be  members  under  houses  issue  that  council  could  opportunities  (developer-sponsored  suggested  p a r t i c i p a t i o n device  created  other  eligible  encouraging  non-development  the  information  whole  council  of  those  Clerk  which  these  of  to  commission  surroundings  core  no  the  council  representative  that  pointed  of  the  hearing  allowing  the  The  t i e up  public  five  develop  Finally,  not  or  submissions  looked the  use  suggested  to of  established non-partisan working and  a  more  local  existing community objectivity.  through  objectives  these  that  would  82  satisfy  community  politicians building.  This  a t the process Preceding  extensive covering  needs.  stage  t h e whole  detailed, studies such  topics  stated  their  account idea  that  unless  public  suggested ensure  account  when  change  In other  guarantee  a right  encourage  decision-makers  expressed  i n public  voting 4.5  Summary  of  interviews  Nova  offered  required  to require  final  expressed  by  decision.  interviewed would  would would  seek t o  be t a k e n not  that  to the  into  only would  opinions  b y t h e members  of the public  on c o n t e n t i o u s  the signatures  a referendum  issues  that  or a  o f 10 - 2 0 % o f t h e  by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y .  Analysis  analysis  Terra  into  i n any form, i s  Act that  to a c t according  re-  so, stressed, the  but l e g i s l a t i o n  a referendum  which  population  The the  process  their  that  this  submissions.  suggestion was  take  the opinions  on i s s u e s  legislation  t o be h e a r d ,  interviewed  petition  words,  would  of the public  position  account.  were  rendering  Beyond  interviewed  i n doing  to the Municipal  the public's  Another  that  take  t h e need f o r  and  participation,  a l l o f t h e members  some  that  of public  consensus  by t h e Township  assessments.  arid,  of  stressed  participants  the decision-makers  into  Indeed,  impact  of the public  any amount  they  analysis  f o r decision-making  the wishes  useless the  call  process  the public  the absence of  and t h e importance  as c o s t / b e n e f i t  suggestion,  emphasized  t o be c o n d u c t e d  environmental/socio-economic tangible  process  o f the. p u b l i c  lands  conducted  rezoning with  hearings  was  twelve  based  conducted  on b e h a l f  of  on t h e r e s u l t s o f  key p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n the  rezoning  83  process.  These  public,  municipal  and  twelve  officials,  a representative  were  designed  hearing  members  of public  designed  The  framework  and  six participation objectives.  characteristic attracted  a  audiences'  indicated  degree  characteristic  further  influence  various  Analysis that  expertise  i n order  indicated  of  that  a quick  public  was  of the  not answered. decision-makers  the public  at the hearings  was  members  to rezone.  no c h a n c e  of user  interviewed  way  hearing  plan.  d i d not require  t h e need  on t h e p a r t  process,  to involve  group.  method  to  sophistication characteristic  stated  of e f f o r t  h a d no  Analysis  f o r the public  o f use and p r e p a r a t i o n  and c o n v e n i e n t  Nehman.  hearings  on  of the public  the public  advocacy  Nova  of the development  of the ease  and  to a  achieved  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the hearings,  and c o n v e n i e n t  a vocal  there  due t o t h e l a c k  Analysis  not  members  of the public  the question  of impact  of council  aspects  of the public  themselves  quick  that  Questions  Manty,  contact  the Terra  although  that  of the degree  indicated  members  that  of the degree  indicated  assessment  by G l a s s e r ,  of representation  on t h e d e c i s i o n  community.  council,  p a r t i c i p a t i o n according  of public  audience,  indicated  of the  of s i x communication c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of the degree  large  Analysis  impact  i s comprised  members  of the Township's  a subjective  a s a means  f o r evaluation  Analysis  included:  of the development  to provide  process  framework  participants  although the to  inform  of the Township. characteristic  usually  the public  special  considered  i n planning,  due t o t h e p r e s e n c e  a was  and e f f o r t s  84  Analysis  of the a b i l i t y  to respond  characteristic  indicated  of  t o the tremendous  the council  during  the course  Analysis  made  rather  the  problems  objectives  also  were  both  The  to resolve  interviews o n how  Nova  questions  regarding  to those  of  intent  the  suggestions,  public  public  that  hearings- and  public to  hearings.  receive  solutions  process  were  b u t were n o t  those  interviewed  planners  control.  the opinions  participation  the p a r t i c i p a t i o n process  f o r greater  to  hearings.  to e l i c i t  Surprisingly, although  Nova  hearing  that  and t o g e t i d e a s and  and t o implement  sought  indicated  of public  indicated  public  t o enhance  concrete  depoliticalize  problems,  however,  also  process.  need  participants  of the public  planning  the  members'  a t the Terra  conflict  by t h e T e r r a  participants  communication  the objectives  accomplished  the objectives  achieved  raised  to a cross-examination  to identify  of the public,  feedback,  council  between  response  of interests  of the p a r t i c i p a t i o n objectives  and. e d u c a t e ,  Members  variety  o f two-way  that  no s y s t e m i n a t i c  content.  Analysis  solve  was  interests  hearings.  amounted  a dialogue  presentation's  inform  indicated  presentations  than  there  of the public  of the degree  characteristic who  that  to varied  emphasized and p u b l i c  of the  i nthe made f e w t h e need t o emphasized  85 Chapter 5.1  Five:  thesis  public  reviewed  participation  representatives  of  involved  recent  i n one  land  -  Four  provided  the  according  Terra  to  Margaret  analysis  chapter  of  an  public  hearing  i n municipal of  the  case  et  the  by  groups  involving  decision  of  process  planning  different  study  lands  of  the  Nova  a  means  participants  rezoning  i n Richmond,  Terra  as  interviewing  of  B.C.  public  urban  Chapter  hearings  a l . ' s e v a l u a t i o n framework  of  the  of  some  public  means In  future  understanding i n the  of  of  final  public  outlined  process.  discussion  the  T e r r a Nova  provide  effective  hearings  presents  theory  will  planning  5.2  the  analysis  Glasser  the  enhancement more  each  Nova  chapter  democratic  as  adapted  by  conclusions  hearings  i n Chapter broad  Two.  process  the  role  municipal  the  planning  on  review  public  a  addition, that  suggest  and  a  a  would  the  an  municipal  provides  which  of  this  providing  i n the  chapter  possibilities of  the  towards  participation  conclusion, this research  In  recommendations  hearing  public  based  from  use  further of  public  process.  Conclusions This  the  thesis  began  dissatisfaction  municipal as  Recommendations  Sinclair.  This  an  and  Introduction This  of  Conclusions  a  rezoning  means  underlying decision  of  the  public  the  expressed process  public  premise  with  problem  by  the  regarding  participation.  that  i n the  hearing  case  process  statement  which  discussed  various  participants  the  of  use  This of  the  failed  public  in  hearings  d i s c u s s i o n formed Terra in  Nova  the  lands  i t s attempt  to  the  86  provide  the public with  land-use the in  it  decision-making  public order  that  flawed  and t h a t  i n the municipal  t o overcome  are created  was  an e f f e c t i v e  alternative  planning  process  that  must  be  introduced interests  In other  process,  the communication  into  to involve  opposing  process.  the public hearing  and c a n n o t a c h i e v e  f o r input  means  t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n between  by t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g  suggested  participation  opportunity  words,  itself,  is  characteristics  objectives of public p a r t i c i p a t i o n  and  i n the planning  process. There  are several  undertaken  i n Chapter  public  hearing  public  participation  contention  observations, Four,  i s flawed  that  support  i n i t sattempt  i n the planning  the public hearing  and  t h e r e f o r e , by t h e n a t u r e  all  the communication  objectives  that  listed  based  the conclusion to provide  process.  itself  of Glasser  This  that the  meaningful refers  i s inherently  of i t sdesign,  characteristics  as p a r t  on t h e a n a l y s i s  and  cannot  to the  flawed  provide f o r  participation  et al.'s evaluation  framework. In  the case  study,  the public hearing  f o r the various  plans,  as t h e p r o v i s i o n o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n of park  be the  discussed.  As a r e s u l t ,  f o r or against  addition, ensuring achieved. public  vote  the public hearing  of the municipal  the public hearing that  of proposed  provided  opportunity such  aspects  process  a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample  Although,  participation  with  cannot  became  space, focused  members.  the problem  to  In  of  of public opinion i s  the exception  devices  development  council  d i d not solve  no  of a referendum,  ensure  other  a representative  on  87  sample  of the population,  particular opposed  creates  t o , and  participate. that  allows  variety course  of  a bias  i n few  the municipal that  t o promote  because  who  were  raised  Because  the p u b l i c hearing  meaningful  dialogue  that  lead  could Before  provide in  itself as  an  that  the p u b l i c with  instrument  an  i s clear  study  already  that  taken  adoption  Terra It  and from  both  the  Nova  land site  i s equally  themselves  will  process no  from clear  i n entrenched  forum  systematically with during  the the  hearing's  on  c a n be  by  the  the rezoning seen  per  as  opportunity for  and  opponents  of the  plan  issues.  the p u b l i c hearing  failed  and  that  opportunity  Nova  to  must  be  to  participate process  public hearing viewed  process  i ni t s  context.  t h e d e s c r i p t i o n and Terra  Nova's  to the rezoning Community  residential  a n a l y s i s of the  future  hearings, Plan  reserve,  the A g r i c u l t u r a l that  process  the public hearing  the Terra  Official  as  a  resolutions to contentious  t h e d e c i s i o n on prior  strongly  d i d not create  t o views  proponents  political  of Richmond's  designating  limited  of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n  place  issue  of the p u b l i c  appropriate  rezoning  historical  It  the  between  to workable  Nova  feel  the submissions  i t provided  i s i n h e r e n t l y flawed  proper  case  because  concluding  the Terra  by  in  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l the issues  se.  flawed  o f , an  council to deal  t h e p u b l i c was  inherently  those  i n favour  municipality, Finally,  only  the p u b l i c hearing  of the hearings.  inability  process  cases,  Further,  issues  the p u b l i c hearing  the  the exclusion  Reserve  the decision-makers  political  with  had  i n 1986  and  Land  land-use  positions prior  had  of  i n 1987. aligned  to the p u b l i c  88  hearings indeed,  held the  Richmond  for  election  an  the  which,  four in  a  authority  Terra  against  The  make  and  of  the  five  the  Terra  the  legal  requirements  for  the  elected  or  to  a  the  of  change  the the  for  of  lines  were  public hearing  the  public  to  change  presented  an  show  c o u n c i l members  the  depth  and  the  Terra  attendance  written  and  Beyond council Terra  development  drawbacks  the  oral  of  the  an  minds,  rezoning  hearings  way  and  could satisfy  a of  chance their  therefore,  new  information  would  votes.  of  Nova  to  pattern  opportunity range  the  least  that  their  and  they  process,  the  In  for  doing  the  public  community  lands  through  by  the  number  and  for  the  public  to  strong  content  submissions.  providing  members'  Nova  at  of  for  at  for  for  i n what  introduce  different  the  land-use  drawn  and  The  vote,  them  opportunity  Act  their  development free  conducted  an  of  constituency.  firmly  Municipal  to  a  the  limited  public hearings  public  their  regarding  provided  constituted in a  choose  of  anticipated voting  c o u n c i l members  to  favour  And,  citizens  society, gives  the  opposition  of  to  challenge  information  encourage so,  public hearings  to  e l e c t e d by  behalf  lands  lands. the  right  in  public hearings  representatives.  presented  on  Nova gave  their  democratic  Nova  The  1987  were  political  the  Terra  politician's  d e c i s i o n made  achieve.  public  the  exercise  decisions  development,  rezoning  to  development  policy  site  of  i n November  representative  the  Nova  held  against  to  With  rezoning  opportunity  representatives. and  the  opportunity the  public  presented  Terra  Nova  a  hearing  chance  development  to  process discuss  plan  change  called the  itself,  for  merits measured  the the and  89  according remains beyond  the e l e c t o r a l  Nova  lands  fault  the  t o meet  process  itself.  as  by  problems  created  because  opposing  different  views  and  the role  the  municipal  hearing  earlier. can  be  the  public  These  decision-makers,  the  The  what  of view  provides  p u b l i c as  may  participants a n d why  play  be  the role  i t could  in  hearing as  instead  be  i n the  rezoning  clearly  and  public  case  be  limits  be  process has  from  of the hearing  process  among  to  discussed what  the role  o f t h e p u b l i c as an a i d t o  Other  shown  the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  of the planning participants  process view  see t h e p u b l i c as an  at  the public  expected  regarding  i n the  hearings  study  f a r more  reasonably  seen  d i f f e r e n c e s a r e h i g h l i g h t e d by  aspect  feedback.  f a r more  much  regarded,  may  i n the planning  a d i f f e r e n c e of opinion  as one  as  the p u b l i c should  a r e most  a n a l y s i s of this  the inherent  i n the planning view  i n the p u b l i c  the o b j e c t i v e s behind  perceptual  t o be  participants  how  seen  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  o f what  of the p u b l i c expected than  be  process.  points  level.  given  seen  on  the p u b l i c should  process  accomplish,  public  views  regarding  t h e members  amongst flaws  some  different  i n the planning  These  words,  on t h e  communication  the use of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g  have d i f f e r e n t  involved  decision-making  o b j e c t i v e s may  limitations  In other  created  that  a l l of Glasser's  the inherent  problems  process  in  hearing  of the p u b l i c hearings  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n  process  the public  process.  of the perceptual  rezoning  Thus,  for participation  a d d i t i o n , the i n a b i l i t y  characteristics a  standards.  an o p p o r t u n i t y  In Terra  t o community  of Some  municipal where  the role  important  the of  90  influence  on d e c i s i o n s .  participants makers  through  These in  saw  perceptual  different  the  Township.  council  public  could  become  participants  public  Terra  rezoning  regarding process  process.  This  society.  This  plays  and, i n s t e a d , representation  a role  question  of  felt  as  several  that  fully  the other  that  legal  i t was t h e informed  hand,  of the  other  notification  and t h a t  the duty  observations,  as  required  rests  with  the role  answer of the  participation question  cannot  be  along  the  society within  wrestling with  and t h e p u b l i c ' s  in a  i n society  democratic  which  t h e answer  by  definitively  r e s t s on t h e b a l a n c e  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n  i n the asked  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  larger question  participation  a conclusive  the unanswered  the answer  been  the a n a l y s i s of the  or appropriateness  of public  the democratic  has long  of public  On  reflects  democratic  Indeed,  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  and t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e  a s a means  regarding  continuum.  by  the p u b l i c  the adequacy  theorists  between  illustrated  has n o t p r o v i d e d  democratic  answered  are also  on t h e d i f f e r e n t  themselves.  public hearings  hearing  t o views  officials,  adequate  of the preceding  the question  public  felt  A c t was  to inform  spite  Nova  involved.  interviewed  the Municipal  In  to  They  the role  i n the rezoning  decision-  the various p a r t i c i p a n t s  t h e p u b l i c , as w e l l  and m u n i c i p a l  some  referendum.  o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y t o keep involved  the  regarding  case,  as t h e u l t i m a t e  are not limited  F o r example,  members  of  i n planning.  views  issues  by  acting  extreme  d i f f e r e n c e s among  process  of the public  the  duty  the public  the instrument  the rezoning  roles  I n t h e most  planning  to the  role i n  91  influencing  decision-making.  struggle  with  society,  the  public  the  role  question  hearing  of of  process  the  as  a  process  can  rezoning  process  according  mix  democratic at  an  between  definitive  hearing  process  question  of  only  means  be  of  to  their  answer  to  role  of  in  by  democratic  adequacy  of  participant  individual and  view  the of  challenge  to  public participation  in  challenge  adequacy  in  the  in  the the  the to  of  answer in  the  regarding  participation  question  the  or  each  Therefore,  the  in a  to  public participation  answered  system.  i s found  the  appropriateness  representation  governing  society continues  public participation  rezoning  correct  Because  arrive  the  the  public  larger  democratic  society. The  challenge  acceptance lead  to  a  perhaps, this  of  different  co-operative u l t i m a t e l y , to  challenge  make a  remains  would  to  create  an  perspectives approach a  an  which  public  consensus  create  c o n t r i b u t i o n , even  to  understanding will,  very  least,  participation,  and,  i n decision-making.  opportunity  i f the  at  and  final  for  Meeting  a l l involved  d e c i s i o n i s not  to  favourable  to a l l . In  spite  of  the  participation  i s not  unanswered  the  public  hearing  municipal supplement to  a  same  by  more time,  fact  that  answered  the by  planning  can  participatory however,  process,  as  a  means  be  recommended  public participation form  there  of  i s an  of  representation  s o c i e t y , and,  public hearing  process  issue  of  therefore,  some c h a n g e s  to  public participation that  may  in planning  understanding  .enhance  and  representative  and  bring  in  or i t closer  democracy. that  the  these  At  the  92  recommendations  must  be t e m p e r e d  with  the p r a c t i c a l  realities  of  implementation. 5.3  Recommendations The  changes  supplements public to  participation  perceptual  or at least  to prevent  the  communication  the  analytical  scale  of issues  currently the  mitigate,  used  involving  among  In other  public  techniques)  that  involves  a controversial  that  will  have  afforded  every  the  from  plan  Specifically, a as  i s involved.  long-term  reasonably In  order  case  words,  according  change  to final  a s much  p o s s i b l e and as e a r l y a means  seek  and t h e both  of  meeting  objectives of  study  has to the  that are process  the public  process  to participate  to provide  that  according  in  should  be  (ie. different  t o the type  of  when  the rezoning  to a  large  implications, the public  conception  to provide  from  i n the rezoning  t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y should,  proposed, r e z o n i n g  process  rezonings  F o r example,  land-use  opportunity initial  participants,  the d i s t i n c t i o n s  i n the rezoning  rezoning  flaws  of  thesis.  between  involved- d i f f e r e n t l y participation  process  and p a r t i c i p a t i o n  the public  o f Richmond.  an i n s t r u m e n t  i t sinherent  i n this  i n v o l v e d beyond  enhancements o r  rezoning  the analysis of this  to differentiate  made  Township  exist  characteristics  and. f o r e m o s t ,  a need  process.as  the public hearing  framework  shown  represent  i n the municipal  differences that  serve  First  below  to the p u b l i c hearing  overcome,  which  recommended  tract  should  of  land  be  i n the development  of  implementation.  encourage  the applicant f o r  information  to the public  as p o s s i b l e i n the process.  to differentiate  contentious  93  rezonings local  the municipality  area  planning  communities planning this  involved  process.  process  prior  would  words,  a confrontation  could  hearing  this  and  t o be o u t l i n e d process  provide  public  stage  a forum  they  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  issues  between  could  of a  within  i t i s anticipated could  that be  through  uncovered  the public  and t h e  of the rezoning  process.  f o r the public's  and reviewed  so t h a t  the development  see planners  potentially controversial  addition,  planning  encourage  i n an o n - g o i n g  at the public  ideas  that  In other  to reaching  Township  forum  should  early  enough  In  concerns  i nthe  be i n c o r p o r a t e d  into  final  plans. Beyond process, public  decision-making  involvement  provincial public  meetings,  public  response  recommendations decision  expressed means  hear  from  as w e l l  to council.  of public  that  made  instead  of the public  the f i n a l ,  the lines  could  of federal or  be empowered  i n t e r e s t groups,  council  has heard  to  up o f k n o w l e d g e a b l e ,  would  advise  look  the confrontational,  relevant  Thus,  researched  involved,  opinions  various  as other  distance  along  that  hearing  should  The m u n i c i p a l i t y  commission  from  commission  the issues  would  process  Commissions,  on t h e w e l l  independent  that  i n d i v i d u a l s , based  Royal  the public  the municipality  of the public.  an independent  well-respected  t o enhance  that  p a r t i c i p a t i o n schemes  establish  in  suggestions  i t i s recommended  political direct  these  data,  from  of r e l y i n g  analyze  a n d make  could  o f an  to hold  base  their  unbiased,  a l l . who  are interested  s o l e l y on t h e  at the public  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the planning  hearing process.  as t h e Critical  94  to  the success  membership would  remain  The  work and  the f i n a l  preceding  lead  others  public  among  involved  consistency  throughout  municipality  immediately  should  before  clarification information  'to e a c h  of issues  between,  themselves  since  from  This  negative  not jeopardize the c o u n c i l  i n accordance  may  alleviate  the  members  with  much  the c r i t e r i a  However,  the levels  their  of the  of understanding process  should  hearing  spell  provide  hearing  the public  and t h e p a s s i n g  specifically,  are  both the followed.  procedural  process.  an i n f o r m a l  should  out the rules of  and m a i n t a i n  the public  et  of the public  regarding that  process  of Glasser  the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  and t h e p r o c e d u r e s  and a f t e r  actions.  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the rezoning  the municipality  prior  of their  of the  election.  i n the rezoning  of the issues  i s the c a l i b r e  would  makers  i n meeting  framework.  increasing  Specifically,  time,  democracy  decision  t o i t sf a i l u r e  towards  procedure  to distance  recommendations  differences  evaluation  substance  the  from  however,  credibility  a n d , a t t h e same  derived  perceptual  al.'s  members  of representative  authority  that  council  reaction  principle would  and t h e p e r c e i v e d  allow  public  of the commission,  forum,  hearings, along  the public  In a d d i t i o n , both t o encourage  a  of further and t h e  municipal  planners. In the  spite  addition  Municipal be the  of the majority o f more  of the interviewees'  regulations  on p u b l i c  A c t , the recommendations  incorporated Municipal  as changes  outlined  to the Municipal  A c t would, e n s u r e  that  opposition  participation  to  i n the  above  should,  Act.  Entrenchment i n  the public  hearing  indeed,  process  95  would the  be  enhanced  and  communication  Glasser's specify allow  time  the  i n order  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  evaluation that  supplemented  framework.  public  f o r issues  closely  meet  participation objectives  F o r example,  hearing  t o be  t o more  could  be  clarified  the Act  adjourned  and  various  of  should  i n order  to  interests  to  be  addressed. Although indeed,  as  decrease  some  the  innovative work  ultimately political elected  be  This  they  to  the  could  also  undermine  d e p o l i t i c a l i z a t i o n of process  would  discrepancies  i n the planning  involve  to i n s t i t u t e  rezoning  that  may  suggested,  entrenchment  efforts  perceptual  recognized  recommendations of public appear  issues  a l l o c a t i o n of  also  that  process.  land-use  and  will  involving  the  f o r changes  But are  resources  to the p u b l i c  participation within  to imply  exercise;  effective process  schemes,  Act  by  body.  role  costly  participants  i t must  interviewed  i n the municipal the  to the Municipal  municipality  participation.  because  The  process  the  political  to eliminate  the  changes  participation  public  among  of  eliminating  serve  of  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  participation  further  the  of  public  meaningful  exist  enactment  flexibility  towards  public  the  a  however,  efficient f a r exceed public.  labour  public  the municipal  intensive,  i n the end,  time  into  i n the  of  and  planning  consuming  the benefits  participation  the e f f o r t put  hearing  and  more  planning  the process  of  an  5.4  Further There  the  Research  are  municipal  plans  put  would  provide  level  forward  the  public  the  planning  thesis.  countless  an  from  opposition  to  previously  Yet,  unlike  municipal against to  would  hearings  as  this  the  Spetifore  of  the  rezoning,  such  as  a  thesis'  assessment device  same  framework,  that  has  been  for  study  Delta  of  on  This the  vocal  Land  of  the the  an  than  that  of of  lands the the  the  lands' as  the  agricultural  defeated  municipal  Spetifore  assessment  this  Reserve.  by  the  council i t is  voted  interesting  Spetifore public Terra  Nova  public  thesis.  further of  Delta  of  public  Agricultural was  public  elements  the  proposal  the  and  Spetifore  within the  of  comparative  same b a s i c  strong  this  behalf  of  different  area  a  of  results  urbanization  whether  Another  the  the  Because  in  in  and  Nova,  be  public participation  because  some  the  that of  lands.  relevant  test  conclusions  be  for  outlined  participation  would  m u n i c i p a l i t y of  development  hearings  governments  to  adequacy  test  the  frozen  on  to  involved  Terra  conjecture  the  in  council.  the  test  study  development  land  as  for  at  public opposition  further  means  case  particularly  lands  a  this  proposal  Nova  well  both  example  proposal  Terra  municipal  best  rezoning  be  as  public hearings  or  to  as  recent vocal,  the  conducted  rezoning  process  of  seen  developers  process  However,  would  have  opportunity  hearings  study  which  by  hearing  conclusions  examples  research  the  would  public hearing  i n rezonings  of  an  innovative  used  by  municipal  and  an  be as  a  comparison a  public  assessment,  public participation planning  of  using  the  programme  a u t h o r i t i e s i n cases  of  97 controversial words, of  this  land-use  study  Richmond's  would  use  of  municipality's  process  and  a  views.  In  attempt  this  outlined  in this  thesis  a  or  way, could  to  T e r r a Nova.  comparison  statutory  mediated  opposing  similar  involve  the  another  seek  debates,  to  public go  hearing  beyond  conciliatory some be  of  the  tested  between  the  In  the  process  public  resolution  assessed.  Township and  hearing of  recommendations  and  other  98  BIBLIOGRAPHY A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Province No. 20796. B u r n a b y , B.C. Arnstein,  Burke,  of British  Hugh, C o l l i s , P a t r i c i a , G l e n , Andrew, and P a t r i c k S i l l s . Community Groups i n A c t i o n Case S t u i e s and A n a l y s i s . R o u t l e d g e & Kegan P a u l L t d . : London, 1980.  Catanese,  Anthony J . The P o l i t i c s Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s I n c . :  Catanese,  Anthony J . Planners and L o c a l P o l i t i c s . P u b l i c a t i o n s Inc.: B e v e r l y H i l l s , 1974.  Cohen,  Planning.  N., G o l d s m i t h , M. H a m p t o n , W., a n d P. S t r i n g e r . Public Participation i n Local Services. Longman G r o u p L t d . : London, 1982.  Butcher,  Connor,  File  S h e r r y R. "A L a d d e r o f C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " Journal of American I n s t i t u t e of Planners. Volume 35, 1969, p. 216-224.  Edmund. A P a r t i c i p a t o r y Approach t o Urban Human S c i e n c e s P r e s s : New Y o r k , 1 9 7 9 .  Boaden,  Columbia.  o f P l a n n i n g and Development. B e v e r l y H i l l s , 1984. Sage  D e s m o n d M-. C i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t e , An A c t i o n G u i d e f o r Public Issues. Development Press: O a k v i l l e , 1974. Carl. Democracy. 1971.  University  Cullingworth, Barry J . Canadian Participation. Center University of Toronto:  of Georgia  Press:  P l a n n i n g and P u b l i c f o r Urban and Community T o r o n t o , 1984.  Studies,  Draper,  J a m e s A., E d . C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Press: T o r o n t o , 1971.  Elcock,  Howard. L o c a l Government P o l i t i c a n s , P r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e P u b l i c i n L o c a l A u t h o r i t i e s . . 2nd E d . Metheun & Co. L t d . : L o n d o n , 198 6.  Estrin,  David. "The P u b l i c i s S t i l l V o i c e l e s s : Some N e g a t i v e A s p e c t s o f P u b l i c H e a r i n g s " , Involvement and Environment: Proceedings of the Canadian Conference of P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n . V o l . 2., B a r r y S a d l e r , E d . , Environment Council of A l b e r t a : Edmonton, 1977. p. 83-87  Evans,  Canada.  Athens,  New  J.M. de S m i t h ' s J u d i c i a l R e v i e w o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Action. 4th Ed. S t e v e n s and Sons L i m i t e d : London, 1980.  99  Eyre,  Peggy J . I n s t i t u a t i o n s f o r the Optimal P l a n n i n g / P o l i c y Process A p p l i c a t i o n to B r i t i s h Columbia. Master's T h e s i s , S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia: Vancouver, 1979.  Fagence,  Folkes,  Michael. Press:  Citizen Participation Great B r i t a i n , 1977.  in Planning.  Pergamon  Sharon. C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e R e d e v e l o p m e n t of Urban Land A Case Study of the N o r t h Shore o f F a l s e Creek. M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s , S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a : Vancouver, October, 1989.  Gauld,  Don. P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e P r e p a r a t i o n o f O f f i c i a l Community P l a n s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . Master's Thesis, S c h o o l o f C o m m u n i t y and. R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , T h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia: Vancouver, 1986.  Gutch,  R i c h a r d , S p i r e s , Rod a n d M e l T a y l o r . Views of Participation. P l a n n i n g S t u d i e s No.4 Polytechnic of C e n t r a l London. School of Environment: London, 1977.  Head,  W i l s o n A. " T h e I d e o l o g y a n d p r a c t i c e o f C i t i z e n Participation". Citizen Particiption: C a n a d a , A Book o f R e a d i n g s . E d . J a m e s D r a p e r . New press: Toronto, 1971.  Huzel,  S u z a n n e Z. C o n f l i c t and Compromise. Master's Thesis, S c h o o l o f Community o f R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia: Vancouver, April, 1982.  Kelso,  William Alton. American Press: Connecticut,  Langton,  Lewis,  Ley,  S t u a r t . Ed. Citizen on t h e S t a t e o f t h e Toronto, 1978.  J.R. Democracy: Son: London,  Democratic 1978.  Theory.  Greenwood  P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n America: Essays Art. DC H e a t h a n d C o m p a n y :  the Theory 1966.  and  Practice.  Allman  and  David. C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e S p a t i a l O r d e r o f C i t y . B.C. G e o g r a p h i c a l S e r i e s No. 1 9 , T a n t a l u s Research Limited: Vancouver, 1974.  Lipson,  Leslie. Press:  Marshall,  The D e m o c r a t i c C i v i l i z a t i o n . New Y o r k , 1964.  'Oxford  the  University  Patricia. Citizen Particiption Certification for Community Development: A r e a d e r on t h e c i t i z e n Participation Process. N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Housing  100  and Redevelopment 1977. Mayo,  H.B.  Officials:  Introduction to Democratic Press: New Y o r k , 1970.  Washington,  Theory.  February,  Oxford  University  Mishler,  William. P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Canada: Prospects for Democratic C i t i z e n s h i p . M a c m i l l a n Company o f Canada L t d . : T o r o n t o , 1979.  Pateman,  Carole. P a r t i c i p a t i o n and D e m o c r a t i c University Press: Cambridge, 1970.  Province  of B r i t i s h Columbia, Act.  Province  of B r i t i s h Columbia. Revised Statutes C o l u m b i a , 1979 C h a p t e r 2 9 0 , M u n i c i p a l ( c o n s o l i d a t e d ) F e b r u a r y 28, 1986.  Rejai,  M.  Cambridge  Columbia. Revised Statutues of B r i t i s h 1 9 8 0 , C h a p t e r 9, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land. C o m m i s s i o n  Democracy: The C o n t e m p o r a r y New Y o r k , 196 7. Township o f . Agricultural I s s u e s , CP 6 . 3 . 2 , 1986  Richmond,  Township  of.  Issue  Richmond,  Township 1986. '  of.  I s s u e s and  Richmond,  Township  of.  Official  Richmond,  Township o f . P l a n n i n g Department Department Files. 1986-1990.  Rosenbaum,  Nelson. "Citizen Participation Theory", i n L a n g t o n , S t u a r t . Ed. in America: E s s a y s on t h e S t a t e and Company: Toronto, 1978.  Paper  of B r i t i s h Act,  Theories.  Richmond,  Ross,  Theory.  Atherton  Perspective,  No.  3,  CP  Agricultural  6.3a,  C h o i c e s , Summary  Community  Plan. and  Press:  1986. Paper  December Municipal  CP  6,  1986. Clerk's  and D e m o c r a t i c Citizen Participation of the A r t . DC Heath  Leslie J. Richmond, c h i l d of the F r a s e r . Richmond Centenniel Society: R i c h m o n d , B.C., 1979.  '79  Sadler,  B a r r y . Ed. I n v o l v e m e n t and E n v i r o n m e n t . Proceedings of t h e C a n a d a i a n C o n f e r e n c e on P u b l i c Participation. V o l u m e 2. A l b e r t a Environment Council of A l b e r t a , Banff, Alberta. O c t . 4-7, 1 9 7 7 . W o r k i n g P a p e r s and Case S t u d i e s .  Sadler,  B a r r y . Ed. Public Participation i n Environmental D e c i s i o n Making: S t r a t e g i e s f o r Change. The Environment Council of A l b e r t a , A p r i l 1979.  101  Sewell,  W.R.D., a n d J . T . C o p p o c k , E d i t o r s . Public Participation in Planning. John W i l e y & Sons L t d . : London, 1977.  Sinclair,  Social  Stone,  Margaret "The P u b l i c H e a r i n g as a P a r t i c i p a t o r y D e v i c e : E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e I J C E x p e r i e n c e " i n W.R.D. S e w e l l a n d J.T. Coppock. Eds. Public Participation i n Planning. John W i l e y & Sons L t d . : London, 1977.  Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto. Comparative S t u d y o f Two C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n M o d e l s ( D e s i g n ) Y o r k S t r e e t , T o r o n t o , O n t a r i o , . 1971.  Robert. L o c a l Area P l a n n i n g : Conflict Resolutioni n P r o v i n c i a l / M u n i c i p a l Land Use D i s p u t e s . Master's Thesis. S c h o o l o f Community a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a : Vancouver, 1976.  Troustine,  Urban  P h i l i p J . , and T e r r y C h r i s t e n s e n . Movers and Shakers: The S t u d y o f Community Power. St. Martin's Press: New York, 1982.  Development I n s t i t u t e and P l a n n i n g I n s t i t u t e o f B r i t i s h Columbia. J o i n t Meeting. V a n c o u v e r , November, 1982.  Vancouver  Sun. Clippings File: B r i t i s h Columbia, Fine  Vancouver  Urban Research Group. P o l i t i c s o f Vancouver  Vasu,  55  T e r r a Nova. University of Arts Division: Vancouver. F o r e v e r D e c e i v i n g you, t h e Development, V a n c o u v e r , 1972.  Michael Lee. P o l i t i c s and Planning. The U n i v e r s i t y o f North Carolina Press: Chapel H i l l , 1979.  Wiesman,  Brahm. C l a s s Notes, S p e c i a l Course f o r Planners from C h i n a ' s Open C i t i e s . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, C e n t r e f o r Human S e t t l e m e n t s a n d S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g : S p r i n g , 1990.  102  Appendix LIST  Municipal Ron  Mann  Brian  KEY  -  Director  Jackson  -  McKenna  Council  Members  Blair  -  of  Members  Municipal  Mayor  (Richmond  Don  -  the  Cummings  -  -  Alderman  (*)  Services  (**)  Voters  (Richmond  (Civic New  New  Association)  Independent  Democratic  Democratic  Voters  Party)  Party)  Public  -  Founder,  Roberts  -  member,  Representatives  Development  Independent  (Civic  Smith  Bourque  Clerk  Alderman  President,  Sandra  of  Alderman  -  Marion John  Steves of  Manager  -  Halsey-Brandt  Harold.  INTERVIEWED  Planning  (former)  Corazan Percival-Smith Association) Greg  INFORMANTS  Officials  Richard  Gil  OF  One  -  former of  Olga I l l i c h - Vice Construction Ltd.  the  Save  Richmond  Director, Save  Save  Richmond  member  President,  Land  Richmond  Farmland  Advisory  Development  Farmland  Society Farmland  Society  Society  Planning  Commission  Community Development,  Progressive  (*) I n a d d i t i o n , Ray Y o u n g , o u t s i d e l e g a l c o u n s e l f o r t h e T o w n s h i p o f R i c h m o n d , W a l t e r B a d u n , C.E.O., P e n r e a l Advisors L t d . , and B a r r y S m i t h , P l a n n e r , A g r i c u l t u r a l Land C o m m i s s i o n interviewed f o r background information.  (**) T h i s p a r t i c i p a n t d i d not complete the w r i t e q u e s t i o n n a r i e , but d i d respond to questions i n a  i n p a r t of dialogue.  were  the  Appendix Two  Questionnaire f o r participants involved d e c i s i o n i n t h e Township o f Richmond.  i n the Terra  103  Nova  lands  Q u e s t i o n s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s . Section A are closed q u e s t i o n s which a s k t h e p a r t i c i p a n t t o r e s p o n d on a s c a l e from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". S e c t i o n B a r e open q u e s t i o n s w h i c h a s k t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p r o v i d e a s t a t e m e n t b a s e d on t h e i r o p i n i o n s 'of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e T e r r a Nova l a n d s d e c i s i o n . Section  A  1. T h e p u b l i c was a f f o r d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a l l s t a g e s i n t h e T e r r a Nova r e z o n i n g p r o c e s s from i n i t i a l conception of the plan t o the f i n a l decision-making. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  2. T h e o n l y means a v a i l a b l e f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e T e r r a N o v a l a n d s r e z o n i n g p r o c e s s was t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t o f a p u b l i c h e a r i n g as o u t l i n e d by t h e M u n i c i p a l A c t . Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  3. T h e T e r r a Nova p u b l i c h e a r i n g s a t t r a c t e d b o t h a l a r g e number o f R i c h m o n d r e s i d e n t s a s w e l l as. o t h e r i n t e r e s t e d m e m b e r s o f t h e p u b l i c from o u t s i d e o f the Township. Strongly  Disagree  4. The T e r r a would a t t r a c t Strongly  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Nova p u b l i c h e a r i n g s a large audience.  Disagree  Disagree  Disagree  Disagree  advertized  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  5. Those t h a t attended the Terra a cross section of the population Strongly  were  Agree  Agree  Strongly  i n a manner  Strongly  Nova p u b l i c h e a r i n g s o f Richmond.  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Agree  that  Agree  represented  Strongly  Agree  1C4  6. T h o s e t h a t made p r e s e n t a t i o n s o p i n i o n s t h a t were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e Township o f Richmond. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  at the public hearings expressed of the opinions of the residents  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  7. D u r i n g t h e T e r r a Nova r e z o n i n g p r o c e s s , t h e Save Richmond Farmland S o c i e t y emerged as a v o c a l , l o c a l advocacy group f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e T e r r a Nova f a r m l a n d . The p r e s e n c e o f t h e Save R i c h m o n d F a r m l a n d S o c i e t y made a p r o f o u n d i m p a c t o n t h e R i c h m o n d c o u n c i l members c h a r g e d w i t h m a k i n g a d e c i s i o n o n t h e f u t u r e u s e o f the land. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  8. Both t h e w r i t t e n and o r a l s u b m i s s i o n s o f t h e p u b l i c , w h i c h were made d u r i n g t h e T e r r a N o v a p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , i n f l u e n c e d , i n some way, the decision-makers. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  9. P r i o r t o e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e T e r r a Nova h e a r i n g s , c o u n c i l members r e p r e s e n t e d a n e u t r a l b o a r d c h a r g e d a s e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , t o make a d e c i s i o n .  Richmond with the duty,  Strongly  Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Agree  10. When m a k i n g t h e i r d e c i s i o n , e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s s h o u l d h a v e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made d u r i n g t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e g r e a t e r Richmond community. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  105  11. Members o f R i c h m o n d ' s m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l s h o u l d s e e t h e i r d u t y as e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s as one t o a c t i n t h e r o l e o f a p u b l i c t r u s t e e and v o t e i n t h e l o n g term, b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p u b l i c , r e g a r d l e s s of the wishes o f the p u b l i c . Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  12. T h e p u b l i c was w e l l - i n f o r m e d r e z o n i n g o f t h e T e r r a Nova lands. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Agree  of the process  Neutral or Don 1 Know  Agree  Strongly  involved  Agree  i nthe  Strongly  Agree  1  13. T h e p u b l i c was f u l l y a w a r e o f t h e m a n n e r p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e r e z o n i n g o f t h e T e r r a Nova Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  14. T h e p u b l i c was f u l l y i n f o r m e d f u t u r e u s e o f t h e T e r r a Nova lands application. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  i n which lands.  Agree  they  Strongly  could  Agree  o f t h e nature and e x t e n t o f t h e as o u t l i n e d i n t h e r e z o n i n g  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  15. T h e n a t u r e o f t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g p r o c e s s , a s i t was u s e d i n t h e T e r r a N o v a l a n d s d e c i s i o n , n e c e s s i t a t e s t h a t t h e p u b l i c who p a r t i c i p a t e s be b o t h h i g h l y i n f o r m e d and educated. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  16. T h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g was a q u i c k a n d c o n v e n i e n t way f o r m u n i c i p a l o f f i c i a l s t o h e a r f r o m t h e members -of t h e p u b l i c o n t h e i s s u e o f t h e T e r r a Nova l a n d s rezoning. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  106  17. T h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g was t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e encourage p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t o the issues r e z o n i n g o f t h e T e r r a Nova l a n d s . Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  manner i n w h i c h t o surrounding the  Agree  Strongly  Agree  18. The p r o c e d u r e f o r n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c hearings concerning t h e T e r r a Nova l a n d s s o u g h t t o e l i c i t i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e p u b l i c who h e l d a v a r i e t y o f i n t e r e s t s . Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  19. The T e r r a Nova p u b l i c h e a r i n g s h e a r d s u b m i s s i o n s represented a wide range o f community interests. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  that  Strongly  20. The T e r r a Nova p u b l i c h e a r i n g s a l l o w e d f o r a d i a l o g u e d e v e l o p between opponents and p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e r e z o n i n g . Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Agree  Agree  to  Strongly  Agree  21. The emergence o f an i d e n t i f i a b l e i n t e r e s t group - Save Richmond F a r m l a n d S o c i e t y - f a c i l i t a t e d a d i a l o g u e t o d e v e l o p e between t h e p u b l i c , p l a n n e r s , d e v e l o p e r s a n d c o u n c i l members. Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Neutral or D o n ' t Know  Agree  Strongly  Agree  107  22. The p u r p o s e o f p u b l i c h e a r i n g s c a l l e d t o h e a r r e z o n i n g applications are: to i d e n t i f y problems to i n f o r m and/or educate the p u b l i c of the p l a n t o r e c e i v e f e e d b a c k on t h e p l a n t o g e t i d e a s and solve problems t o r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s and r e a c h c o n s e n s u s to implement s o l u t i o n s 23. The p u b l i c h e a r i n g s c o n d u c t e d on b e h a l f o f t h e T e r r a rezoning application: i d e n t i f i e d problems provided information to the p u b l i c p r o v i d e d f e e d b a c k f r o m t h e p u b l i c on p r o p o s e d p l a n s p r o v i d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s implemented s o l u t i o n s Section  B  Alternatives  to  the  Public  Nova  Hearing  1. When s h o u l d t h e p u b l i c be i n c l u d e d i n the r e z o n i n g p r o c e s s ? , i e . At what s t a g e i n the p r o c e s s ? , Would d i f f e r e n t p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n m e c h a n i s m s be u s e f u l a t d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s i n t h e process? 2. Who s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n the p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o c e s s ? , i e . Who s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d t o a t t e n d ? , who i s the p u b l i c ? , eg. a l l members o f t h e c o m m u n i t y e q u a l l y , f o r m a l i z e d e x i s t i n g groups, (eg. Chamber o f Commerce, l o c a l c h a p t e r s o f n a t i o n a l interest g r o u p s ) , or ad•hoc i s s u e - s p e c i f i c groups? 3. L i t e r a t u r e on p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e s u g g e s t t h a t t h e p u b l i c s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d in r i g h t s o f i n d i v i d u a l s and the p u b l i c , to seek and t o g a t h e r w i s d o m and information from the opinion, s h o u l d t h e p u b l i c be i n c l u d e d i n the xe. What i s t h e purpose, o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t  planning process order to p r o t e c t the approval for plans, public. Why, i n your planning process?, i o n in planning?  4. G i v e n t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f o f f i c i a l community p l a n s i n most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a r e not r e l i a n t s o l e l y upon p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , instead u p o n a v a r i e t y o f o t h e r means o f p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t , o f t e n more c o n s u l t a t i v e t h a n p u b l i c h e a r i n g s , and t h e c u r r e n t f u r o r o v e r v a r i o u s d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s b y t h e p u b l i c , how should the p u b l i c be i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e z o n i n g p r o c e s s ? , i e . What a l t e r n a t i v e p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n m e t h o d s w o u l d b e s t be e m p l o y e d t o m a x i m i z e the b e n e f i t s o f p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n and m i n i m i z e t h e costs? 5. in  Should these the M u n i c i p a l  alternatives discussed A c t as r e q u i r e m e n t s i n  be s p e c i f i c a l l y l e g i s l a t e d the r e z o n i n g p r o c e s s ?  Or, should the M u n i c i p a l Act merely r e q u i r e that "other forms of p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n " b e y o n d " p u b l i c h e a r i n g be u t i l i z e d , leaving t y p e , t i m i n g a n d e f f e c t i v e n e s s up t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f e a c h municipality?  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098435/manifest

Comment

Related Items