Arguments against public hearings: The current law fails to enhance democratic decision-making 

Critics of the current law often argue that it gives a greater say to a relatively small class of people, who often may not have views that are aligned with the opinions and needs of the broader community. This argument was featured in a recent report (PDF) on British Columbia’s housing crisis, which was critical of the current law on public hearings. 

“We believe that democratic processes are important,” the authors of the report said, “but that overreliance on public hearings to make land use decisions tends to favour certain voices over others.” Further, the authors noted that “those who support or stand to benefit from new housing supply often do not attend public hearings to voice their views and priorities,” while “the citizens most motivated and available to participate in the process generally oppose the development plans.” This disparity leads to a system in which “[s]uch proceedings contribute to a land use planning system that prevents new housing supply in two ways: first, by restricting or impeding growth as a consequence of lengthy, uncertain and costly processes; and second, by allowing anti-development interests to apply disproportionate political pressure on decision makers.” 

This line of criticism also appears prominently in many academic discussions of public hearings. As one law professor has concluded, “[l]and use law is structured to provide the most voice—and therefore the most power—to a small group of stakeholders: those who live nearest to a proposed development and bear the biggest potential burdens. Land use law, by design, activates a project’s fiercest opponents.” This commentator also cited “a study of public participation in the land use process,” which “showed, quantitatively, that those who speak at zoning hearings overwhelmingly live within a block or two of the proposed development and oppose it (speakers are also disproportionately white, male, and likely to own a home).” As another commentator has put it, “[t]he holding of a public hearing by itself will not attract the unorganized and the uninvolved”—even if their views may be in the majority. 

For more information on this topic—or to see the citations for the quoted material—read the Study Paper on Public Hearings: An Examination of Public Participation in the Adoption of Local Bylaws on Land Use and Planning. 

The post A Closer Look at the Study Paper on Public Hearings: Cons of Public Hearings  first appeared on British Columbia Law Institute.

Purposes: To provide a forum at which all aspects of the bylaw might be reviewed 

An early case on the duty to disclose documents in advance of a public hearing contained an influential statement of the legislation’s purpose. “In my view,” the court said, “the purpose of the Legislature in enacting s. 720 [now section 464 of the Local Government Act] was to provide a forum at which all aspects of the by-law might be reviewed so that members of the public, having become aware of the by-law’s purpose and effect, would be in a position to make representations to council of the manner and extent it affected property owned by them.” 

This passage has been quoted approvingly in a stream of subsequent BC court cases. The use of the word forum is telling, as it imports classical democratic ideas about the public hearing serving as “a meeting or medium for an exchange of ideas.” 

Broadening the scope of inquiry further, this idea of the public hearing as a forum for public participation in local-government decision-making has appeared in academic commentary on the law. 

For example, a law professor has characterized public hearings as “[a] device to achieve citizen participation.” Legislation requiring public hearings can be seen as supporting “the vitality of the democratic process” by advancing “the premise that decision-making should be kept responsive to the needs of widely representative groups and that arbitrary action of central planners in disregard of the legitimate needs and desires of the people they serve should be avoided.” In a similar vein, an urban-planning textbook has noted that public hearings can be “viewed as revitalizing democratic practice in general by giving opportunities for local self-government to the ‘average’ citizen.” 

Commentators have also speculated on the downstream benefits of providing such a forum for democratic public participation. Public hearings can be viewed as fulfilling a function to “help to maintain the stability of society” and guard “the public interest” by giving local residents a sense that they are involved in the decision-making process and “ensur[ing] that bureaucracies are responsive to the public. 

For more information on this topic—or to see the citations for the quoted material—read the Study Paper on Public Hearings: An Examination of Public Participation in the Adoption of Local Bylaws on Land Use and Planning. 

The post A Closer Look at the Study Paper on Public Hearings: Purposes of Public Hearings  first appeared on British Columbia Law Institute.