MPS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

I have written before about the importance of public engagement in the planning process. The Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) repeatedly references such engagement. Wolfville will strive toward an “inclusive community” “guided by citizen engagement” (2.1); it is the intention of Council “to foster citizen participation in the development of land use planning policy” (5.1.22); and the 7th Principle of the Melbourne Principles Adapted For Wolfville is to “empower people and foster participation.”

Public participation, democracy, if you will, is a worthwhile pursuit for at least two reasons. First, practicing democracy is a value in itself. It’s good to be in a room listening to what your neighours have to say, hearing different points of view, getting new information, and figuring out solutions to difficult issues. Second, public engagement generally leads to better solutions which are more likely to be accepted and followed.

To further public participation in the process of writing the new MPS, I asked at the March 20th Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting whether the Town could post on its website the written comments it receives. I was told after the meeting that the Town would try. [The Town now has begun to post comments. Go to the Town's web page under the MPS, click on "additional information" at the bottom and then look at the bottom of the new page. (April 8, 2008).]

In addition to increasing public participation by making residents aware of the views of their fellow citizens, let me add another reason why written submissions should be readily accessible to the public. Written comments are distributed to the PAC members. The public should know the bases of the decisions being made by PAC members. What if a written comment contains a claim which is wrong or in dispute. Allowing the public to review written comments helps assure that the PAC and Council will make decisions based upon accurate information.

Let me suggest another way to increase public engagement (which has been suggested by at least one other member of the public). The planning department should prepare an “issues report” in which it sets out the key issues, the arguments in favour of and opposed to particular policies meant to address the issues, and a reasoned explanation as to why the planning department is recommending a particular course of action.

Such a report will help assure all comments (both voiced in public and written) are addressed, and seen to be addressed, and lend transparency to the decision making process.

Insufficient public engagement in the planning process has consequences. One consequence, at least in part, is the “disconnect” between the principles which undergird the new MPS, principles based on New Urbanism and the Smart Growth movements (5.1.19), and the application of those principle to the facts on the ground. Take a look at the four reasons given for the Council’s support for higher residential density: it reduces unit costs and environmental impacts; more affordable housing can be achieved; favours development of user serves which will reduce the use of private cars; and, in the business district, allows more people to reduce their dependence on cars. Part 8, pages 20-21.

Each justification sounds great on paper, in the abstract, but what is needed in the MPS is a description of how increased density may play itself out when applied to Wolfville with its particular history, geography and social and economic circumstances.

David A. Daniels
April 5, 2008