Jennifer Wolowic: Public hearings are not the way to deal with the delicate False Creek South concept plan

Article content

As I watched the False Creek South Concept Development Plan public hearings on Thursday, my heart ached for city staff.

Article content

One hundred years of legislation in British Columbia has trained speakers to use public hearings for tough and desperate pleas, accusations, and uncompromising adjectives to shame decision-makers. If it was difficult for me to listen, what should it be like for the staff to sit quietly?

That night nearly 50 scared, angry and upset residents shared their disapproval. Accusations of decisions behind the door, lack of transparency and incompetence were common themes. It became, like many public hearings, an “us versus them” performance by the speakers. In this case, the “they” was the city staff.

Generally, public hearings are held at the end of a decision-making process, after a plan is finalized. It is a highly ritualized legislated public participation requirement that has been practiced in British Columbia since the Town Planning Act of 1925.

Article content

Some deliberative democracy researchers have suggested that advancing public hearings in a development approval process could better empower citizen lobbyists and make feedback more efficient. They theorize that it could improve the experience for everyone.

On Thursday night, the city of Vancouver tried this. Staff were rewarded with a tsunami of anger and a deepening chasm of mistrust between staff and residents.

Lost in the dramatic performance of the public hearing was the staff’s intention that this concept report be the first step intended to inspire concrete conversation, not a request for final approval. That purpose was lost because the public hearing was not the appropriate tool.

First, publishing a report nine days before a public hearing may be due to Vancouver statutes, but it was too quick, especially when the news involves the demolition of people’s homes. The lack of clarity on which aspects of the city council’s decision would be binding and the unresolved issues of land leases inspired panic, erasing good intentions. Public hearings are not a respectful mechanism for sharing information.

Article content

Second, the formal setting of public hearings does not inspire genuine dialogue. Occasional points of order to warn of disrespect for staff are not enough to alleviate anxieties, protect morale, or reduce misinformation. Public hearings can give residents the right to speak, but they do not help them feel heard.

And third, the council listened primarily to current residents and neighborhood advocates, rather than those who want to move into the area with new development. The night involved the typical double talk that residents support density, but not this particular density plan. Public hearing speaker lists are rarely representative and rarely provide constructive criticism.

Honestly, a part of me wants to applaud the city staff for holding a public hearing in the middle of the process. It forced clarity on fundamental issues that need to be addressed. The well-organized response of residents will have an impact on what is to come next.

Article content

However, I think the staff chose the wrong tool and process for this job. A five-minute series of comments, neighborhood descriptions, tears, and poems are rarely productive for those involved.

And the worst thing is that the public hearing has not ended. The procedural fairness rules of customary law mean that staff and others have yet to sit down to listen to the 120 speakers left on the roster, more than 10 hours of statements, whose comments will strengthen distrust of staff and democratic processes.

I don’t blame the staff. I blame the public hearing procedures. I blame its flaws on the fact that the biggest impact of these audiences will not be the future design of South False Creek, but the exponential growth of mistrust between the public and city staff.

Article content

I hope that all speakers, council and staff can stop blaming each other for this current mess and blame the flaws embedded in the public hearing to choose different tools in the next steps. Otherwise, the city will not be able to find a way to move toward consensus on the future design of False Creek South.

Jennifer Wolowic, PhD, is the Project Manager for the Strengthening Canadian Democracy Initiative at SFU’s Morris J. Wosk Center. She is exploring alternatives to the current public hearing requirements.

Letters to the editor should be sent to [email protected]. The editor of the editorial pages is Hardip Johal, who can be contacted at [email protected].

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? We would like to hear from you about this or any other story that you think we should know about. Email: [email protected].