A Better Public Meeting

Residents picket a public meeting. Photo by Kate Allen, copyright 2012 The Toronto Star.

I think it's probably a safe bet that most planners at the City of Toronto generally dislike public meetings. Then again, it's probably safe to say that most everyone (politician, planner, private company, or public) finds public meetings to be draining. It shouldn't have to be that way of course. The tension between developers and the public is a result of a bevy of things (and a different blog post), but there are two causes in particular that I think sometimes turn the meetings themselves into unproductive screaming matches, that often leave planner stuck in the middle.

The first is that there is sometimes no discussion between developers and the community before a proposal - usually a zoning by-law amendment, (ZBLA) - is given to the city. The minimum guidelines in the Planning Act (Section 34(12)) potentially only offer two chances for the community and developer to meet in a public forum. A proposal therefore is often a "first impression" that can put the local community on the defensive, as if the developer has metaphorically fired the "first shot" in a conflict.

The second reason I feel is that most public meetings suck. The common format is to let the developer make a presentation on their proposal, and then have the community "ask questions" (which usually leads to angry accusations). Especially given such a negative first impression (see above), the community is going to expect that the developer frames their proposal in a "positive light", and is therefore not thinking about x, y, and z (even if the developer absolutely has thought of x, y, and z). I think this occurs because it's easy; the developer can probably handle one evening of abuse as long as something approximate to what they want gets built, relying on the experts at the city to iron the kinks out. The public leaves frustrated, believing the worst about the developer. Organizing something more complex takes a lot more resources and time; it's probably not surprising that a PowerPoint slideshow and a Q&A is chosen.

There are tons of little things about the typical format that I think inhibit a proper dialogue between the developer and the community. For starters, there tends to be an imbalance on stage, with a handful (developers) against potentially a hundred angry constituents. Secondly, there tends to be a lot of misinformation about a proposal that the public brings with them into a meeting, which takes time to sort out, time that can't therefore be spent elsewhere. Finally, the public tends to be ill-informed about the planning process. This isn't surprising, given that the planning framework in Ontario is likely the most convoluted in Canada. In sum total, you often end up with a panel of experts armed with engineering plans and studies on one side, and a crowd of emotions of the other: both sides are speaking different languages.

At the end of summer past, there was a public meeting for 109Oz (which I have written about before here and here), and by all accounts it was "unproductive". In order to encourage a friendlier exchange of opinions, the public was encouraged to come out to a different meeting last week. The goal was to go through a list of "visioning" principles that a working group came up with as being "important" to residents of the area, and to then to try and apply those points to the 109Oz proposal to see where the proposal worked/did not work with the community's vision of the neighbourhood.

For example, one of the principles was related to the type of uses that were seen along the Ossington Strip. The working group said that the community liked professional services, art, and a grocery store, and didn't want a large retail chain (a la Shoppers Drug Mart). While there is no actual tenant for the property, thinking about what could go there helped people rationalize what is/is not possible (e.g. the chance of a land use that required a lot of parking would be off the table, given that there was no planned space for commerical parking).

In order to do so, people were arranged into tables of about six to eight individuals. After sitting through a rundown of the working group's visioning principles, the city planner quickly ran through the proposal highlighting which areas of the proposal contravened the current ZBL (and thus, triggered this process). Each group were given about 15 minutes each to apply a single principle to the proposal, with someone from the working group leading the discussion, and another taking notes. Copies of relevant documents related to the proposal were provided for informational purposes. After the exercise was finished, the general consensus of group was shared with the entire audience, and the notes were collected to be reviewed by the city planner.

I felt, as a whole, that the process worked a lot better than past public meetings I've attended. While not perfect, it offered a chance for a lot of constructive criticism to come through. For starters, by breaking people into smaller groups, it close the gap between professionals and planners; everyone was more-or-less equal around the table. Secondly, it allowed dissenting opinions to be discussed. Finally, it allowed people to be educated about the planning process in a format where they could ask questions without holding up the rest of the groups.

While the ideas brought forward at my table weren't all feasible, there were some good ideas shared that I think that both sides might be able to bring forward to future discussions. I should say that our table was probably overloaded with "experts" compared to other tables; aside from myself, we had three urban planners (!). There were a couple of vocal critics of the proposal at our table too, and while I don't think they walked away loving the proposal, I think they came away a little less angry about it. Additionally, I think the developer (whose staff was present) got some ideas that can help make the proposal a bit more palatable to the community.

The one change I would make if such a format was used again was trying to ensure that there was a relative even distribution of experts. At our table, for example, the experts present were able to allay fears of shadowing by talking about how the structure of the building would affect sunlight. This allowed us to spend less time worrying about the backyard gardens, and more time talking about privacy issues related to rear-facing balconies (along with proposing potential solutions). A distribution of experts might therefore allow for better overall discussion.

As for 109Oz, everyone is still waiting to hear what the city planner decides about the proposal. His opinion will likely inform the next steps for both the developer and the Ossington Community Association alike, but even if talks break down between both sides, I think the proposal is going to turn out a little better for the community (probably not 4 stories, but still...), and for that reason I'm chalking that meeting up as a victory for both sides.