Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Does public participation slow down cities’ ability to make decisions quickly?

January 28th, 2014 · 68 Comments

I came across something recently that resonated, given the propensity of this council to make decisions quickly in the interest of achieving goals the mayor and his party set out for themselves. (Think: bike lanes, transitional housing, intervention into tanker issues, etc.)

This article, written about L.A.’s efforts to get a bike-share program, looks at the upside and downside of going with a lengthy public-participation process before decisions are made.

 

Academic theories are often criticized because of their disconnect from professional practice; what applies in the classroom may not apply in the field. However, had former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villariagosa opened to page eighteen of James L. Creighton’s deeply academic The Public Participation Handbook, Los Angeles bike share might be a lot more than an elusive mythical creature.

Creighton_Theory copy

Creighton’s theory compares two types of decisions: Unilateral and Public Participation. Unilateral decisions result in a quicker decision being made, but implementation time can take significantly longer because of legal issues, controversy, or other delays. Conversely, a decision made with public participation increases the amount of time it takes to make a decision, however, that time and much more is made up in the implementation process. Thus, including more voices at the table results in a more efficient and timely process compared to unilateral decisions.

– See more at: http://bikeshare.com/2013/11/a-theory-could-have-helped-bring-bike-share-to-los-angeles-much-sooner/#sthash.pnqfbu8X.dpuf

Academic theories are often criticized because of their disconnect from professional practice; what applies in the classroom may not apply in the field. However, had former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villariagosa opened to page eighteen of James L. Creighton’s deeply academic The Public Participation Handbook, Los Angeles bike share might be a lot more than an elusive mythical creature.

Creighton_Theory copy

Creighton’s theory compares two types of decisions: Unilateral and Public Participation. Unilateral decisions result in a quicker decision being made, but implementation time can take significantly longer because of legal issues, controversy, or other delays. Conversely, a decision made with public participation increases the amount of time it takes to make a decision, however, that time and much more is made up in the implementation process. Thus, including more voices at the table results in a more efficient and timely process compared to unilateral decisions.

– See more at: http://bikeshare.com/2013/11/a-theory-could-have-helped-bring-bike-share-to-los-angeles-much-sooner/#sthash.pnqfbu8X.dpuf

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Silly Season

    @Kenji.

    It is an educational experience—on so many levels. 🙂

    Keep asking those questions and weighing the validity of arguments.

  • Jeff Leigh

    @Bill #148

    Hadn’t really thought about pipeline debates, since the thread title references, and we are discussing, cities. Do we have a municipal party or candidate running on a platform based on pipelines?

  • Morven

    There are, arguably, seven elements of public consultation (according to consultation literature).

    These are integrity, visibility, accessibility, transparency, disclosure, fair interpretation and publication.

    Where one or more of these elements are missing, the whole process is tarnished. This is particularly the case at the federal and provincial levels; less so at the municipal level.

    It really has nothing to do with incisive or deliberative styles of decision making.

    The fact that some and indeed many consultation exercises go awry is basically a lack of visibility, accessibility and transparency.

    My maxim is to create a consultation charter so all expectations have an element of consistency (to be fair, I have beaten on this drum before, to no particular effect).
    -30-

  • Bill

    @Jeff Leigh #52

    “Do we have a municipal party or candidate running on a platform based on pipelines?”

    Not yet, but we have a city council that has joined the debate. From the Mayor’s website:

    “After hearing speakers throughout the day, the Mayor and Vancouver City Council voted to direct staff to apply for the City to intervene in National Energy Board hearings on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion that are expected to begin in early 2014.”

    So it seems Council feels so strongly that pipelines are a city issue they are willing to devote resources that might have dealt with other pressing issues like the seating arrangements in Vancouver restaurants.

    I am curious whether your comment that public input should be limited to improving the implementation of decisions and not questioning the decision itself is based on principle or is simply because you happen to favour a particular decision like a bike share system.

  • Jeff Leigh

    @Bill #54

    You are equating stakeholder/intervener status with having a mandate to implement something when that plan was part of an election campaign. But let’s use your example.

    I don’t see our city council implementing pipe lines any time soon. But if they made any particular pipeline position a key element of an election campaign, and the electorate spoke, then it would seem to me they would have a mandate. That is a matter of principle.

    Let’s say I personally really want to see the Kinder Morgan expansion. A city party decides it doesn’t want it and is going to block it. They make it such a key issue that it becomes a defining one in the subsequent election, and they win in November. Do you think it is a good use of the new council’s time for me to then appear before them regularly telling them that pipelines are a good thing, that climate change is a myth, and they should reverse their position? That seems incredibly wasteful.

  • Ned

    Chris Keam #11
    Why don’t you just put your name up for council as a Vision candidate? You fit the Party’s agenda, comrade!
    Glissy 42, well said. Vision apparatchik hypocrisy is evident. Cheers!

  • gman

    I don’t recall Vision running on a ticket of redrawing and spot zoning every neighborhood in the city.If they did we probably wouldn’t have 23 neighborhoods banding together in an attempt to save themselves. And I don’t recall anything about taking control over every community center in the city,otherwise we wouldn’t be fighting our elected officials in court right now.This is not some kind of fluid situation the wizards in the hall are rolling with.
    Politicians hate referendums because their powers are curtailed when the majority of the people have a say.They wont even commit to what the question should be for fear a single vote might be lost.
    Whats the big rush,why does everything sound so urgent? Is it so urgent we don’t have time for public input on things that will drastically change neighborhoods?
    And if we talk about 20 billion in transit spending and the method used to collect that money from us then shouldn’t we have a say?
    Whats the rush?

  • Higgins

    gman #57
    Have you read the latest news on the laughable Mayor’s task force on Engagement in the city?
    City Hall acts like a big dating agency now?
    Say hello, shake a hand, pay it forward, help a grandma cross the street, suck up to their Vision tit… etc. etc.
    Engaged City… cell by cell, activist by activist, phew, all is missing are the red scarfs and patriotic slogans. That’s how present Vision sponsors actually spread a different form of “democracy and enlightenment” throughout Europe and Russia decades ago.
    A comittee coming up with 19 (nineteen) recommendations? Are you kidding me?
    What is this, the new Book of Green Commandments? Even the BS bible has only ten.
    Time spent in long fruitless meetings, people with nothing productive to do but concoct ways of controlling other people’s lives.
    That’s what we don’t need. That’s why Vision and their brethren must go. Fast.

  • Higgins

    Re. my previous post.
    Forgot to insert this link.
    Read for yourselves:
    http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2014/01/30/task-force-wants-vancouverites-to-get-connected

  • gman

    Higgins#59
    Apparently they kind of sprung it on the very people they are supposedly trying to appease.
    http://jaksview3.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-ups-and-downs-of-civic-engagement/

  • Terry M

    Higgins @58 and Gman @60
    Now that is just plain scary!
    Having read how Chris Keam thinks @11 and having read the short “Vision Vancouver democracy as they see it” list that Glissando provided us @42 all I can say is this:
    Throwing this gang out of town (not only office ) Is the only solution to all Vancouver’s problems.

  • boohoo

    Man…. You guys are living in such fear and suspicion. I just feel pity for you.

  • Chris Keam

    Actually Terry M, if you really want to know how I think, post #38 is a better reflection of my perspective on the nature of democracy. Further, I have no affiliation with the Vision party. I’m just a resident of Vancouver with strong opinions. Please don’t misrepresent my personal viewpoint or use it as a springboard to call for violence (throwing people out of town) against me or the current administration. If democracy stands for anything, it’s the tolerance to co-exist with people you don’t agree with.

    Thanks for your cooperation,

    CK

  • Higgins

    CK.
    Now you stop from overreacting to what I wrote.
    You know exactly what I meant by that, you are a clever guy.
    My words usage was metaphorical, indicating merely that the party in office will be roundly defeated on ALL issues. Most likely an election for a new mayor and a new party(ies) that won convincingly would be the case.
    Running them out with their tails between their legs sounds more peaceful to you?
    Whatever.

  • Chris Keam

    Higgins:

    Now you (re)read the first three words of my post.

    Are you sock-puppeting two aliases?

    Come say hi next time we’re sharing a restaurant table, then I can put a friendly face to the name(s)

    Enjoy this beautiful Monday 🙂

  • Jeff Leigh

    That is hilarious. I wonder how many posters are using multiple screen names.

  • Andrew Browne

    I don’t really like this recent tilting toward unending consultation. It seems like the expectation is that we have to achieve some sort of consensus, and that just isn’t going to happen on even minor issues, nevermind big decisions. And so round after round after round of consultation to talk about the same issue, just collectively banging our heads on the wall and hoping maybe this time we’ll all agree. Politicians: Govern according to your belief in the public interest and what is best, and let the chips fall where they may during the election.

    This stupid transit referendum is a pretty good example. Fund and build or not, whatever, just stop subjecting us to this mind-numbing back and forth meaningless time wasting discussion. I’d be willing to pay more tax for more transportation infrastructure, and I can’t imagine I’m the only one. And if I _AM_ the only one, I don’t want to talk about it for the next few years – let’s just drop it.

  • Terry M

    WTF !?
    Higgins @64
    Were you trying to be funny, make fun of me or CK, or we’re you drunk!
    Fair question.

←  Older Comments
 →