Transcript Document
Interesting “bigger picture” reading “Technology and Society” By Bob Hudspith - on his goals/experiences teaching the two tech courses Can be downloaded from the course website Public Participation – Introduction – Public Participation and the Red Hill Creek Expressway – Some Theories of Public Participation • Arnsteins Ladder • Formalized Methods of Public Participation Introduction • A strong case can be made for public participation (i. e. democratic influence BETWEEN elections) • Proponents – the public, the government, risk communication experts • Arguments – it is part of our basic rights as humans to influence those policies that affect us – improve legitimacy of a government’s decisions – reduce public distrust and protest Some argue against public participation • Efficiency sacrificed with increased democracy • “Absolute rationality” or “bounded rationality” • The public is too strongly influenced by the recent events, by the media, or by unfounded beliefs/ emotions But… • We also have seen that even experts’ advice is not value-free The Red Hill Creek Expressway (RHCE) Democracy gone wrong? • Long history of controversy and public debate • According to some, it is a clear example of democracy gone wrong (Curran, 2000) • Routine obstructions to democratic processes exist at the local level here in Hamilton • Good example to focus our discussion of what good public participation might be Some History of Municipal Politics • Beginnings of local democracy – 1774-1783 Loyalists arrive during/after American Revolution – pressure for the right to local self-rule – Bill to authorized town meetings in 1792 – Hamilton incorporated as a town in 1833 • Around 1900, boom growth – Need for improved management of municipal affairs • Civic Reform Movement – Run the city on rational business principles – Reduce council powers • More power to the mayor/small executive • Independent boards, commissions set up • Region of H-W set up in 1974 • City Planning Movement (early 1900s to 60’s, 70’s) – City planning based on technical rather than political rationality Since the 1970’s While citizen participation has become an increasingly regular part of urban planning, the traditional planning paradigm still dominates. Even where citizen input is sought, the planner still describes both the goals of the plan and the means of attaining them (Gans 1993:ch.8) History of the RHCE (Curran, 2000) 1951-1977 - City Council Opposes the Red Hill Creek Expressway 1977-1990 - City Council Capitulates and Citizen Opposition Grows 1979 – City & Regional councils first approve expressway 1990-1995 - Bob Rae Cancels the Project and Debate Intensifies 1994 – David Crombie suggests an arterial rd. – rejected by Region 1995- Mike Harris Restores the Project and Ottawa Enters the Dispute 1997 - Province grants exemption from environmental assessments - community stakeholder committee formed instead 2004 RHC Expressway being built amidst significant public protest RHCE Proposed Route (CEAA 2003) Public hearings and information sessions • several of them since 1979 when RHCE was first approved • Ever since 1979 when the Region first released the results of its routing study, all of the possible alternative routes that were open to public debate have gone through the valley • value and effectiveness of these public meetings is questionable Example • Just after Crombie’s arterial rd. compromise was rejected by the Region, 2 days of public input sessions were held • 60 presentations, 5 minutes each • No minutes taken • There were written submissions by stakeholders but they were not provided to councillors • The expressway option was voted on and approved by council with little indication that there even was a public hearing • Was the public consultation just for appearance? Community Stakeholder Committee (CSC) • In 1997, the province exempted the RHCE project from environmental assessments, replaced with internal review process: the CSC • Individuals selected by the Region of H-W, to represent the views of various stakeholder groups or communities • Mandate: make decisions by consensus • pro-expressway bias was evident in group selection • appearance of bias undermined the credibility • Anti-expressway stakeholders walked out: • Why? One reason: the “need for the expressway” was voted down as an appropriate topic of discussion Problems with the process (Curran 2000) • Public Participation i) Participation Sought After Important Decisions Been Made ii) Inappropriate Public Participation Initiatives iii) Public Input Has No Impact On the Policy-Making Process • Communication and Information iv) Information is Withheld from the Public v) Information is Withheld from Councillors vi) Politicians Often Absent from Public Meetings vii) Certain Groups Denied Access to Council viii) Region’s Discussion of Expressway is Limited in Scope Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation Question: Which rung(s) best characterize the RHCE public participation process? Discuss • What do you think the barriers/disadvantages with a greater degree of citizen control? • How might the RHCE process have been improved? Types of Participation (from Rowe and Frewer 2000) • See Handout • Key Issue: – How does one evaluate these methods? – How effective are they? – How close to the top of Arnstein’s ladder do they get? Public Participation Evaluation Criteria (Rowe and Frewer 2000) • Acceptance Criteria – – – – – Representativeness of participants Independence of true participants Early involvement? Influence on final policy Transparency of the process to the public • Process Criteria – – – – Resource Accessibility Task Definition Structured Decision Making Cost effectiveness Evaluations of the Formal Methods • See handout Resources: Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. AIP Journal. July. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Area Map of the Proposed Project (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/010/0001/0001/0003/0002/map_e.htm) Curran, Andrew. Democracy, Municpal Politics and the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Undergraduate Thesis. McMaster University. (http://www.hwcn.org/link/Rathaus/docs/andrews_project/Welcome.htm) Rowe, Gene and Lynn Frewer. 2000. Institute of Food Research Public Participation Methods: A framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values. 25(1). pp. 3-29.