An interesting observation from an article in Monday’s Independent Tribune titled ‘Development’s future rests on vote by Harrisburg Town Council’. In the article, Bill Williams is quoted as saying, “I don’t want to vote for four houses per acre,” said councilman Bill Williams. “If they’re willing to pull their density down to something more reasonable - four houses is way too many. Three houses may be too many. I don’t think it’s going to go at what they’re asking for.”
This article ran prior to the Council meeting. The developer withdrew the petition, but regardless, if the developer was requesting a rezoning allowed by the UDO and opposition had signed a legal protest; then by law both parties are entitled to a fair public hearing. It appears that Bill Williams had already made his decision prior to the public hearing.
So the question is: Do elected officials make decisions prior to public hearings?
I know on numerous occasions people would tell me prior to a council meeting that they didn’t waste their time going to council meetings because all of the decisions had already been made. I would try to assure them that a statement like that was not true. Elected officials are suppose to listen to all the facts in a public hearing, deliberate, and then make a decision. Perhaps the people are right.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe via E-mail
4 responses so far ↓
1 Justin Thibault // Jan 17, 2008 at 12:33 am
In many cases, I would certainly hope so.
Many times, a public hearing is a legally required formality that follows a long process with reports, meetings, and staff input. If an elected official can’t make a decision from that and needs public input - there’s something wrong with their judgment.
2 Steve Smith // Jan 18, 2008 at 8:35 am
Of course they do. If they have been so out of touch with reality that they have to wait until the public hearing, I won’t have much convinence in the decisions that they are making…
3 Bob Carruth // Jan 19, 2008 at 7:58 am
I agree with you guys. I think all of us know what happens when we get elected folks who stick their finger in the wind before they vote to see which side they are on.
Many public hearings are mere formalities. I am sure when the early requirements for public hearings were developed, they were much more effective, in that the public had little access to the media that they do today to help them become informed.
In this electronic age, why have a set location and time for a public hearing? Why not put an issue out in front of the public, then take comments over a period of days or weeks, allowing the public to contribute ideas and solutions to issues? It would be similar to what we are doing here, a free-flowing discussion.
Often now, we have public hearings on issues, and no one shows up, or the same folks who love to sit back and criticize everything are the ones that we hear from.
Good thing about it is, we still get input, regardless of whether there is a formal hearing or not.
4 Ruth Winn // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I was in a situation about 3 years ago as a member of a local zoning commission where I was accused of forming my opinion before a public hearing was held, and the town attorney asked me to recuse myself from voting on the approval of a new subdivision. What a joke! The new development that was being voted on was being presented for zoning approval without having secured and submitted all the required documentation for the public hearing. I insisted to the local zoning commission chairman that the request for a public hearing on the new subdivision was premature because the developer had not presented evidence that water and sewer could be made available for the development. The zoning commission chairman forwarded my e-mail to the town clerk and on to the mayor. The mayor contacted the town attorney for advice. Consequently, the town attorney reprimanded me, told me I could not excuse myself from the meeting, and demanded that I recuse myself from voting since I had come to the meeting with my mind already made up to deny approval for the new subdivision.
I was not opposed to the new subdivision that was being voted on—-I knew the Town zoning ordinances required documentation about approvals for water and sewer provisions before a developer could request approval of the subdivision from the Zoning Commission. BUT, the mayor had privately told me a few weeks earlier that he did not want me to do anything that would prevent a new development from gaining approval! (Guess who had his mind made up before a public hearing!)
So, the moral of my comments is this—–sometimes it is necessary for a public official to make decisions before a public hearing in order to try to assure that policies, ordinances, and procedures are applied equitably to all citizens and developers.
HERE’S THE REST OF THE STORY—–That incident happened more than 3 years ago, and guess what! That subdivision has never been built even though it was approved by the Zoning Commission and the Town Council. Seems the developer cannot get approval for water and sewer connections!!!!!