Council provides strategic direction to municipal staff, on behalf of residents, to determine the policies that shape the present and future of our community. Someone asked me this week how I make decisions on behalf of residents, and the answer was longer than they had time for! So I’ll put it here.
Context and Procedure
First, the decisions we make are often limited by their legal and political context, and shaped by government procedure. For example, on Monday night we were presented with a decision to make regarding the height of a proposed hotel in Brighton, and residents expressed very understandable concerns about the project as a whole. Much of our deliberation process was about narrowing down the scope of our decision:
- We were not deciding on whether or not the land should be developed; any landowner can develop their land so long as their proposal meets the legal requirements, including zoning.
- We were not deciding on whether or not a hotel should be allowed; the subject lands were already zoned appropriately for a hotel.
- We were not deciding on whether or not Brighton needs a hotel; if the landowner wants to build a hotel, and it’s zoned appropriately, they can do that.
- We were not deciding where a hotel should go in Brighton; we deal with the applications that come from people who own land, in relation to how they want to use that land. Council does have input into where things go, insofar as we have input into the Official Plan, which includes the zoning maps which indicate where certain types of development should go in the future, but in this case that area was already determined to be Highway Commercial, which includes developments such as hotels.
- We were not deciding on the aesthetics of the hotel; beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and Council is not a judge of style or taste.
- Ultimately, our only decision was whether to allow the proponent’s request of a height limit increase, from 12m to 22m.
We also make decisions within a broader legal context that includes other levels of government and agencies. These things are all considered by our Planning department before they bring us a report, but include:
- The regulations of the Planning Act
- The Provincial Planning Statement, which interprets the Act
- The Northumberland County Official Plan, which provides policy guidelines for planning decisions in Northumberland
- The Brighton Official Plan, which provides policy guidelines for planning decisions in Brighton
Understanding these documents helps us know our role in decision-making, including when we’re making which decision. In the case of the hotel, the province has recently changed the Act to delegate authority for most of the matters regarding the hotel application to Planning staff; Council no longer needs to weigh in on what are really matters of staff expertise regarding things like where on the lot is the ideal place to set and orient the building, or what should be included in the landscaping plan (such things are called Site Plan Control, staff are trained in best practices, and these are not the kind of strategic decisions that we need to make).
We also need to be aware of the order of decision-making, which is influenced by the Planning Act and our own procedural by-law: sometimes an application will have a statutory public meeting (statutory because it’s required by the Act), which is an opportunity for public feedback and input; then we’ll have a decision to make about consent (severance), or zoning amendments, or official plan amendments, or all of the above, but each of these can be taken separately. Sometimes the public comes with concerns about the proposed use of a property, when all we’re considering at that particular meeting is the application for consent, determining the size and shape of a lot; people are generally allowed to shape their lot the way they like, provided it meets the requirements for the zone, and we can’t deny that application on the basis of an implied or even explicit proposed use, even if that use isn’t allowed and we don’t intent to support it. Generally staff won’t bring us an application that would make changes to a property for a purpose they know won’t be allowed – they’ll work with the proponent to set them up for success, and not waste our time. But all the same, if you want a severance and you’re allowed one by the Official Plan, then we’re only here to provide oversight and support the process in a just manner.
Finally, we also need to be conscious that any decision we make about a planning matter can be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, so the quality of our decision matters. If we make a decision without sufficient justification, then our decision can be overturned. In the case of the hotel, Planning staff pointed out at the top of the meeting that there was a 2018 case in which the Tribunal explicitly said “nobody is owed a view.” If we denied the application on the basis of the impacts the size of the building would have on neighbours, or on aesthetic concerns, we wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on. The only time this term that Council said no to a planning application, our decision was appealed to the Tribunal, we lost, and we had to pay the proponent’s legal costs (around $20,000) as well as our own. There are similar checks on decisions about non-Planning matters: our by-laws can be legally challenged, for example.
All in all, the broader legal context for our decisions does most of the work for us; the decisions we make are generally very focused and bounded by legislation that makes sure we aren’t arbitrary in our decisions. This is an important check on our power.
Looking Inward
We also have a legal obligation to examine ourselves before we make a decision to determine if we have a “pecuniary interest”, which is to say, am I making a decision that will in some way enrich or advantage myself more than the rest of the public? And we have an ethical obligation to remain open to persuasion: as much as I do my homework on the subject before I get to council, and sometimes will even write remarks in advance, I try to leave making my final decision to the moment before I raise my hand to vote. Sometimes that might make it look like I’m unprepared, or that I’m a “flip-flopper”, but I need to be open to new information and perspectives and I owe it to my colleagues and residents to hear them out before I make a decision.
I also try very hard to check my own biases, and to think about how I’m feeling about the subject matter to make sure that I’m not making a decision based on anger, resentment, or fear. Sometimes our decisions are unpopular, and that can provoke such strong emotions; we should not make decisions on the basis of how we’re feeling, even if what we’re feeling is fear of harassment or even threats. Thankfully we don’t get much of that in Brighton, but not none. Sometimes rumours or even news stories can undermine our reputations and careers, pressuring us to vote a certain way, and more than once I’ve been in a position in which I know that voting against my own sense of the matter would be better for me personally. I have a hard time faulting anyone who bows to that pressure; not all battles are worth fighting. But if the outcome of a decision will have a material impact on the lives of residents, then I have a duty to make sure that I’m voting on the basis of principle rather than fear or anger.
Vision and Goals
It’s possible to take every decision as a one-off, and many councils are somewhat reactionary rather than proactive. In the past, municipal government was about paving roads and little else, and was often quite conservative in terms of making decisions to support the status quo. Now municipalities are recognized as being critically important for shaping the lives and experiences of residents, and more and more responsibilities are being downloaded to municipalities from the province. That’s why it’s so important that we have a Strategic Plan, and that that Strategic Plan be animated by a vision for the future of our community.
Just as the Official Plan makes a map of the community to determine its growth and development, the Strategic Plan makes a conceptual map of our direction, applying our values to our context in the form of goals and objectives that, through our staff’s work plans, become new policies and services over time. That’s why every staff report has a spot near the bottom indicating what aspect of the Strategic Plan a matter relates to. If a matter doesn’t relate to our strategic plan at all, we probably shouldn’t be doing it (and staff really don’t bring us a matter that has no relation to our strategic plan, unless it’s in response to some other government or event). The Strategic Plan takes into account the assets we have, predicts what our future needs will be, and sets a path to get us to a preferred future.
So to use the hotel example again: when considering whether to allow a six-storey building to be built in Brighton, knowing that that would be the largest building in town, some residents were opposed on that basis alone. It’s never been done here before, it would set a precedent, and we would start seeing larger buildings come to Brighton. I had also considered those points, and saw them as a reason to support it rather than oppose it, because:
- Taller buildings are a form of densification of land use;
- The province sets densification targets for all municipalities, and supports them through guidelines in the Provincial Planning Statement;
- We do likewise through the County and Brighton Official Plans, which set the urban boundary of Brighton outside of which we cannot develop intensively until we’ve hit density targets;
- Our Strategic Plan prioritizes affordable housing, which is supported by densification;
- The community visioning exercise we did as we prepared our strategic plan resulted in a vision for our future that included walkable neighbourhoods with amenities like shops and transit that can only be achieved at a higher density of development.
So in line with provincial regulations as well as our own local plans and vision, taller buildings in Brighton is a good thing. It was an easy choice, for me at least, to support raising the height limit for this proposal, and I expect that as we update our Official Plan in the coming year we will raise the height limit more broadly.
The Role of Compassion
We’re often in a position to seem heartless. In the example I’ve used from this past week, Council made a decision that will disproportionately impact certain members of our community, and they showed up to tell us directly how negatively this will impact them. I listened to their concerns and frustrations and fears, and voted to approve it anyway. And even so, I just described that as an easy choice.
It didn’t feel easy.
It was an easy choice in that all of the objective measures I’ve listed above said that “yes” was the right choice. Staff did their work well, presenting us with a proposal that aligned with the legal and planning requirements as well as our own strategic plan. I came into the meeting having read the report, as well as having read a few emails from concerned residents I knew would be present, so I could anticipate how it was going to play out.
It was hard to listen to people’s concerns, and then still vote against their preferences. The impacts they fear are mostly real, and it keeps me up some nights knowing that I had a hand in making their fears manifest, even if my role was only to oversee and support the implementation of the process. Some people describe that as “rubber stamping”, the idea that we’re just there to approve whatever is placed in front of us, and suggest that that’s a miscarriage of justice. But if justice is about fairness and equity, and if the process provides everyone with the same treatment, then overseeing that process to ensure that it’s applied evenly and everyone has the same rights in our municipality is an important role. And if staff brought us reports that required more substantial decisions on a regular basis, it would be an indication that we hadn’t done our job in setting clear direction and regulation through the Official Plan and Strategic Plan.
So if an outcome is so often more or less determined by the limitations on our decision-making ability, and by the planning work we’ve already done, what’s the point in hearing people out? Why should we even bother to hear the impacts that our decisions have on them, if we can’t weigh those against the requirements of the system?
In a way, it’s supposed to hurt to make these decisions. I have to make decisions on behalf of the residents of Brighton, including when the right decision will be upsetting and even harmful to some residents. If I have to make that decision, I should also be at least a witness to that harm. If I were insulated completely from it, I would lose my perspective very quickly. Ultimately, we’re here to promote the well-being of every resident of Brighton, but not everyone gets impacted evenly by every decision. We need to be able to look for patterns in our decisions: are certain people, or certain groups of people, being systemically harmed? Are we holding back the good of the community for the sake of the preferences of a few? Are we missing something in our planning and decision-making?
Often, a comment at our meeting results in the matter being referred to staff, and changes being made. The feedback really can result in change, just not every time.
The other, and perhaps more important, role of getting that public engagement in our decisions is to process change together. Change is exciting for some, and scary for others, but if we’re changing as a community then we should process that change as a community. It’s important for Council to sit with residents in that discomfort. I doubt residents feel that way, when we vote against their preferences; I often hear frustration from people who felt that our decision didn’t consider their feelings at all. I do my best to explain my decision-making process in meetings where people have shown up to express their concerns, because I want to honour their perspectives and respect the impacts our decision will have on them, even if I can’t decide in their favour.
It’s very tempting, when we sit with such discomfort, to dispel it by invalidating the concerns of others. We can call people “NIMBYs” and dismiss them, and I think many politicians do so as a kind of defence mechanism. Because it’s very draining to sit in that discomfort with people, letting them rant and vent, and sometimes accuse and disparage. It provides some relief to simply write them off. I am grateful that Brighton’s council provides people with all of the time we can to speak on matters like this, and that nobody on our council barks back or takes such a dismissive approach as we sometimes see from other jurisdictions.
Personal Perspective
While I do my best to remain objective, I do have a certain worldview that shapes my decisions. We all do. I can’t turn that off entirely, nor should I; I’ve put a lot of work into my worldview over the years, studying ethics and questioning my own values so that I can understand and articulate what I believe is right and wrong.
I recognize that my perspective is not universal, and that I was elected to represent the residents of Brighton, including the ones who have very different views of things. That’s one of the reasons I blog here: so that I can hear from you about what you believe is important, and explain myself to you so that I can have my perspective challenged. I always welcome a (respectful) comment or email! When I get feedback, here or elsewhere, I do my best to incorporate that into my decisions. If you watch council meetings, you’ll see that I sometimes note feedback that I’ve received from residents and how it has influenced my thought on a matter. I try to give that some weight.
One place where I did not moderate my own perspective and values was in the Strategic Plan process. We had a public engagement process that allowed all residents to express their values, ideas, and hopes for Brighton. While I was eventually elected as Chair of the Strategic Plan Review Committee, at that stage of the public process I was just like any other resident, and I filled out a lot of sticky-notes with my hopes for our future. One of the things that encouraged me most about that process was that in the other sticky notes and resulting report I saw that most other people shared my values, hopes, and concerns.
This helps me to keep my personal perspective in check, because in a sense I don’t have to; my perspective is embedded in the Strategic Plan, alongside the perspectives of my fellow residents, and we are not at odds. That gives me a sense of freedom, in that I don’t feel like I have to assert my perspective in any decision that follows, allowing me to set my personal preferences aside because I know they’re already included in our decision-making framework. If you’d like a similar sense of freedom and security, please take part in our next Strategic Plan process!
And if you have anything else you think I should be considering when I make decisions on behalf of the community, please let me know.