Direct Democracy in Urban Planning

When I compare urban planning in Quebec and Ontario, sometimes it seems like night and day. The population of Quebec is very environmentally aware. There was a huge outcry when their electric utility tried to plan for a single gas-powered plant. This would be a radically green move for most jurisdictions, but in Quebec, all carbon-based electricity is politically unacceptable. The utility and government backed down and will use wind instead.

When downtown Montreal has a carless day, the city, people, and businesses join in. With decreasing levels of enthusiasm. A lot of people who work in Montreal are attached to their cars and to their sprawl.

Ontario is not the same. The government there wants to phase out the dirtiest coal fired generators on a schedule that keeps slipping, and this causes a lot on grumbling and barely a thank you from the population.

Another area where Quebec is unique is in allowing a resident-initiated binding local referendum on zoning issues. If residents don't like a planning decision, they can sign a petition asking for it to be put to a vote. Then the people who live nearby decide.

In Ontario, like in many other jurisdictions, all neighbours can do is pay a lawyer and expert witnesses to challenge the decision on legal grounds. In Ontario's case it goes to an administrative tribunal that is, to put it charitably, not well equipped to deal with issues of interest to the population. They deal with property rights. The one with the most property is presumed to be right.

Does a recourse to a referendum cater to narrow interests and interfere with rational planning? Is it just used for NIMBY objections and for keeping the rabble out? Not so far, as near as I can tell from the cases I have heard about. What has been challenged is mostly things like large scale retail. Often the cost is minimal - faced with the prospect of a referendum, the developer or city council backs down without the expense of a vote. That may interfere with low-to-medium-density density and mixed-use development, but not so far.

I have seen poor, middle class, and wealthy neighbours take their case to the tribunal. Against a developer and a city who stand to lose money, only wealthy neighbours have a chance. A legal recourse is more likely to protect the rich against the poor than a democratic one. Given a choice, the Quebec model of direct democracy is better and more likely to bring about good urban planning decisions. I'll take a political process over a legal one any day, if only because the public debate of the issues alone is valuable.

[] permanent link Comments: 0