I am preparing an article for the Planning Commissioners Journal focusing on the situation described below. I would welcome feedback on ways of improving on the following all-too-common scenario: contentious, non-productive public hearings.

Many planning commissioners, at least occasionally, have had the experience of arriving at a public hearing to find a large crowd of citizens angry about a proposed development in their neighborhood. Often the hearing begins with a lengthy presentation by the applicant's architects, engineers, planners, and (sometimes) lawyers explaining the merits of their project and why it must be approved -- followed by a line of residents coming to the microphone to highlight a lengthy list of problems with the project. And often, the temperature in the meeting room feels like it's rising.

Planning commissioners often feel thrust into the middle of controversial projects. Yes, it is their job to decide (or recommend) on the application, but they may ask themselves why many issues between the developer and neighborhood haven't been resolved in advance. At some public hearings, planning commissioners may wish they could call a time out and get the two sides to sit down and work out some of the issues.

• 28 comments
• Read more

That was the headline from an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article.

"Atlanta has a policy, known as the 'cooling off' period, that prohibits former city workers from bringing business before the municipality for 12 months after the person's employment with the government has ended..

City officials said he twice represented developers in subdivision applications he previously reviewed as a senior planner for Atlanta's Department of Planning and Community Development. .

• 8 comments
• Read more