I was a little surprised to read the cavalier industry talking points repeated by Jon Horner and Mike Riemann that there is essentially no need for public participation in individual development applications, particularly if they concern a by-right project within a particular zoning district. They further maintain that public hearings add unreasonable costs to a project and the public has ample opportunity to comment on the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances when established. The implication here is that the public can trust developers and government officials to do the right thing all the time, without exception.
Forgive me if I am not convinced that public hearings and public participation are unnecessary to good and accountable government in general and with respect to the proper application of the zoning code in particular. Even in by-right applications, it is not infrequent to observe questions of code interpretation that may require the application of some discretion by the decision-maker. Public hearings and public participation can provide valuable and insightful input that should be welcomed. It is in this respect that the term by-right is a bit of misnomer, as it implies a mere check-the-boxes decision-making process with the decision-maker having little or no obligation to question the applicant, much less deny a project.
Both Delaware’s open meeting law and Chapter 68 of Title 9 also strongly suggest that public hearings are an essential and fundamental right of the public. In its policies and procedures, the Sussex County Planning & Zoning Commission has expressly adopted the open meeting law. The declaration of policy is worth repeating: “It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that our citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy ...” The paragraph goes on to state the law is to be construed to support this public right.
I thank the Cape Gazette for its continuing reporting on the progress of the land-use reform working group. However, when I read things like we are only at risk of growth outpacing infrastructure because we don’t currently have sufficient water and sewer capacity in some areas, and that public participation is unnecessary, I have concerns the group is not being managed properly to obtain information and recommendations that are the product of critical thinking as opposed to little more than an amalgamation of advocacy group positions. The public and council expect and deserve better.
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to viewpoints@capegazette.com. All letters are considered at the discretion of the newsroom and published as space allows. Due to the large volume of submissions, we cannot acknowledge receipt of each submission. Letters must include a phone number and address for verification. Keep letters to 400 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content or length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Letters should focus on local issues, not national topics or personalities. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days regarding a particular topic. Authors may submit a second letter within that time period if it pertains to a different issue. Letters may not be critical of personalities or specific businesses. Criticism of public figures is permissible. Endorsement letters for political candidates are no longer accepted. Letters must be the author’s original work, and may not be generated by artificial intelligence tools. Templates, form letters and letters containing language similar to other submissions will not be published.
