I do think public input early in the process is key. I agree current council has been scared of allowing opposition to formalize as it did with CRR and Valley. They seem to think that if you do it quick you minimize the ability of the public to create opposition groups, etc.
So I agree, make people aware and get stakeholders into the informal meetings. But I think the public comment and the entire process would be helped if it was less formal. The Planning Board public comment period is supposed to focus on whatever specific legal objections and technical objections can be raised. They tolerate kids getting up to say there will be construction and people speculating about construction workers oggoling children, but that is not really what the Planning Board hearing is about. HOWEVER, a less formal informative session format would give a perfect outlet for those kids to be heard before the Planning Board or the developers are locked into a legal process. There can be a dialogue this way.
Now legally this would have to be voluntary for the developers. BUT we could create a voluntary preliminary planning framework. Publish a description online and in the paper. Have 2 meetings at different times on different days. Allow cross talk so questions can be addressed and answered. You could even publish a summary of the meetings but agree they will not be recorded or be considered binding. Let the developer have the right to sign off on the summary before it is published to correct their own statements as needed. This will free everyone up to talk more freely.
Following this process a plan would be submitted for the formal planning board. The carrot to get developers to take the deal would be that the Planning Board would have the option to allow comment and vote on the same night ONLY IF the developers went through the preliminary voluntary process. Otherwise the Planning Board would typically allow 1-2 sessions of public comment BEFORE voting.
