Public Meeting

Public Meeting

The post is of two assignments

1:Public Meeting Paper

Order Description

For this assignment, pick a public meeting that deals with planning issues, and attend the whole meeting in person. Always look out for a meeting to attend from the first day of class. This meeting can be a City Council, Planning Commission, Development Review Board, Board of Adjustment, Village Planning, or Neighborhood Association meeting. Check one of the local city’s websites and search for: Public Meetings. Many cities will have the agenda listed just before the meeting for you to download and review, which can help you better understand the procedure for the meeting you attend.
Use this assignment to critically evaluate the public participation aspect of urban planning. Again, you must use a formal tone and write only in third person. Two-thirds of the paper should discuss the overall meeting. Think about the following questions and answer at least 3 of them: (1) Is the meeting going smoothly, and are there improvements that could be made to help the meeting flow better? (2) Are there people attending the meeting that surprise you? Describe the different kinds of people. Did they come to the meeting for a specific reason or purpose? What was the atmosphere of the room? Respectful? Angry? (3) Find out what the process is in order for an audience member to speak at the meeting. Is there a speaker card that needs to be filled out, for example? Is there a time limit for comments from the audience or other types of public participation? (4) After attending the meeting, do you think it was an effective way to get community feedback? Did you think that the whole community was represented? Can you think of a better way to encourage public participation? The last one third of your paper should be a summary of the meeting’s purpose and the outcome of the agenda items.
Meeting video: https://tempe.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=2273

watch a video of a public meeting. The URL of the video is here: http://tempe.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=2273

Then based on knowledge of urban planning, answer at least three of these questions: Use this assignment to critically evaluate the public participation aspect of urban planning. Again, you must use a formal tone and write only in third person. Two-thirds of the paper should discuss the overall meeting. Think about the following questions and answer at least 3 of them: (1) Is the meeting going smoothly, and are there improvements that could be made to help the meeting flow better? (2) Are there people attending the meeting that surprise you? Describe the different kinds of people. Did they come to the meeting for a specific reason or purpose? What was the atmosphere of the room? Respectful? Angry? (3) Find out what the process is in order for an audience member to speak at the meeting. Is there a speaker card that needs to be filled out, for example? Is there a time limit for comments from the audience or other types of public participation? (4) After attending the meeting, do you think it was an effective way to get community feedback? Did you think that the whole community was represented? Can you think of a better way to encourage public participation? The last one third of your paper should be a summary of the meeting’s purpose and the outcome of the agenda items.

Here is an example, please do not copy
[Name]
PUP 301
[Date]
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Members of the Desert View Village Planning Committee met on October 6th to discuss and approve/disprove the building plan of a proposed apartment complex being built in the Desert View Village. The building company, HILGARTWILSON, LCC., gave a presentation to convince the committee they should approve the project. As such, the meeting was one long discussion of the pros and cons of the proposed building plan. While all the members of the planning committee that attended were truly looking out for the interest of their village, the meeting quickly turned into an unorganized discussion. Instead of putting a “roundtable discussion” system in place, there was no order to allow for commentary and critique. As soon as the contracting company, HILGARTWILSON, LLC finished their presentation, the committee burst into critique. Not only does an unorganized discussion seem unprofessional nature, it also forces the members to breakout into side conversations. Side conversations between members of the panel makes it very difficult for: members of the public to understand and follow the critique being discussed and for any decisions to be made as a group.
No one at the meeting respected the sanctity of the motion. One member made a motion to add a stipulation saying the company could not continue with the building plan unless they agreed to build only up to two floors (there were buildings in the original plan that were 3 stories high). Before the motion got around the table, the stipulation had changed to include that the properties along Cave Creek Road would not exceed a one-story level. However, the motion still passed 4-3, leaving those in attendance to judge whether or not the story limit on Cave Creek
Road passed with the motion or not. This confusion made it impossible for any decisions to be made in a timely matter.
The critiques made during the meeting were misleading and confusing. One member kept reiterating that the apartment complex did not fit the “feel” of Desert View Village. Another member spoke about how she did not like how overbearingly large the complex was, also stating that it did not fit the “feel” of the village. Although these concerns are valid, they do not mean anything to an outside building company. On top of that, the building company was already bound by specific criteria stated when they created the building plan. Its one thing to reject a building proposal because of it does not fit the “feel” of the village without any concrete examples or suggestions, but if the objective is to work with the company in order to allow the building plan to pass, it is important to give specific critique. Lack of specific critique only prolongs the process of approval.
Despite the disorganization, every single member of the committee board spoke their mind and stuck up for the integrity of their village. When the company refuted their fears with standard facts, they demanded the company treat their village as its own entity, not one that would be swayed by statistics. An example of this is when three members of the committee expressed their concern with the size of this complex, the company member courteously explained that their proposed 260-270 units was a low in comparison to the average. Multiple committee members made it clear they were not concerned with the comparison to the average, they were concerned with its size in comparison to the rest of the complexes in their village.
The members stuck up for the public. The planning committee required HILGARTWILSON, LLC. to hold a community meeting to get feedback from the local citizens. The committee felt the residents should have a chance to voice their concerns about the apartment complex potentially lessening their property values, blocking their views, and congesting their area of living. The committee was also concerned with the affordability of the apartments. Members wanted the price point to be low, or at the very least allow some cheaper units. It was the resident’s best interests they were concerned with.
The whole planning committee attended the meeting, along with four representatives from the building contracting company, HILGARTWILSON, LLC. and two members from the general public (myself included). There is a speaker card to fill out if you would like to speak, however, there were no speaker cards filled at this meeting. The speaker card is made to limit the amount of time for public participation. While there was a schedule with times attached to the meeting notes, there was no specific time limit for public participation addressed. While the meeting I attended was not populated with members of the general public, the committee itself led a meeting deciding what to do about the proposed complex for almost two hours. It took long enough for the committee to come to a consensus on whether or not they were going to approve or decline the building plan. Although there were no members of the public to participate, it would have been hard for anyone to participate as the committee members talked amongst themselves for the majority of the meeting, making it extremely hard to hear what was being discussed. Once the committee came to an agreement, they did direct a few questions to the “audience” asking if they agreed or had any comments. Public participation was possible but not taken advantage of.
During the meeting, the committee mostly discussed the issues with approving the plan as-is. HILGARTWILSON, LLC. gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the details of the apartment complex’s specifications, location, size, and amenities. The biggest problem the committee had with the building itself was that it was bland and that it looked like a store-front instead of an apartment complex. The building company pitched that the apartment complex would add to the Desert View Village area because it blended in with the current aesthetic. This was an issue the committee, along with the building company, discussed for over thirty minutes. Should the apartment complex be bland and blend-in, using neutral colors and typical building structures, or should it add a sense of beauty and uniqueness to its area? The presentation showed the apartment complex’s building style next compared to the style of houses that surround the area. Although both styles were similar, the committee still insisted the building plan be changed to better fit the area.
The Desert View Village Planning Committee Meeting on October 6th at 6:30PM at Paradise Valley Community Center was centered on a presentation gave by HILGARTWILSON, LLC. HILGARTWILSON, LLC. is the company who is planning to build an apartment complex on the northwest corner of Cave Creek Road and Pinnacle Peak Road. The proposed apartment complex would be up to three stories high in some areas, would be approximately 13 buildings, and would take up approximately 17 acres of land. The committee decided to give an approval with stipulations. These stipulations included that the design of the buildings would be made to better fit the Desert View Village Committee, the buildings not exceed two stories, and the company was to inform the surrounding public in a forum that allowed the citizens to express their concerns before breaking ground. At the end of the meeting, their decision was between voting yes with stipulations, or voting no and adding that there would be future approval if they met certain requirements. Ending with the decision of yes, the committee met again on October 21st to discuss the improved building plan. The building company stated that between approval and planning, it would about another 9 months before the complex broke ground. Between now and then, there are multiple other stakeholders that need to approve the building plan aside from the Desert View Village Planning Committee. There are further decisions that will affect this building proposal’s future. For now, the committee has given HILGARTWILSON, LLC. approval.

2: Philosophy

Order Description

Moral Relativism is a meta-ethical theory. True or False?
What is the key method in philosophy?
Is an ethical theory normative or descriptive?
What is a Meta-ethical view (as opposed to an ethical view)?
What are the two Meta-ethical views we examined?
Write a sentence that captures the Euthyphro Dilemma.
Which ‘side’ of the Dilemma do you agree with if you are an Ethical Relativist?
If you are an Ethical Realist, you believe that Right and Wrong are objective and independent of anyone’s say-so. True or False?
What is the difference between a ‘teleological’ ethical theory and a ‘deontological’ ethical theory?
For the Egoist, it is wrong to do anything that will not serve one’s own interests. True or False?
Is Glaucon right that we only behave morally well because we are afraid of punishment?
Is Utilitarianism a teleological or deontological theory?
Describe the Utilitarian ‘Principle of Utility’.
Aristotle believes that virtue is something that is learned, not something one is either born with or without. True or false?
Describe the difference between the Categorical Imperative and the Hypothetical Imperative.

This question is worth 9 points. Here is an ethical ‘thought experiment’, originally invented by philosopher Philippa Foot. It has 2 versions: version A and version B. Read both and answer briefly for both what a Kantian would do, what a Utilitarian would do:

VERSION A: You see that a runway train is hurtling down a track, and that it is going to hit a group of 5 people standing in its path and will certainly kill them all. However, you happen to be standing next to a switch that can divert the train down another track where only a single person is standing. There is no way to alert the people on the track as they are too far away, and there is no time to call for help – you must act immediately. Answer all of the following: a) What would Kant do? b) What would a Utilitarian do?

VERSION B: Now suppose that there is no switch, but that you are instead standing on a bridge over the railway track next to a very large man, and you are sure that if you pushed him onto the track his bulk (but not yours) would be sufficient to stop the train before it hit the group of people. There is no way to alert the people on the track as they are too far away, and there is no time to call for help – you must act immediately. What do you think now? Should one kill the large man? Answer all of the following: d) What would Kant do? e) What would a Utilitarian do?

Describe what is different about the cases above if you would act differently in Version A and Version B.
If you are a Virtue ethicist, you should practice virtuous acts because it will bring you money and power. True or False?
How does Aristotle suggest one work out what the right thing to do is in any given situation?
For Kant, it is rational to be immoral. True or false?
May one treat others as means to ends, according to Kant?
May one treat others as means to ends for the Utilitarian?
‘Eudaimonia’, for Aristotle, is a life full of only pleasure and doing as one pleases. True or false?
For Aristotle, we must aim our behavior at the ‘mean’ or middle. What does that involve?
Why would working on having a virtuous character make you happier than winning the lottery, according to Aristotle?
Why does Kant think that to be immoral is to be irrational?
Why does Kant think that we would follow self-imposed rules more consistently than we would follow rules imposed on us from external authorities?
Kant believes that morality is too important to trust to reason – we should base our behavior on our emotions. True or False?
If you are a Moral Relativist, can you condemn the practices of other cultures?

The following questions are worth 5 points each – more than 3 sentences may be required, but not more than a paragraph:
Should we base our morality on reason or on emotion? Explain and support your view, briefly, in terms of the ethical theories you have learned about in this course.

Do Right and Wrong exist independently of human ideas, practices, cultures and beliefs?

Read the following case study. Answer the following question, referring back to what you have learned about ethical theory in this course.
Joe is homeless. He lost his job after 20 years in the construction business, and at 50, found it difficult to find another. He slowly fell into a depression, poverty and ultimately lost everything.

Does society have a moral responsibility to do anything about people like Joe? Why or why not?

Consider the following scenario: Ava, who is very poor, is on her way to pay her rent when she drops her wallet along the way without noticing it. Bert is walking along some time later, and finds Ava’s wallet. Her contact information is printed clearly inside. The wallet contains a large sum of cash: Ava’s rent for one month. Bert works for a charity that helps homeless people. He knows that he could put 10 homeless people in a shelter for one month with Ava’s cash. What he does not know is that if Ava does not pay her rent, she, too will become homeless.

Give a Kantian analysis of what Bert should do here.
Give a Utilitarian analysis of what Bert should do.
Describe Kant’s ‘Kingdom of Ends’.
Do you believe we humans have made moral progress over time?

Moral Relativism