The following quote is from an article (thanks to Glen Reynolds for the link) (link...) that looks at new structures for governmental and regulatory decision-making:

"Our institutions of governance are characterized by a longstanding culture of professionalism in which bureaucrats–not citizens–are the experts. Until recently, we have viewed this arrangement as legitimate because we have not practically been able to argue otherwise. Now we have a chance to do government differently. We have the know-how to create "civic software" that will help us form groups and communities who, working together, can be more effective at informing decision-making than individuals working alone."

It's a fascinating concept, and one that (IMO) deserves some serious thought and investigation. The author proposes to create hybrids of the traditional "expert" decision-making process and the free-wheeling online discussions that we've all come to know and love (or hate, as the case may be). Can it work in real-world applications? Will it work in local government? I don't know, but I think it's worth a try. Maybe we could put together a "pilot project" of limited scope, but with enough on the line to make sure everyone involved takes the effort seriously.

I wonder, if we had already had such a structure in place to address land use decisions and related development impacts, would we have experienced the same sad results on Cherokee Trail?