Susan Chapelle
I would decide according to the public interest, legal obligations and the consequences for people affected. No group receives an automatic veto because it is organized, influential or able to hire a consultant. I would begin by identifying the decision we actually have to make and the interests behind each position. A business may need delivery access, a resident may fear displacement, staff may be concerned about servicing and a developer may need a viable project. I would assess safety, affordability, accessibility, environmental effects and the costs residents will carry over time. The effects on people with the least ability to absorb harm deserve particular attention. Staff advice matters, but I would ask questions about assumptions and alternatives rather than treat a recommendation as beyond scrutiny. I would disclose the trade-offs and explain what can be negotiated. Some constraints are legal or technical; others are choices Council must defend. My decision would not be based on who praised me, threatened political consequences or arrived with the loudest campaign. Residents should see the evidence, the reasoning and any conditions attached to approval, then be able to hold me accountable.