It lasted five nights—and even then, not all speakers had their say.

The Garden City lands public hearings brought out speakers on both sides of the land’s future development. In the end, the proposal was defeated, and the lands remain status quo.

But one thing definitive came out of the hearings—the speakers spoke too long.

On the first night of the hearings in March 2008, the proponents of the development project—the Canada Lands Company, Musqueam and city—ate up three-and-a-half hours of time making their case.

Council chambers was packed with people, and many left disappointed, not having a chance to speak. The hearings continued, but undoubtedly, many people who originally wished to speak didn’t bother coming back. Some speakers used a half hour to make their point. One used 90 minutes.

Now the city clerk’s department is proposing a time limit for speakers of five minutes. It’s about time.

As Coun. Ken Johnston aptly pointed out Tuesday, democracy isn’t served when people simply hijack meetings in their fervour for or against a proposal.

In Richmond, anyone who wishes to speak at public hearings—held whenever there’s an application for change to a zoning bylaw or official community plan—can talk as long as they want.

Most public hearings attract scant crowds. But for the odd one that packs council chambers—such as anything to do with farmland or a pub—rules need to be in place to ensure everyone has a chance to be heard.

Public hearings aren’t just an exercise in democracy, it’s a chance for residents, business owners and applicants to provide new information to decision makers.

Applicants should also adhere to time limits—to prevent the filibustering that Canada Lands Company so effectively employed last year.

Simply dismissing time limits as unneeded given the rarity of contentious public hearings is missing the point. As they say, democracy isn’t perfect, but let’s give it every opportunity to improve.