We all have to be careful about a public hearing process that results in an event like the four-day verbal slug-fest over ParkLane's rezoning application that concluded on Tuesday evening.

One problem is that it looks like the best side of democracy - almost like "direct democracy," with passionate residents invited to open their souls before their elected representatives, so that the full scope of concerns, grievances, and plaudits can be tied to an issue before the official vote is taken.

All councillors should have to do is count those speaking in favour, apply their numbers against the opponents, and the final decision is straightforward.

At least, that's what the side with the most speakers will maintain.

If council's final decision agrees with those numbers, the "winners" will applaud the triumph of democracy - and the "losers" will point out that a simple head-count at a public hearing is meaningless, in the final analysis, because even well-attended hearings, like the one concerning much of Fort Langley over the past two weeks, attracts only a small minority of the total population of the area affected.

At the end of the day, the rule of municipal democracy still comes down to the council table, and the weight that council members put on the votes they need to get re-elected, the contributions they'll need for their next election campaign, and - if democracy really, truly is working well - the facts of the issue, as they pertain to the greater good of the entire community.

When the public hearing process informs elected politicians in their decision-making, democracy works - but that might not be well-recognized when a long and passionate public hearing process places extra weight on the opinions - and expectations - of those who were willing and able to make their voices heard.