I have the honor of representing people from all walks of life in a wide variety of land use proceedings. Very often, but not always, my clients are groups of neighbors who do not entirely agree with the application that is up for consideration.

Some of these projects are residential - usually proposed subdivisions with hundreds of homes. Some are commercial - such as warehouses and shopping centers. And some are governmental -an airport expansion or a new jail.

Very often neighborhood groups have questions, doubts or concerns about proposed developments. They want to hire a lawyer so that their voice and their concerns can be heard.

Hiring a lawyer can be costly. These hearings have a way of taking on a life of their own.

Sometimes experts also need to be hired by the citizen groups. The point invariably is this: the developer almost always has a lawyer and experts. Neighbors with questions and concerns often need these professionals as well if they hope to be taken seriously.

When neighbors join together in this manner to take a public position about a proposed project, they are frequently called "objectors."

They tend to be called objectors regardless of their exact position. Maybe they do object, maybe they just have questions, maybe they are inclined to approve if a few changes can be made.

Whatever their position, they tend to all be called "objectors." And I don't think that is fair. In fact, I truly think this term places neighborhood groups at a disadvantage during the hearing processes.

Let me tell you why I am not a huge fan of that term and think it should be changed.

The term objector is too emotionally loaded. For example, why aren't applicants called "proponents?"

Applicants are applicants because they have an application that they want approved. While they are all proponents of their own application, we use the neutral term to describe them, "applicants."

Proponents would describe them very accurately, but we keep it nice and neutral, "applicants." But neighbors with concerns don't receive the same nice and neutral term, they are all bunched together as are "objectors."

Objectors sound to me like a bunch of whining three year olds. Whatever is proposed, they will always say "no." And while that aptly describes some neighbor groups, it just describes a minority. Most are simply commenting.

Which takes me to what I believe the correct term SHOULD be: "commenters." The term commenter is neutral, just as is the term applicant.

The land use process is supposed to encourage both applications and comments. Appropriate terminology should be applied to both classes of participation. And using the term commenter rather than objector does just that.

Do words make a difference? I feel they do. Land use board members are themselves neighbors, just as are the rest of us. If they are listening to a bunch of objectors, they might perceive the speakers as people who will say "no" to anything. The same negative predisposition will not attach to the speakers if they are called "commenters."

In conclusion, neighborhood groups have a lot to endure if its members wish to be heard. They must often hire a lawyer, hire experts, and speak out in public. This may all be challenging enough.

They ought not be saddled with an unfair descriptive term. Let's stop calling them objectors. Commenters is a better, fairer title.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.