I have a few concerns with both NDP-16 and NDP-17.
First, there is the reference to community organizations. What is the definition of a community organization? Can it be two people? Those of us who have been in municipal government know that one or two people can call themselves an association. In fact, one person can. Some municipalities have tried to establish criteria for what a community association is, requiring them to have a certain number of members, to have a public meeting once a year, and to keep a record of minutes, but there are other cases in which groups call themselves whatever it happens to be and come up with a catchy name--“Save the Trail”, or whatever it is--and it can be a group.
Second, unless this is subject to municipal approval in some way, you've got a community organization that has no status and is unelected in effect potentially in conflict with, and maybe in some way in preference to, an official community plan that has been determined through a public process.
That's my concern. I think it's flawed. I appreciate the intention, because I've seen community groups such as the one I can think of on Vancouver Island, a community-based group that got involved with the railway to take on the rail line and maintain the rail service. It wasn't for some other use; it was to maintain the rail service, but in this case, I could very clearly see it intruding into an area of jurisdiction of another level of government--that is, the rights of a municipality. They know first-hand what the community plan is. They go through a process of public hearings, and there's input, and it's not just from organizations; community individuals have a chance to have their input at that time.
I really think it's flawed in trying to bring in community organizations, first because it doesn't define them in terms of the hierarchy, and second because of the potential conflict with official municipal or community plans.