In the arena of land use disputes where multiple interests and stakeholders, including the public, are involved, issues of fairness among the parties inevitably arise. Public disputes are difficult to solve because of the multiple parties and interests involved, the complexity of the environmental issues, and the long-term consequences that the decisions may have. Over the past several decades, many have criticized the command and control planning model as infeasible, inefficient, and undemocratic. In the US, current land use theory and practice emphasize a negotiated model of decisionmaking in which localities and applicants conduct the business of land use allocation through a variety of contract-like mechanisms. Bilateral deal-making between developers and localities has become commonplace. Despite their pervasiveness, there is little evidence that these processes may lead to fair, well-planned or efficient land use decisions. Rather, these bilateral negotiations foster land use agreements that freeze developers and localities into rigid, long-term relationships, with little or no meaningful input from other affected parties.The collaborative model seeks to make the process of negotiating local land use decisions more open and inclusive. The model aims to energize the land use regulatory process by providing affected parties the opportunity to resolve disputes and empowering such actors to monitor and adjust adopted agreements, instead of relying on retroactive, external judicial review.