Rethinking Public Input for More Equitable Results
The community meeting is intended to be the ultimate democratic process. By giving every community member the opportunity to show up and make their voices heard, public meetings should lead to beneficial outcomes.
These opportunities for public feedback about housing development create veto points whereby citizen objections can delay or even stop the construction of new housing. In theory, this is a good thing: it empowers neighborhoods that were historically disadvantaged in the planning process to have a say about what happens in their community.
In practice, these meetings don’t empower community members equally. Minutes for meetings about new housing development in almost 100 Massachusetts cities and towns show that commenters are disproportionately white, male, older, and homeowners. The majority are also opposed to new housing development – 63% of all comments registered were negative.
It’s a trend that’s consistent in affluent suburbs, big cities, small cities, poor cities, and diverse cities. These meetings advantage a privileged group to protect their neighborhood boundaries.
In 2018, demand for new housing in the United States outpaced supply by 370,000 units. The meeting attendees who come out to oppose new housing are preventing communities from meeting this demand. And when developments are approved, they are more likely to be located in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods that aren’t empowered to participate in the process.
As projects proceed through the permitting process, the redesigns and additional studies that have to be undertaken as a result of pushback add significant costs for developers. Beyond the expense of producing new studies, one month of delays can add around $250,000 to the cost of a large real estate development project – leaving less room for affordable housing units and other community benefits.
A common refrain in response to these challenges is to suggest that communities change how, or when, in-person meetings are held. By shifting meeting times or offering childcare, the logic goes, more community members will be able to attend.
While these initiatives could increase attendance, they may motivate more project opponents to attend. Research on “Get Out The Vote” (GOTV) operations on political campaigns offers illustrative and cautionary lessons. While many GOTV operations produce higher turnout, greater participation does not mean more equal participation. The bulk increase participatory inequalities by turning out already over-represented individuals.
This isn’t to say community meetings should disappear. They’re a key part of the process. Rather, municipal planners and real estate developers need to offer other opportunities for community members to provide their input.
Online community engagement can provide a simple way for more people to participate in the conversation. Text-to-comment functionality, translation services, and opportunities for structured input offer pathways for feedback outside of the meeting room. These additional channels lower barriers to participation and make community conversations more accessible.
The difference between online and in-person feedback is striking. Across all projects on coUrbanize’s community engagement platform for real estate and planning, 80% of feedback is positive or neutral. Compare that to data from meetings showing that 63% of comments are in opposition to proposed projects.
More old-fashioned outreach can also be effective. Local officials could forge relationships with local community organizations to better reach underserved populations. In Milwaukee, WI, a local alderman representing a diverse district lamented the homogeneity of meeting attendees for a proposed affordable housing development in his neighborhood. He reached out to a local faith community in his district, asking them to encourage their constituents to reach out by phone to provide their views on the proposed development. In contrast to the negative in-person discourse, he found that the people contacted by phone were a more diverse subset of the population, and were far more positive towards the new housing ideas. Despite sizable neighborhood opposition—with all the neighborhood groups voting in opposition to the project—the city councilor decided to vote for it because the majority of phone calls were supportive.
Structural changes can also mitigate the impact of the vocal minority who make up the majority of comments in public meetings. In many public meetings, officials hand down decisions immediately after deliberating over public comment. Incorporating a waiting period into the process would allow board members to incorporate the full body of evidence into their decision; rather than subjecting their decision to recency bias.
Boards should publish clear guidelines about the studies that developers will be asked to provide. Boards frequently ask developers to provide additional (and costly) traffic, engineering, shadow, and parking studies (among others) – often to appease angry neighbors.
By demanding studies until one offers the desired result, communities are increasing costs & delays, and potentially basing important decisions on invalid studies. Setting clear standards for studies reduces their use as a delay tactic and provides planning boards with better information.
The public meeting is a crucial tool for communities, but it isn’t sufficient. To meet the demand for housing in our communities, we need to rethink how we hear and evaluate public input.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from the Meeting of the Minds Blog
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
The water-energy nexus is not new. The concept that our water and energy systems are reliant on each other is sometimes paired with a third issue, like food security or public health. This can make it more relevant to our daily lives. Despite a basic understanding of resource interdependencies, city and utility leaders still allow planning and implementation processes to remain predominately separate. A common local scenario finds the water utility facing system upkeep alone, the energy utility not considering other utility issues or city goals as they operate, and city leaders generally focused on more visibly troublesome urban systems, like housing or transportation.
Waiting for car manufacturers and ride-hail operators to decide the future of urban AV deployment will not create the cities that urban planners hope for, and often work very hard to make happen. While significant penetration of AVs — private or shared — is likely a decade or two away, deferring directional, optimization, and livability strategies will rob cities of flexibility, influence, and degrees of freedom within a decade.
If you believe AVs are coming eventually, the time to start getting ready is now, even if you believe human drivers will remain dominant for many decades. The steps outlined here are important support for the alternative to SOV, of expanding mobility-as-a-service such as Uber and Lyft.
In a circular city, “reduce-reuse-recycle” will replace “take-make-dispose”. Urban mobility will be carbon-neutral, relying on low- to zero-emission vehicles within a broader energy network powered by renewables. Cities and businesses will also generate savings from using recycled building materials and turning waste into fuel to power buses.
In other words, circular cities will blend ancient approaches with modern technologies. But how will they do it, and where will the money come from?