Public Engagement (part two)
Public Engagement or Public Enemy?
Two weeks ago, I shared some introductory thoughts on public engagement, asking whether it is valuable or not. This week, I want to continue on that topic and hopefully identify some steps we can take to improve the process.
Since our current engagement processes are not representative of our community’s population, now what? Do we simply rely on the expertise of city staff? If we are only hearing from a small segment of unrepresentative voices, should we just skip public consultations all together and instead, leave it up to the ‘experts’? If you’re like me, that solution doesn’t feel like much of a solution at all.
Ruben Anderson says, “Expertise is unfashionable right now, partly because our society is not very good at understanding who is expert at what, so we give too much power to some people and not enough power to others.” Now, I find that intriguing. Perhaps if we take the time to understand who brings what to these conversations, we can find a way forward in this. But, as Anderson points out, “We need to be more aware of different kinds of expertise, and who has it. Each expert—engineer, resident, or designer—only specializes in a narrow field, and we mustn’t ask them to do each other’s jobs.”
For example, traffic engineers can bring a wealth of knowledge to discussions on road design, but we must remember that a “sense of place does not show up in engineering standards manuals.” Therefore, we must consider what information we are trying to understand in any given scenario. Anderson argues that “the engineer’s role, which has grown to have so much influence in so many cities, should really be quite technical and fairly powerless.”
While the role of engineer may have expanded outside of its intended purpose, we have the opposite problem with the expertise of residents. Anderson states, “Sadly, we don’t see residents as experts. This is a critical and corrosive mistake. Of course, they certainly are not experts in how to reduce greenhouse gases, or pave roads, or pick bike routes. But citizens of a city do know how the built environment makes them feel, and how they would like to feel.”
Too often, our assumption is that we must have community consultation on anything and everything a city does. But, as I have argued, not all community consultation processes are equal and rarely are they representative of our community as a whole. Plus, public engagement slows everything down. While that may not matter on some issues, it most certainly does on others. Take this example from Toronto about speed and road safety that likely resonates with some readers in Waterloo Region.
The problem: A street (Parkside Drive) remains a “high-speed death trap with a highway-like design that doesn’t match its 40 km/h speed limit. And infrastructure improvements to reduce speeds and improve the pedestrian and cycling experience are a long way off.”
The city has taken a few small steps to address safety concerns on this road, such as digital signs displaying drivers’ speeds. The city’s main focus though has been on public consultation to identify “concerns and priorities” related to Parkside. And, of course, after a few months of community engagement, more time is needed to gather that information into a report. After that, there will be more community consultation on that report, and on it goes. The article’s author, Matt Elliott notes, “If all goes well, maybe some construction gets rolling a few months after that — at least two years after improvements were requested by the local representative.”
Well, maybe all of that time and effort will be worth it, if residents end up with a reconstructed road that is safer for everyone. However, Toronto city staff say that full reconstruction of the road is forecasted to take place more than 10 years from now. As Elliott concludes, “If road safety is a priority, it’s not reflected in the timelines for projects like this one.”
It’s hard to read these kinds of examples, of which there are plenty, and not become cynical about the whole process. But, on my best days, I try to avoid falling into that cynical trap. So, instead, let’s consider what quality public engagement could actually look like.
The very first part of this process, of course, is to decide whether public consultation is actually needed for the project at hand. I firmly believe that not every decision made by council or city staff needs to have community consultation. “Before we gather people for public consultation, we need to be clear and honest about what we are trying to do. Then, if consultation is the right solution, we can design a process to fill that need.”
When public consultation is needed, then we must identify what people actually do rather than what they think they will do in hypothetical situations. As this Strong Towns article notes, “Our planning efforts should absolutely be guided by the experiences of real people. But their actions are the data we should be collecting, not their stated preferences.” Because too often we actually don’t know what we want, until it’s presented to us. Charles Marohn says, “We should be designing the city equivalent of the iPod: something that responds to how real people actually live. It's a messier and less affirming undertaking.”
What does all of this look like in practical terms? Again from Strong Towns: “Get on with the hard work of iteratively building a successful city. That work is a simple, four-step process: Humbly observe where people in the community struggle. Ask the question: What is the next smallest thing we can do right now to address that struggle? Do that thing. Do it right now. Repeat.” I think the work of Jay Pitter, who the city of Kitchener has recently partnered with on the Queen Victoria statue discussion, exemplifies that kind of approach. As well, Kitchener is collecting demographic information from people who engage in some way with the city (delegating at council, filling out a survey on Engage Kitchener, attending public open houses, and the like). Understanding more about who is and isn’t ‘at the table’ should allow the city to focus on how to better connect with and amplify the voices of those currently excluded.
While public consultation may only be a small part of the overall process, it can still be useful and important - if it’s done well. Last month, Regional Council was raked through the coals (perhaps justifiably - you can read my thoughts on that issue, here) for voting in favour of giving all regional councillors, including themselves, lifetime benefits. That decision was made without community input, which likely would have altered the conversation and perhaps the outcome of that vote. That fiasco reminds us that community consultation can play an important role.
However, we must remember to “only consult with residents when they are the ones that can best answer the question at hand. But in those moments, they should be treated as the experts they are.”
In addition to adding a perspective that city staff and elected officials may not have, consulting residents on projects where their input can actually impact the outcome of the project, reminds residents that they are a valuable partner in city-building. Ruben Anderson concludes: “I have come to think that engagement tries to acknowledge the public’s plaintive cry, ‘Don’t forget me.’ I think people often don’t need to win; they just don’t want to be forgotten.”
Jerusalem Demsas summarizes the issue well: “Democracy is at its best when the views and needs of the people are accurately transmitted to their representatives, the representatives act, and voters express their approval or disapproval in the next election.” If we offer community engagement opportunities when it is truly beneficial to the process, identify peoples’ actual behaviour, and collect and use demographic data, I am hopeful that will bring us closer to the quality community engagement we need.
Have you participated in quality community engagement? If so, what made it successful? Feel free to comment below.
I have enjoyed both writing on Substack and finding great writers here too. For the month of December, for every paid subscription to #Citified, I will purchase a paid subscription to another Substack writer. Feel free to comment below with suggestions of accounts I should subscribe to.