Public engagement on housing: Local governments can shift individual complaints into community-based problem-solving

For the United States to fix the housing crisis, local governments need to lead community conversations that frame up the tough trade-offs required to meet a public need and put residents in the position of problem-solvers rather than complainers.

Currently public engagement on housing—especially increasing density and attainable housing—is often taken over by small, vocal groups of existing homeowners who strongly oppose changes in their neighborhoods. These narrowly focused groups have done an effective job of preventing or slowing new development, which constrains supply and increases prices. A 2021 estimate by Freddie Mac suggested the housing shortage increased 52 percent from 2.5 million in 2018 to 3.8 million in 2020. In the past two years, the supply of available homes declined to a level not seen since 2000, according to a March 2022 Freddie Mac report.

Ensuring housing availability and affordability is one of local government’s most pressing issues. About half of Americans (49 percent) say the lack of affordable housing in their community is a major problem, up 10 percent from early 2018, according to a Pew Research Center survey from October 2021. This shortage significantly burdens middle and low-income residents and has a disproportionate impact on senior citizens, young families, people with disabilities and communities of color.

Changing the conversation from “no” to “how?”
If you are a public official, you can be forgiven for dreading public engagement. Even though most in public service inherently believe in transparency and participation, the gathering of public input on hot-button issues often turns civil servants into punching bags for small, selectively activated, narrowly focused groups. Because public officials must be responsive to public complaints, they put on their armor for public meetings and prepare to get beat up. The contentious environment, created by a resource-starved process that doesn’t reward collaboration and consensus, often prevents communities from solving problems and giving everyone a voice in identifying effective solutions.

There are better ways to engage the public, especially on topics as contentious as affordable housing and increased density. The public meeting, the most common current method of public input, places a premium on the interests of existing homeowners, who usually want to quash new development, and puts public officials in an untenable position. If they persist with the project, residents feel unheard, may lose trust in government and the process, and make their voices heard during elections. If they abandon or scale back the project, the housing crisis is exacerbated.

Simulations, often called scenario planning, upend this dynamic by moving the focus away from hyperlocal interests toward a community’s housing goal. Instead of asking residents if they want a particular new development (the answer is generally “no”), simulations instead provide multiple options around the jurisdiction and then ask the entire community to identify solutions that cumulatively meet the community housing goal.

In Elk Grove, California, city planners created an online simulation that contained scores of projects that, if built, would provide a specified number of new, affordable housing units. Residents could select different scenarios, including saying no to projects they personally disliked, but they also needed to select enough projects for a complete plan that would meet the community’s need. Input from this approach allowed planners to build an overall plan of recommended projects with no less than 65 percent support from all respondents.

Elk Grove isn’t the only community using simulations for public engagement on housing. Under the leadership of the Association of Bay Area Governments, more than a dozen cities and counties have used map-based online simulation tools to gather public input for the state-mandated planning process.

Putting an emotional process into context to build empathy
Online simulation tools expand access beyond just those individuals with the time and interest to attend a meeting. Anyone with 10 minutes and access to a smartphone, tablet or computer can learn about tradeoffs, make selections and help a community say “yes” to housing. While there are well-founded concerns about the same people participating online as in face-to-face meetings, online engagement tools lower the bar to participation and local governments can use targeted outreach to include more diverse voices.

Rather than three minutes shouting into the mic at their town hall, residents are using online simulations to work through the same tough trade-offs as policymakers—and still getting their opinions heard. This kind of public engagement threads the needle to properly contextualize an often-emotional process, build empathy and add much-needed perspective for better community decisions.

Chris Adams is president of Denver-based Balancing Act, which provides simulation-based public engagement tools for governments. He has worked in public policy and facilitation for more than 25 years and is a senior fellow at the University of Colorado School of Public Affairs. Reach him at [email protected].