Public Engagement Models Are Broken, By Design
Fixing them requires us to imagine a radically different society.
Anyone who’s followed developments in Ontario’s planning regime over the past several years will know that it’s been heavily skewed towards the interests of a relatively small set of stakeholders. The Greenbelt scandal is a case in point, with the government effectively tearing up key land-use policies so that a handful of developers could make billions.
More recently, Bill 185 looks set to effectively remove members of the public from any active role planning decisions.
A Crisis Calls for Action
The rationale for this latest eliding of public input is pretty straightforward – we have a housing crisis, and to ensure housing gets built quickly we need to streamline the process, removing any potential impediments, including input from pesky citizens. The stakeholders involved, including municipal staff and elected representatives, are able to look after the interests of the public, keeping the private interests in check. That’s the theory, at any rate.
Attend any public meeting where a planning matter is discussed, however, and you will notice that most of the time, the majority of those who get up to talk represent developers – planners and consultants who are paid to be there, paid to spend time on the details of a development proposal, to understand that nuances and complexities of height restrictions and parking minimums and setbacks.
Furthermore, the conduit between the develop and municipal staff is well trod, with a common vernacular and grasp of the issues at hand. When it comes to what councillors have to inform their decisions, it is, by and large, couched in this parlance.
Members of the public who attend, on the other hand, are often at a significant disadvantage when it comes to countering the arguments put forward by these professionals. They have to take time out of their day, arranging for childcare or school pick-up or dinner plans, to both attend and to develop an understanding of the complexities of the issue that concerns them.
Representing vs Re-Presenting
This imbalance of representation, while it doesn’t necessarily equate with an imbalance in how decisions are made, nevertheless points to how certain interests are prioritized in our decision-making procedures, the results of which structure the world we inhabit.
Now, I’m picking on developers a bit here. They happen to be relatively straightforward examples of this dynamic. The decisions they facilitate directly structure our built environment profoundly influence our everyday lives, including the presence and type of roads, the proximity of amenities, the types of houses and other structures.
Wider Implications of Skewed Decision-Making
The logic holds, too, for many other areas of our society, from the business world, where decisions suit the interests of shareholders, to politics, where they focus on maintaining a core ‘base’ of support, to culture, where the representation of stereotypes and ideals are magnified.
There are reasons for this structuring, of course. Economies of scale and rote simplification help maximize profit for developers, while message coherence solidifies and maintains a political base and stereotypes and ideals appeal to a broad, and hence more lucrative, audience. Any time a large scale, complex action is undertaken, the utility of some degree of simplification and direction seems pretty clear.
What I think is often missed in acknowledging the utility of this, however, is the processes that facilitate this narrowing of focus are often self-reinforcing in a way that consolidates decision-making at the top, while the input or feedback from its constituent elements towards the bottom tend to be increasingly marginalized.
Envisioning Alternative Models and the Power of Grassroots
To get a sense of this it’s worth thinking about how these systems might look if they were inverted, with direction coming from the bottom.
Rather than a grid of streets, it’s likely that we’d see a pattern that follows features that are important to people. Roads would look much more like they do in places where they were laid down before the advent of modern technology, where they accommodate the natural landscape and built structures, rather than impose themselves upon it.
In the business world there would be much more competition. Companies would recognize that better information is, truly, their product, enabling them to provide goods in a way that best suits the needs of their customers. Some companies would take this a step further to fully internalize this information by becoming co-operatives, while others would become Benefit Corporations, expanding their fiduciary duties to include benefits to their community and the environment.
Politics would be much more of a direct, rather than representative democracy, perhaps with a degree of proportional representation. Politicians would have to find compromise with others in their positions, with little possibility of the four-year dictatorial model that majority governments seem to think they are given a mandate for.
The sharp contrast this brief sketch has with how our society is currently set up invites us to wonder whether the forms of engagement we currently have, such as they are, actually do more harm than good. By burnishing the claim to representation do they simply allow for the perpetuation of something that is broken?
Reimagining Engagement and Representation
Grassroots activism exists, I think, as a response to the hierarchical decision making model and its inherent failures to address the interests of many who deserve, and who wish, to be heard. Where accommodations are made, where feedback is solicited, it’s forced within an interpretive model that doesn’t respond to feedback so much as it affirms existing biases and barriers.
Where grassroots activism fails, such as in the case of NIMBYism, is more a result of the lack of representation in the decision-making structures than it is indicative of a refusal to compromise or work with others. When people feel like they are a part of something, when they feel like their concerns are being heard, they almost always become far more willing to find solutions that work for all, rather than remaining obstinate to any change whatsoever.
When it comes to changing these structures, the biggest barrier, I think, is simply the perception that they exist out of necessity. They don’t. They are choices that are made. Do they entrench power dynamics? Sure. Is that justification for them continuing? Absolutely not.
Weekly News Digest - “The Blowhole”
DeSmog: Fossil fuel industry efforts to delay inquiries highlight its sense of impunity – and echo tactics used to obstruct climate action and deceive the public. (Link)
Scientific American: We Need to Make Cities Less Car-Dependent (Link)
Vital Impacts: 90 Prints in Honor of Jane Goodall (Link)
Smart Growth America: Pedestrian fatalities at historic high (Link)
Join the Pod
Like what we talk about and want to engage with our coalition more? Check us out on social media or drop us a line if you’d like to volunteer: info@simcoecountygreenbelt.ca
