What’s the best way to balance public input on something like transit with “no investigation, no right to speak”? Comments like these are common at public meetings (plenty of private ones, too) and they’re notorious for sucking up the time and good will of everyone involved. Ordinary people engage less when your meetings run to midnight in no small part due to nonsense like this, and the people running the meetings get burnt out far more quickly.
Yeah, my province recently prohibited any public hearings for new housing proposals because they were just a soap box for NIMBYs to stand on and obstruct any progress whatsoever.
Here’s some theory on the subject you might enjoy https://organizingengagement.org/models/ladder-of-citizen-participation/
Basically: no investigation occurs from the public about public works, because sufficient resources have not been made available as to allow the average member of public to investigate
What’s the best way to balance public input on something like transit with “no investigation, no right to speak”? Comments like these are common at public meetings (plenty of private ones, too) and they’re notorious for sucking up the time and good will of everyone involved. Ordinary people engage less when your meetings run to midnight in no small part due to nonsense like this, and the people running the meetings get burnt out far more quickly.
Don’t do in-person public input. It’s a fucking garbage concept from start to finish. Also it has never changed anything.
Yeah, my province recently prohibited any public hearings for new housing proposals because they were just a soap box for NIMBYs to stand on and obstruct any progress whatsoever.
Here’s some theory on the subject you might enjoy https://organizingengagement.org/models/ladder-of-citizen-participation/
Basically: no investigation occurs from the public about public works, because sufficient resources have not been made available as to allow the average member of public to investigate
Thank you!