Unrepresentative Sample: How Public Meetings Weaken Fair Housing Outcomes
The practice of inviting the public to comment on proposed projects in long, often-contentious meetings is a hallmark of American urban planning practice in the post urban renewal age. However, recent research out of Boston suggests that the public that shows up to speak is not at all representative of the public at large.
In Public Comment and Public Policy, Alexander Sahn analyzes 40,000 public comments made at the San Francisco Planning Commission to find out whether public commenters are representative of the public, how a speaker’s proximity to a proposed project affects their support or opposition, whether public comment influences Commission votes, and whether white commenters have disproportionate influence.
Key Takeaways:
- Unrepresentative Commenters: Sahn finds that commenters at San Francisco public meetings are predominantly white, older, more politically active, and more likely to be homeowners compared to the general population.
- Proximity and Opposition: Individuals living closer to proposed developments are more likely to comment, especially in opposition. In other words, NIMBYism is a significant driver of public participation.
- Correlation with Policy Outcomes: There is a notable correlation between the preferences expressed by commenters and the decisions made by the SFPC. Projects with more favorable public comments are more likely to be approved, although the study does not establish a direct causal link.
- Differential Responsiveness: The preferences of white commenters and neighborhood group representatives align more closely with project approvals than those of other racial groups or interest groups. This suggests that certain voices are more influential in shaping policy outcomes.
Sahn analyzed about 42,500 public comments from the minutes of San Francisco Planning Commission meetings, cross-referencing public records to find address, age, gender, and ethnicity data for roughly half of the commenters.
Observing commenters’ demographics, Sahn finds that “commenters in public meetings are starkly unrepresentative of the population along a number of observable dimensions. Across every demographic trait, less privileged groups are underrepresented in comments compared to the electorate and more so relative to the general population.”
Comments at public meetings do not reflect broader public opinion about proposed development. Rather, they overrepresent historically-influential groups like white people and older homeowners; underrepresent historically-marginalized demographics like younger people, renters, and people of color; and disproportionately amplify NIMBYism. Further, this flawed and unrepresentative process has real influence on policy outcomes.