We need more transparency and accountability about whose ideas are being heard and how they’re actually shaping the plan—in this process and all city planning processes moving forward.

To build real trust, inclusion & equity, I encourage the planning team to:
1. Track who’s missing from participation—especially caregivers, people with nontraditional work hours, and residents facing barriers like language access or lack of transportation. Then set clear, measurable goals to reach and include those voices.
2. Prioritize meeting people where they’re at—like schools, child care centers, or community meals. This can go a long way. (I know our daycare director would gladly welcome planners to talk with parents and staff, who face higher barriers to civic engagement simply by virtue of having young children.)
3. Be mindful of power dynamics in focus groups. If people representing nonprofits or organizations rely on city funding, they may not feel safe offering honest criticism. That’s important to keep in mind when interpreting input. Anonymous feedback opportunities for heavily engaged folks in these key areas (housing, basic needs, etc) is essential.
4. Be clear about how input is used. In the last comprehensive plan, there was no demographic breakdown of who participated and no explanation of how input—like the “good ideas” campaign—was incorporated. That lack of clarity discourages future engagement. Is this form performative engagement? How would I know?
5. Consider forming a public advisory group to help guide inclusive engagement, with real decision-making power—not just a symbolic role.

Good plans comes from good process—and that means people need to feel like their time, ideas, and lived experience actually matter.

We need to align efforts to end child poverty here. We could do it. It would include funding childcare like the public good that it is, desegregating neighborhoods by housing type, and prioritizing living wage jobs and deeply affordable housing.