In city planning, participatory democracy has largely exacerbated inequality, not lessened it.

So what would it mean to dial up the power of marginalized communities, and curb the power of wealthy white ones? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/upshot/pandemic-city-planning-inequality.html

(some ideas that did not make it into this story)

When city governments mandate notification to abutting property owners about new development, they are literally saying that property ownership entitles you to a greater voice in how cities develop.

Public engagement empowers the already powerful in all kinds of subtle ways like this. Because of when and where meetings take place. Because of who attends. Because of who believes they wield power. Because of who can say "I'm a homeowner."

"And then all that is exacerbated by market power," said @anikasinghlemar. "It’s really impactful for me to go down to New Haven City Hall and say, 'if this project gets approved, I’m moving to the suburbs.' Only some people get to say that. And that threat is something."

I talked to several people last week who said "I wish we could hold public meetings in poorer or minority communities and just not do them in wealthy white ones."

That sounds politically impossible, or just logistically hard in defining which places are which.

But that's ultimately a suggestion that cities need to rebalance power, which shouldn't be impossible.

Another idea comes from @tony_damiano Ed Goetz and Rashad Williams, who have been thinking about "racially concentrated areas of affluence" (as a counterpoint to racially concentrated areas of poverty).

That's a pretty good definition of which places don't need more power.

. @anikasinghlemar also points out that planning departments often aren't required to do what many other branches of gov't are: summarize all the comments they get, and explain which they've incorporated and why they haven't incorporated others.