A Public Relations Analysis of a Proposed Stadium Upgrade

Posted on by Brian Lee
Photo from the high school’s Facebook page

For any proposed development, you’re going to face some degree of NIMBYism. To what degree depends on how well you perform public involvement and community relations.

Here’s an example. A private high school is facing staunch opposition from the neighborhood in which it’s located for its proposal to update its football stadium (add lighting, add seating, improve the sound system, etc.). Yet, parents of students who don’t live in the neighborhood are in support of the proposal, judging by an analysis of letters-to-the-editors, letters to the city and social media posts.

Over the past six months, the high school president and its board of trustees have made numerous errors that will likely jeopardize the proposal, especially in a neighborhood with a history and reputation of opposing developments. Here are their community engagement mistakes:

MISTAKES ONE AND TWO: One of the main issues for the high school has been the lack of (perceived) public involvement and (perceived) lack of resulting compromise. The neighborhood association said in its quarterly newsletter, “There was a feeling that (the high school) has not respected the neighborhood’s opinion on the stadium while moving this proposal forward.”

The timeline certainly backs up that statement. The high school held a formal neighborhood meeting on Oct. 17 and then submitted its proposal to the city on Nov. 21. That short turnaround likely means no public input was incorporated into the application. Either that meeting should have been held earlier, or the application should have been submitted later.

Even the president of the high school admitted, “There wasn’t any conversation, it was kind of us wanting everything and the neighbors wanting nothing.”

MISTAKE THREE: The high school did not offer a compromise until two months after it submitted its proposal. At that point, the offer seemed like it was made out of desperation, not from working with stakeholders. Good public involvement will demonstrate how public input was used in various iterations of the proposal before it’s officially submitted.

MISTAKE FOUR: In addition, the high school has not made it clear what the benefit of the stadium upgrade is to the neighborhood. Its statements include how the complex “would allow the … athletics program to remain competitive” and contribute to the “well‐rounded development of our students.” The me-first approach is never a good strategy–always lead with public benefits.

MISTAKE FIVE: A month after the compromise, which unsurprisingly the neighbors didn’t like, the high school realized it could make upgrades to the lights and sound system as long as they meet city ordinances. The board of trustees wrote to family members, “We believe we can move forward not just under the letter of the law, but also in good faith, knowing there will be minimal negative impact from these actions.”

Nope. These actions further infuriated the neighborhood association, which said, “We’re extremely surprised and disappointed … We were under the assumption that they valued that conversation.” 

Using a technicality to get what you want is the equivalent of saying, “we no longer have to care about public input.” People are emotional beings, and that means you still have to have dialogue, otherwise you will never achieve informed consent, a major goal of public involvement.

MISTAKE SIX: In March, the high school decided to delay construction to form an ad hoc committee that would address resident concerns. Too little, too late? This committee should have been formed and active one year ago, before residents had their opinions solidified in stone. The chances of a “realistic path forward,” as the high school wrote, are likely slim at this point.

MISTAKE SEVEN: In late March, the high school held an athletic competition on its field despite city officials saying the competition was in violation of a zoning ordinance. When you’re not in good graces with the neighbors, you also don’t want to make city officials your enemy. As one editorial said, the action “sure seems like a strange way to show good faith,” a counter to the board of trustees’ previous assertion.

Timeline: