The Dutch figured this out. California and Australia haven't.

A couple of years ago, I was in a meeting at the LA mayor's office with a delegation from the Dutch ministry, planning for the 2028 Olympics. We were exploring what LA can learn from the Dutch about improving active transportation, bike and ped, at least during the Olympics. During a break, I pulled one of the planners aside.

"How do you actually get people to say yes?" I asked. "Because the moment you talk about closing streets to cars, everyone loses their mind.”

He said. "Well, we just do it as a pilot. Let's try it for a few months. And then people ride their bikes, the street comes alive, and they don't want to give it back."

No grand theory. Just: let them experience it without causing much conflict, and they'll tell you whether it works.

What Australia did instead

New South Wales has a real housing crisis. Prices are out of reach and the supply has been frozen for decades. Not much different from we are currently experiencing in many parts of the U.S.

So to fix the housing crises, the government rezoned land near 37 train stations statewide to allow denser housing. Seems like a good policy. But the process was a different story.

The government chose which neighborhoods to rezone without telling anyone how or why. By the time residents got a say, the decisions were already made. A parliamentary inquiry later confirmed what communities already felt: the consultation was rushed, and they were an afterthought. Today, 35 of 37 precincts are rezoned and nearly 18,000 homes are in the pipeline. Wealthy suburbs are furious. But the framework is law. They lost before they knew the game had started.

"Many affected communities felt that they and their local governments had been sidelined." — NSW Parliamentary Inquiry, 2024

California's SB 79, signed last October, does the same thing with more procedural care, which I appreciate. It requires public hearings, local opt-outs. But as Politico reported in February, the rollout is already messy. I am one of the advocates of unzoning near transit, and bills like SB 79. But, checking boxes isn't the same as building trust. And, without community trust, we can not succeed long term.

Governments in Australia and California are learning the hard way that being right about policy isn't the same as bringing people with you.

What both New South Wales and California got wrong

Both governments are probably right about the policy. Dense housing near transit is where we need to build. But being right about the outcome doesn't mean you can skip the work of bringing people along. In the NSW case, people in wealthy suburbs can (and most likely will) stand against individual projects.

The framework I use at The Triangle is simple: Design a system that embraces clear goals, accepts tradeoffs, and builds trust while understanding power dynamics.

In both cases, we have clear goals, but, have we accepted and communicated the trade-offs? We have focused on trust building?

In NSW, a better approach could look like: "Density near transit is happening. That’s not up for debate. But building design, affordable housing levels, percentages, infrastructure timing? Want to start with bunch of pilots? Come talk to us."

That's not slowing things down. That's building trust that supports long term success.

And there's an equity piece neither government says out loud: wealthy suburbs have blocked density for decades. Prioritizing renters and lower-income residents isn't just good policy. It's more democratic than the alternative. Saying that plainly reframes the fight in terms of justice, not just preference. Government is here to serve all. To served the public. Not only the powerful voices.

The Dutch planner wasn't describing a trick. He was describing something more honest and transparent: we believe this works, we can't fully prove it in a meeting room, so let's build it and find out together. That's how you get people to say yes.

NSW got the housing. For now. They just didn't get the trust. And those aren't the same thing.

ONE BIG IDEA

Being right about policy isn't enough. Governments that skip trust-building and honest tradeoffs may get the outcome in the short term. But they lose the public. And without that, long-term success is out of reach.

ONE THING TO SIT WITH

Think about a decision you've made at work, in a project, with a community. Where you were right but people still pushed back. Was the resistance about the decision itself, or about how it was made?

ONE PRACTICAL ACTOIN

Next time you're designing a program or policy with likely opposition, map out three things before you start: what's non-negotiable and why, what the real tradeoffs are, and where you'll create genuine space for input. Name all three out loud to your team and to the community.

I recently released this self-assessment tool to help you design more effective programs, plans, and policies. To help you Strategize, Learn, and Measure for Community Impact.

Answer honestly and you will walk away with a personalized snapshot of where your program stands: what is working, where the gaps are, and a practical set of next steps tailored to your context and stage.

No login required. No email needed to see your results. Takes about 5 minutes.

See your readiness profile and personalized plan here.

Think of it as a starting point not a diagnosis. I hope it helps you reflect, understand where you are, and figure out where to focus next when designing or implementing your program.

Looking for ways to measure your community impact?

Nader Afzalan, Ph.D.

Founder and CEO, The Triangle

Program Director, Sustainable Environmental Design, UC Berkeley