There is a real difference between asking people what they think and telling them what has already been decided. Both can be called community engagement, but only one changes the outcome. I try to run the kind that changes the outcome, because projects shaped by the people who will use them tend to be better projects and tend to hold up against opposition.
The timing is what matters most. Input gathered early, when the scope and design can still move, has somewhere to go. Input gathered late, after the drawings are final, mostly produces frustration on both sides. People can tell when their time is being used to build genuine support and when it is being used to check a box. The first earns trust. The second spends it.
Meeting people where they are
Not everyone can attend an evening meeting at city hall, and the people who can are not always representative of the neighborhood. So I look for engagement that fits real lives. A quick-build pilot that people can walk and react to. A short survey at a place people already go. A conversation with a community-based organization that already has the trust of the block. The point is to lower the cost of participating so that the input reflects the whole neighborhood, not only the residents with the most free time.
Closing the loop
The step that is skipped most often is the one that builds the most trust. When people give input, they deserve to hear what happened to it. Which ideas shaped the design. Which ones could not be used, and why. That honest accounting, even when the answer is no, tells people their time was respected. Skipping it teaches them that the next request for input is not worth answering.
Community engagement in planning is not a hurdle to clear before the real work begins. It is part of the real work. A project that people helped shape is a project people defend, and that support is often what carries an effort through the long stretch between the first meeting and the ribbon cutting.