Anthony Galluccio, a land use and permitting attorney, has issued a public alert about the widespread risk of moving forward with projects without understanding community processes. With decades of experience in public service, law, and community leadership, Galluccio observes that this mistake repeats across industries when teams decide internally that their project is "good for the community" without proper engagement.
"The first public meeting should be after months of listening and getting to know your neighbors," Galluccio said. "Start ahead, stay ahead. Start with mistrust and you may never recover." He emphasizes that treating people as you would want to be treated if the project was in your neighborhood is fundamental. Some developers focus on anti-everything activists and "lose the forest through the trees," but loud critical voices are just part of the process and should not be written off as impossible to satisfy.
Galluccio identifies the common trap as "drinking your own kool aid"—allowing a project to evolve in isolation without public interaction or groundwork. "You need real feedback and get it before the project is introduced," he warned. "It will take months and years to recover good faith in the community." He stresses that permitting isn't fast work but trust-based work, and skipping steps often creates more work later. "Community process saves people time later," he added. "You either invest it upfront or pay for it later."
The implications of poor community process are significant. Studies show nearly 60% of project delays stem from poor planning or unclear processes, according to widely reported patterns. More than half of people report avoidable stress linked to last-minute decisions, and research suggests 40% of daily actions are habit-driven, meaning unplanned habits often guide outcomes. Communities that lack public engagement in planning processes experience higher conflict and longer approval timelines, while teams that skip preparation meetings are significantly more likely to miss deadlines.
Galluccio provides a quick self-check for those at risk, asking questions like whether they skipped community process before introducing a project, rely on urgency instead of preparation, or see compromise as failure. Answering "yes" to three or more indicates the risk likely applies. For those feeling rushed, he advises refining success as getting feasible entitlements approved on a reasonable timeline rather than an internal one. If feeling unclear about outcomes, be fluid in allowing the project to change with community input. For resistance from others, encourage processes that create specific requests so the project becomes "theirs" not "yours."
"Every day is like a game," Galluccio said. "You win, you reflect and get better, you lose, you get to practice and get better." He calls for comforting the community before they are unnerved, noting that community anxiety is the enemy. "Trust is built when you show up consistently and respond to concerns," he said. "You have to get beat up, endure and prove to the community you are worthy of partnership." This approach is crucial for projects in areas like Kendall Square, which Galluccio has helped shape through zoning work detailed at https://www.galluccioandwatson.com. His experience includes historic rezonings and community benefits agreements that have driven development in Cambridge and Somerville.
The importance of this warning extends beyond individual projects to broader community health. When developers and planners bypass engagement, they risk eroding public trust, increasing conflicts, and incurring hidden costs through delays and redesigns. In an era of rapid urban development, Galluccio's emphasis on consensus building and consistency offers a pathway to more sustainable and accepted projects. His background as a former Cambridge mayor and state senator, where he negotiated community benefits like the Harvard Cambridge summer academy, underscores the real-world impact of these principles. For communities facing new developments, this alert serves as a reminder that process integrity can determine whether projects become assets or sources of lasting division.
