City of Morgan Hill

Matthew Mahood currently serves as the Economic Development Director for the City of Morgan Hill, where he is focused on growing the City’s general fund revenue, creating high-quality jobs, and enhancing the community’s quality of life. Prior to joining the City, he served as President and CEO of two of Northern California’s largest chambers of commerce, the Silicon Valley Organization and the Sacramento Metro Chamber, where he led the development and implementation of innovative workforce, community, and economic development initiatives. With over 30 years of senior management experience, Mahood has led organizations through complex business and political environments spanning private enterprise, high-profile non-profits, and the public sector.

Local governments are on the front lines of economic development. We approve projects, manage infrastructure, balance budgets, and respond directly to residents’ concerns about growth and change. In this environment, I have learned that civic engagement is not simply a public relations exercise; it is a powerful strategic tool available to local leaders in order to move projects forward successfully.

Building Public Trust as the Foundation

Economic development is often judged by outcomes: jobs created, investment attracted, or tax revenue generated. But the determining factor in whether those outcomes actually materialize is frequently tied to public trust. Communities that trust their local government are more receptive to growth, more willing to engage in productive dialogue, and more likely to support long-term investments. Without public trust, even the most well-designed and best-intentioned projects can become stalled by opposition, misinformation, or procedural delays, especially in today’s world of online social media community forums, where facts are often replaced by rumors and misinformation.

Engaging Early to Turn Community Input into Project Momentum

For local government leaders, the challenge is not whether to engage the public, but how and when. Too often, engagement begins too late in the process, after plans are largely finalized and approvals are already underway. At that point, outreach can feel performative rather than meaningful, and residents may conclude that decisions have already been made. In my experience, this dynamic will breed frustration and resistance, not collaboration. Trust me, I have learned this the hard way.

Although it may not seem instinctive, civic engagement should be viewed as a way to accelerate progress, not slow it down. Projects shaped by early input tend to face fewer delays, less litigation, and stronger long-term community support. When concerns are identified early, they can often be addressed through design, phasing, or mitigation strategies rather than costly redesigns or political standoffs later.

Civic engagement is not simply a public relations exercise; it is a powerful strategic tool available to local leaders in order to move projects forward successfully.

Successful engagement should start early and be framed around building a partnership, not persuasion. Before development proposals are locked in, residents should be invited to help shape community development priorities or strategic plans. When residents see that their input influences direction, not just the details, they are more likely to become stakeholders invested in the project’s success rather than spectators interested in creating ongoing conflict and opposition.

It goes without saying that listening is the foundation of this process. That requires more than public hearings and meetings, which can often attract only the most motivated and vocal voices. Effective civic engagement uses a mix of formats: small-group discussions, stakeholder roundtables, neighborhood meetings, business forums, and online platforms that allow all residents to participate. The goal is not unanimous agreement, but informed dialogue and mutual respect.

Equally important is ensuring that engagement reflects the full diversity of the community. Business owners, educators, nonprofit leaders, workforce advocates, and historically underrepresented populations all experience economic development differently. Local governments that intentionally convene these groups benefit from better information and more durable solutions. In my experience, some of the most productive economic development strategies emerge when groups who rarely interact are brought together around shared goals such as workforce, education, housing, and infrastructure investment. Furthermore, in diverse communities, the use of translators is essential to ensure everyone’s voice is heard equally.

Consistency also matters. Civic engagement cannot be episodic—only activated when controversy arises. Leaders who communicate regularly, who share data openly, and explain both opportunities and constraints build credibility over time. That credibility becomes invaluable when difficult trade-offs are required, whether related to specific land use, infrastructure funding, or policy and fiscal priorities.

For local government leaders tasked with balancing economic sustainability, community identity, and quality of life, civic engagement is where those priorities intersect. It allows cities to pursue growth that is not only economically sound but also publicly supported. It strengthens institutional trust at a time when many residents feel disconnected from decision-making. And it helps ensure that development delivers tangible benefits that residents can see and feel in their neighborhoods – more police, more firefighters, clean parks, great public infrastructure, and public facilities.

In an ideal world, economic development is not something that happens to a community; it is something that should happen within a community. When local governments lead with transparency, invite collaboration, and commit to sustained engagement, they do more than just advance projects - they can build the foundation for civic engagement that makes long-term prosperity and fiscal sustainability more possible.