Innovation in Local Government

by NRC on November 21, 2013

http://www.architects.org/architectureboston/articles/what-i-learned-insider’s-guide-improving-local-government

We’re buzzing with ideas relating to this article here at NRC. Even though it was published in 2011, there are a lot of good thoughts inside that merit revisiting – read on for thoughts from our staff and chime in with yours in the comments!

+ Kostaras argues that politics has “poisoned the well” for trust in local government and that “pathetically low voter turnout in local elections reflects the sentiments of cynical, disillusioned citizens.”

While many of us would agree that public trust is not strong even at the local level (ratings from The National Citizen Survey are mildly north of mid scale) but low voter turnout has been with us for years and that may be because Americans are busy and complacent, not – at least at the local level – cynical and disillusioned. Things are considered “good enough” here and it’s too much trouble to get up to speed on the nuances of even local issues. Voter turnout in other places in the world (especially where voting is safe, not inconvenient, candidates are vastly different and there is resource constriction) tends to be much greater.

+ The article predicted that “the coming fiscal crisis will break local government.” At a presentation this week in Goodyear, AZ we heard that building permits are booming beyond pre-recession levels. Most local governments seem to be making a strong come back now.

+ Kostaras pleads, “Let people in local government be more entrepreneurial.” This was also the main point of Big Ideas speaker, Stephen Goldsmith, former mayor of Indianapolis and former Deputy Mayor of New York City for Operations. He also called for a new definition of professionalism in local government – where there is more discretion, and fewer rules. Currently, Goldsmith said, rules make it hard for bad things to become really bad but also for good things to become really good.

+ Kostaras’ point about public meetings is spot-on. They don’t seem to encourage cooperation or broad, community-wide thinking, but instead empower special interest (not necessarily moneyed) minorities. Still, as inefficient as public meetings are and as representative are surveys, we shouldn’t forgo public meetings, but instead understand the testimony given there in the context of what surveys show that everybody needs/wants.

What stands out to you? Do you agree with our assessments?