Opinion: Steve Pomerance: Lessons from ‘The March of Folly’

Recent months have been really scary. Everyone is threatened by the coronavirus. Testing is way behind where it should be. The stock market is dropping at record rates, and the economy as a whole is slowing dramatically. Many people are being pushed to the edge, both economically and health-wise.
But within this bleak scenario, there are things to be thankful for. Our local and state governments are doing a very good job with the resources and technology that they can access. Walking in neighborhoods is a pleasure, with people greeting each other — at the appropriate physical separation. We have our open space, where we can get out and enjoy nature. I recently hiked the southern portion of the Mesa Trail and was greeted by truly spectacular views of the Denver skyline and the eastern plains. The air was clearer than I ever remember seeing in my 50-plus years in Boulder.
I also had time to read a book that I’ve put off for years — “The March of Folly,” by Barbara Tuchman, first published in 1984. (Full disclosure: My aunt Barbara lived near my parents, and I would occasionally visit with her while she wrote.) This book is an analysis of four events: why the Trojans took in the wooden horse, how the Renaissance popes provoked the Protestant succession, why England lost the American colonies, and how the U.S betrayed its own interests in Vietnam. But it is also “a moral essay on the crimes and follies of governments, and the misfortunes the governed suffered in consequence,” per the New York Times Book Review.
For Tuchman, a “folly” is pursuit of policy contrary to the welfare of the governed. It must have been perceived as counterproductive in its own time, not just in hindsight. There must have been feasible alternative courses of action available. And the policy must have been pursued by a group, and not just at the direction of one authoritarian individual.
She describes “wooden-headedness,” the source of self-deception, as a critical factor leading to a folly. “It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. … Wooden-headedness is also the refusal to benefit from experience.”
From my perspective, Boulder has avoided such outcomes to the extent that the citizens have been directly involved in policy formation. Some examples: Our fundamental growth control measures — the Open Space program, the 55-foot height limit, and the Blue Line — all resulted from direct citizen activism. The creation of the first Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan heavily involved local residents. Our first campaign finance laws, instituted in 1999, came from a group of citizens, and the recent updates resulted from a cooperative effort between citizens and staff members. Our nationally-known energy efficiency programs resulted from an intensive effort of a whole host of citizens working with staff and city council members, as has the municipalization effort, which woke up some investor-owned utilities to the need for more renewables.
But in many areas citizens have not been appropriately involved. Some examples: The East Boulder Sub-Community Planning process involves “stakeholders,” but it lacks broader citizen involvement in creating the appropriate context. After all, what happens in East Boulder relates to what happens elsewhere, and we still lack a citizen-determined context for growth-related decisions. The implementation of online petitions was turned over to the staff with no citizen involvement, in spite of the success of the previous joint citizen-staff update of our initiative and referendum charter processes and campaign finance laws. Now, even after a year’s work, nothing is yet in place. Boulder city government has been having a hard time attracting residents to apply for certain city boards and commissions, a big change from a few decades ago. But, as far as I know, this problem has not been opened up to the citizens to help solve.
Finally, per a recent consultant’s report, in many areas city staff morale is very low. Perhaps it’s because staff members work hard as directed, but then many times face strong negative feedback from citizens, because the direction staff was given was not in alignment with what the citizens know and want. As our history shows, it works far better for everyone if the citizens are part of the process right from the beginning, the wisdom of Boulder’s wide-ranging citizen expertise is respected, and policy formation is a joint effort, where council members, staff and knowledgeable citizens work cooperatively.


x

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more