I agree that “new approaches to governance” are possible, and needed. Do you agree that NA2Gs can’t be implemented when the resources are controlled by crooks?

I bet the other guy’s bribes and coercion will beat your “new approaches” every time.

If you disagree, I honestly want to know how you propose a really inclusive planning process can work in an atmosphere of criminality. That would be really cool.

I agree with you to a point.

Corruption kills economic development. That fact is well established.

(There is overwhelming statistical evidence that connects high levels of corruption with lower economic performance. See Corruption in Economic Development: Beneficial Grease, Minor Annoyance, or Major Obstacle?)

Detroit, Cleveland, New Orleans…These are cities plagued by a culture of public abuse for private gain.

At the same time, new approaches to governance are possible. That’s, I think, where I depart from your view.

After about the third thing-that-didn’t-go-right story, I said, “You know what? She keeps doing things that can’t possibly work out for her. That’s the problem.”

That’s Cleveland in a nutshell. We knew that a big dual-stadium project wasn’t really going to serve the city, but we did it anyway. We knew that Tower City would eat downtown, but we did it anyway. We know that a new convention center will suck millions annually for decades to come–and that the Medical Mart idea is a fraud–but… yeah.

On the other hand, I’m not so sure a lack of ideas and discussion and consensus from the community is the underlying problem. I believe a great deal of it is plain and simple corruption, which (among other things) kills the incentive to innovate. Why should anyone participate in policy discussions when we know the outcome is guaranteed to be crooked? What good is finding the right path when we know it won’t be followed?

Jail the crooks first. The rest will follow.