Residents of Colorado Springs undertook a radical experiment in government | Hacker News Reader

Residents of Colorado Springs undertook a radical experiment in government

politico.com

36 pointsmolecule16 comments

It makes for a rare look into what happens when you finally elect the "just run government like a business" candidate. Whoops, turns out there's a reason we have different words for those two things. OTOH, that hospital deal, man, someone on the city council better have been getting some kickbacks if only to excuse such poor negotiating.

The politicians spend other people's money poorly so the people elect a businessman to stop spending money. The businessman stops spending most of the money but what he has he spends poorly. The people elect a politician who now only has the small amount of money left by the businessman and is forced to spend it wisely.

I think that is a resounding success.

The problem is that the populous cannot elect the "run it like a business" candidate twice. Your analysis says it was a success (and I'm not disagreeing), but they needed a different kind of candidate to come in and clean up. So though it might work once in a while, you couldn't make a "run it like a business" party/platform with any degree of success.

I am not sure if you are being astounded or astoundingly cynical.

I do not think this kind of success is repeatable. I also not convinced this wouldn't have been better with the last politician in the first place. I see no reason the last guy couldn't have shrunk budgets and spent what remained wisely.

There's almost two conclusions from the article:

- running government more like a business isn't necessarily a bad thing, and

- a ruthless business-man isn't necessarily the best suited person to do it

It seems like the only points where the businessman excelled were things external to the city, i.e. where negotiating with other entities, which makes sense.

I think the difference is that other parties approach a city as a business would, in an adversarial way; not necessarily in conflict, but with the clear knowledge that they are on opposing sides of a negotiation and neither is going to leave that table 100% happy. It's different when the Mayor is dealing with his City Council: they have to work and live together, and arguably should be working to the same goal; improving the city and making sure the City wins, not the Mayor or the Council.

I think that's where the business politicians routinely stumble; they're used to being purely in a win/lose environment, where very interaction is inherently a "I'm going to screw someone or get screwed" situation, whereas a lot of politics really shouldn't be about that. The whole point of Civil Service is working for the benefit of the community, not yourself or your particular department.

I also think this is why politicians suck at negotiating, because it's the opposite of what they're used to.

In short, as with most things, the Truth is somewhere in the middle.

Well, doesn't your 2nd point invalidate the first? My take is good business acumen != good governance acumen.

It's almost like saying a good singer can be a good pianist. Hey, they're both about making music, right?

Well maybe not...

Perhaps its not a binary thing. It seems an organization can be more business-like or government-like in a variety of ways.

I mean look at insurance companies and their draconian forms to be filled out in triplicate for the littlest thing and limited sign-up dates. They even earn their money like a government taking it from you on a schedule, with little obvious effect until it becomes apparent why their service is valuable (or not).

Then on the other hand look at government groups like the military at war, efficient command and control pure meritocratic objective seeking, if one group can't do it another can and does. Their efficiency is not to reach a financial goal first, it is to achieve some goal set by the civilian government despite active opposition from other people.

Perhaps rules mandating checking for outside bids to fight cronyism, provincialism and outright corruption are a good idea even in the most liberal governments. Perhaps ruthless unilateral control have no place even in the most right wing group. Perhaps government is too complex to be summed up in a single sentence.

Colorado Springs resident here. I think the article provided a pretty fair assessment of things, considering it addressed how [previous Mayor] Bach identified bad deals such as the Memorial Hospital deal and the power plant scrubber. This town's leadership in general has been dysfunctional for a long time; Bach wasn't the cure-all that many had hoped he would be.

Couple of additional thoughts:

Regarding the (new) Mayor's success in getting $250M for roads: what isn't mentioned is that the roads in this town are abysmal. When I lived in Northern Virginia many moons ago, I joked that I could always tell when I drove into DC by the effect on my car's handling. Having just come back from a vacation to that area, I can affirm that Colorado Springs has surpassed DC in this respect.

The neglect of the roads was another petulant move by the City towards voters, just like the streetlights.

Secondly, despite so often being painted as an arch-conservative western extension to the bible belt, Colorado Springs is a pretty tolerant, open-minded city. I'd suggest checking out the /r/ColoradoSprings section on Reddit, especially where people ask about how LGBT-friendly, etc the place is, and read the answers from some of the other locals. It isn't the town out of "Footloose".

A good read despite the ridiculous headline.

Colorado is an amazing place.

The article quotes a journalist:

>> “This town is so easily scammed,” says John Hazlehurst, himself a former councilmember and now a columnist with the Colorado Springs Business Journal. “Why? Because we’re hicks. It’s really that simple.”

No, I don't think that's fair. The people are nice, that's all.

>No, I don't think that's fair. The people are nice, that's all.

A statement that will offend voters in CA may not offend voters in CO. Getting in a public debate about the politically correct way to address any given group is typically frowned upon by voters not within a 2hr drive of the ocean (or gulf).

Edit: Politicians in CA should probably say this.

Being nice doesn't mean you need to be vulnerable.

Being uneducated or otherwise deficient is how you become vulnerable. That council members choice of words was a self portrayal and a critical one at that.

Honest and hard self-critique is incredibly valuable and likely earned that person a few votes.

Usually I down-vote political articles on HN but this one I like. It's balanced, good analysis, and really discusses government theory and management, as opposed to the usual partisan stuff we see.

While the article was kind of inconclusive, I found the pictures of 'notable people' inside quite amusing. I guess 'a guy in a business suit standing on the side of the road' is a good image for small town mayor.

How could it be conclusive? It is really hard to make objective declarations when messy things, like people, are involved.

How bizarre that this article is flagged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com