Cities get what cities vote for. If they naively vote for "good intentions" over practical policy, there's a cost to the lessons learned. The cost may exceed the value, particularly if the lessons could be called self-evident. The cost can also be ruinous (e.g. Portland, S. Francisco.). In the long view, we can hope for correction and that the philosophical observer can say, "Well, that didn't work out like we thought it would", but this is cold comfort to the victims in the intervening years and the opportunity cost for the city at large.

From the outside, the policies seem to defy all common sense. Doubling down on bad policy seems like foolishness, naivety, denial, complicity, or AOTA. When the plane's computer is saying 'terrain.', 'terrain.', at what point do you decide to pull up, and what does that even look like in Balitmore? The complexity of Baltimore's problems brings out the defeatist in anyone, but I think there are some obvious starting points.

It reminds me of C.S. Lewis's statement about progress:

"Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.

If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."

Nearer to what are Baltimore's leader's trying to get?