There are times when public works projects in a small town have a kind of Andy Hardy ‘let’s put on a show’ quality to them, where there’s a huge effort of time and publicity about a current project – a new building, for example.
There are two measures of a city that are good indications of community well-being: that the community is prosperous and government doesn’t obstruct economic opportunity, and the ordinances and regulations of the city are fairly enforced.
If, by these two standards, a city is doing well, then officials can confidently say that they have discharged their duties well.
By either of these measures, Whitewater is a struggling community, more even than some neighboring, rural towns.
Over one in four children in the city live in conditions of poverty, and the city’s poverty rate is above that of nearby towns. There is prosperity in Whitewater, surely, but it’s hardly a general one. Some have gained, yet countless others are impoverished.
As for the enforcement of our ordinances, there are few who are satisfied with enforcement. The typical criticism of a small town is that laws are enforced with bias and favoritism. Incompetence and lethargy are possible explanations, too.
There are some who contend that we have a problem of under enforcement, and others – I would be one – who feel we are over-regulated. In fact, both may be true, depending on the ordinance: a town may have a problem of over and under enforcement.
It is in matters of enforcement that management slowly gives way to governance. By degree, it’s no longer a matter of making sure the trains run on time, but assuring that fare-paying passengers have an equal chance to board.
I can’t say that the city’s leaders have done either well. Community meeting after community meeting only confirms the result: the same problems are topics at every discussion, unimproved despite the celebration of our city manager as someone of vision, etc. (One presumes his vision is sharpest at a very great distance, far beyond the actual experiences of the residents in the town he manages.)
One would be wrong to think that a city leader is necessarily closer to his fellow residents in a small town. We have no elected mayor, but instead a city manager. Here one imagines that being closer to one’s fellow residents involves more than talking to the same small circle of people in a rural town of thousands, or relying on The Same (Safe) People Everytime.
The image of a small town is that of a folksy and popular elected mayor; many small towns have, instead, the ersatz humility of an unelected, small-town bureaucrat.
If we don’t concern ourselves with general prosperity and equitable enforcement of limited regulations, then what do find most of concern?
1. Spending large amounts (of taxpayer money or in public debt) as a measure of how advanced, sophisticated we are. The amount spent becomes its own measure of success, with the cost and benefit to the community almost secondary.
As though, necessarily, ten million spent must be better than nine million.
2. What we build at taxpayer expense. If we build something big or new, that becomes justification enough. A new building, an Innovation Center, say, would look great, and comes with a great name, too.
3. Self-Description. There’s great concern that we describe ourselves in the most affirmative, most supportive way. It’s as though we are merely the sum of our self-selected adjectives. To speak in less than superlative terms is to speak inappropriately.
I see no reason to think that we’ll talk ourselves to prosperity, but we keep trying.