I’ll write this week, and afterward, about the 2008 proposed city budget. Before I begin, I’ll make a few remarks about our City Manager, Kevin Brunner. I’ve been asked if I dislike the City Manager because I’ve teased, occasionally, about his ‘inside-baseball’ manner. I do not dislike him; I have no strong opinion one way or the other. (One quick note: I understand from many people that he doesn’t like me, not one bit. I don’t care. My opinion of him does not depend on his opinion of me.)
Our current City Manager — and I mean this is a straightforward way — is very much the model of a competent, early twenty-first century planner. There’s strength in this for Whitewater, but risk, too. In style, manner, and thinking, he is similar to many managers in successful firms in Wisconsin. Whitewater has few people like him, but Wisconsin has many, and America still more.
He represents a clear departure from his predecessor, Gary Boden. Where Boden was publicly edgy and imperious, Brunner is publicly calm and controlled. Well-respected prior to his arrival, he’s well-liked now. That’s no easy feat in Whitewater: this is a town that too quickly turns on people, especially those from outside the city. Brunner exudes nothing so much as competence, and that’s meant to be a compliment.
I have three quick concerns about his approach. His presumptions rely too much on the public, and too little on the private. For better and worse, he has a public manager’s, rather than a private citizen’s, point-of-view. That’s why it’s easy for him to say that there are only ‘x’ number of development tools available, where ‘x’ is the sum of publicly-authorized financing tools. I cannot help but listen to him and think that he over-emphasizes greatly the importance of the public over the private.
Second, I doubt that all Whitewater will benefit as much from recent, publicly financed projects as Kevin Brunner, and others, hope. Our prior tax incremental districts have not lifted Whitewater from greater-than-average poverty, and I doubt that new ones will do so.
Finally, Whitewater has more than an economic problem; it has a regulatory, and enforcement-bias, problem. In this respect, we are more like the proverbial, flawed southern town than a responsible Midwestern city. Police and regulatory bias here is high, entrenched, and supported by a stubborn, selfish faction. No matter how serious the economic problems that we face, we have no challenge so great as the bias, over-reaching, and abuse of enforcement authority. Our City Manager is, first and foremost, a manager and planner, and not a reformer. In fairness, he lacks the authority that city-wide elective office would confer on a reform effort. In any event, it’s not his inclination. A commitment to politeness as a virtue, and not just a prudent behavior, leaves misconduct and bias unchallenged. More confrontation would not be a bad thing. Whitewater doesn’t need more Emily Post; we need more Hayek and Friedman. (There are ways in which libertarians look like conservatives, but others in which we seem more like progressives.)
A polite, well-planned future won’t break the hold of the town clique over life here; it will not produce a town large and vibrant enough to be beyond their control. They fear nothing so much as high growth, spontaneity, new people, and new ideas. Our polite and competent City Manager may not share their views, but it will take more than politeness and competence to turn this city around.