Tuesday, North Liberty voters will have an opportunity to change their city government structure by enacting a ward system (wherein voters in four parts of the city elect council members to represent them) and the whole of the city directly elects a mayor and two at-large council members.
I have been thinking, as an outsider, what I'd do, if I were in a North Libertarian's shoes. I would think it would be tempting to change the form of government because of how dysfunctional it appears to have been in the recent past. A good question to ask is what would be gained by a ward system?
The single benefit I can see is it would allow true district representation--that is one person to represent the viewpoint of a ward. The downside is that the whole of the city's interests might not be served if pork barrel politics take place. For instance, if Ward A council member wants a park and Ward C council member wants unfettered development, there is likely to be horse-trading to accomplish these dissimilar goals--neither of which may be in the city's overall interest. It could reasonably argued also, that a ward system could lead to gridlock if council members dig in their heels over pet projects. Finally, regardless of where a person lives, the whole of the council does make decisions that effects everyone. Does it make sense for only people in one area of town to choose a representative for them when who they pick also is a vote for the whole of the city?
In cities like Chicago where there are aldermen, this form of government has been known to be very inefficient, not to mention corrupt.
Obviously the current form of government has its problems, but it is the result of personality and philosophy differences, no the form of government that is to blame.
If I were in North Liberty, I'd stick with the form of government and work on electing officials that will work together in a way that benefits the community.
At the very least, get out there and vote!
Showing posts with label Local Solutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local Solutions. Show all posts
Monday, June 11
Friday, February 9
Lessons from the Pioneers: Tackling Global Warming at the Local Level
From New Rules
As of January 2007, 355 mayors in communities representing over 54 million Americans in 49 states have signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement (formalized in June 2005). Participating cities agree to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 to at least 7 percent below 1990 levels. The number of communities involved promises a diversity of strategies and a steep learning curve as communities learn from one another what works, and what doesn’t work.
We surveyed the climate change activities in 10 cities to find out how well these “Kyoto cities” were doing in meeting their goals and what strategies and methodologies they were using. The overriding conclusion is that, despite their commitment and their elaboration of significant programs, reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels will be a major challenge. Many cities will likely fail in their attempts unless complementary state and federal policies are put in place. Our findings include:
The methodologies and assumptions used to create GHG inventories differ among communities, making comparisons between cities problematic. Convenient access to the data was sometimes lacking. A standard GHG estimation methodology is not yet in place, but useable models exist. Convergence and standardization may come soon. Transparency of assumptions is critical.
In all cities, community-wide emissions have risen since 1990, sometimes dramatically. Based on progress to date, it is unlikely that more than one or two of our ten cities and quite possibly none, will reduce their GHG emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Overall emissions increases ranged from 6.5 percent to 27 percent from 1990 baseline measurements. An exception was Portland, Oregon, which reports a tiny 0.7 percent increase above the 1990 baseline.
Almost all of the cities we surveyed were expecting to realize a significant portion of their GHG reductions as a result of actions taken by higher levels of government (e.g. a state-level renewable portfolio standard or an increase in federal fuel economy standards). Relying too heavily on strategies out of the city’s direct control could stunt creative local solutions and inhibit the city’s investments in energy-related projects that have ancillary economic and environmental benefits.
Cities are not investing significant amounts of their own money to reduce GHG emissions. This may be understandable, given tight budgets, but cities should remember that energy-related investments, unlike many public investments, repay themselves, often in relatively short time frames.
As of January 2007, 355 mayors in communities representing over 54 million Americans in 49 states have signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement (formalized in June 2005). Participating cities agree to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2012 to at least 7 percent below 1990 levels. The number of communities involved promises a diversity of strategies and a steep learning curve as communities learn from one another what works, and what doesn’t work.
We surveyed the climate change activities in 10 cities to find out how well these “Kyoto cities” were doing in meeting their goals and what strategies and methodologies they were using. The overriding conclusion is that, despite their commitment and their elaboration of significant programs, reducing GHG emissions below 1990 levels will be a major challenge. Many cities will likely fail in their attempts unless complementary state and federal policies are put in place. Our findings include:
The methodologies and assumptions used to create GHG inventories differ among communities, making comparisons between cities problematic. Convenient access to the data was sometimes lacking. A standard GHG estimation methodology is not yet in place, but useable models exist. Convergence and standardization may come soon. Transparency of assumptions is critical.
In all cities, community-wide emissions have risen since 1990, sometimes dramatically. Based on progress to date, it is unlikely that more than one or two of our ten cities and quite possibly none, will reduce their GHG emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Overall emissions increases ranged from 6.5 percent to 27 percent from 1990 baseline measurements. An exception was Portland, Oregon, which reports a tiny 0.7 percent increase above the 1990 baseline.
Almost all of the cities we surveyed were expecting to realize a significant portion of their GHG reductions as a result of actions taken by higher levels of government (e.g. a state-level renewable portfolio standard or an increase in federal fuel economy standards). Relying too heavily on strategies out of the city’s direct control could stunt creative local solutions and inhibit the city’s investments in energy-related projects that have ancillary economic and environmental benefits.
Cities are not investing significant amounts of their own money to reduce GHG emissions. This may be understandable, given tight budgets, but cities should remember that energy-related investments, unlike many public investments, repay themselves, often in relatively short time frames.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)