Elected officials should go beyond loudest opinions

Special interests dominate the general interest in government decisions at all levels. One reason is that they are intensely interested in an issue while the general interest is diffuse.

At the local level, special interests show up at meetings to make their position known and may make campaign contributions in addition to achieve their result. What happens is that the special interests typically win. This is one reason why governments tend to have a larger pension obligation than they otherwise would.

Some of these interests seek an additional benefit, some seek to stop something from being done. The occasion for this letter is the proposed gas station at Costco in Novato. Neighbors resist. They most always do. Building almost anything locally specific has gotten very hard to get approved.

On the other hand, some positive projects are spread over a larger area. The example that comes to mind is the bike path across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. By showing up and lobbying, a relatively small group of good people have gotten these paths built at great costs although they may not be in the general interest. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

I propose that, in any matter of controversy brought before a local governing body, the decision should not be made without a broader view than that of those who “show up.” An example of this might be a random survey by email. One might be taken periodically on pending spending issues or permits being sought. A newspaper might do this and publish its results.

The method need not be wholly random or systematic, but neither is the expression at board meetings or by petitions. At least there would be a broader reflection of the general interest and likely better decisions.

— Rick White, Novato