Government for the People Means Listening Twice

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We all know those words. They set the standard for what democracy is supposed to look like. But what happens when policy drifts away from that principle?

Every so often, a policy comes along that exposes cracks in the system. Community members raise concerns, questions don’t get fully answered, and the final product doesn’t match the public’s expectations. People begin to wonder: was this really done with them in mind, or simply done to them?

When a new set of regulations has been proven to be problematic, a city should not circle the wagons and try to defend and deflect. There should be humility. There should be an ownership that things are not perfect and that the first attempt may have missed the mark. Continuous improvement should be the goal, achieved through a willingness to give it another go. To stall, delay, or defend only breeds mistrust and cynicism.

The real test of leadership isn’t whether we can stand by every decision—it’s whether we’re willing to revisit them. Doubling down on a flawed process may feel easier in the short term, but it undermines public trust. And once trust is gone, it is incredibly hard to earn back.

Precedent is important, yes. But precedent should never matter more than people. If our policies aren’t serving the community well, then they deserve another look. Admitting we can do better is not weakness; it is the essence of a government that truly serves its people.

The question we should all be asking isn’t whether re-examining a policy sets a precedent. The question is: do we value protecting past decisions, or do we value getting it right?