“10 ideas that could change our city,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, June 29 – July 5, 2012, 25.

CITY MANIFESTO

Cities are built by visionaries or economic necessities (trade routes, ports). Ours has a history of great men, from General Palmer to Stratton and Penrose, who have thought of making our town a better place to live for future generations. We don’t need a gold rush to have a vision, only some dedication and goodwill.

While the Mayor is busy cleaning up city administration after decades of benign neglect bordering on fiduciary delinquency, and City Council is figuring out its job description after changes in the city charter, let me dare dream.

First, as part of the city structural cleanup, we should divest ourselves from any and all entities that are not essential to our operation. Sell or lease Memorial Hospital, Utilities, and the Airport. There is a twofold urgency for this: ridding ourselves of entities we cannot manage efficiently or oversee responsibly, and providing funds to pay for all the ideas listed below. Lease revenues (or outright sale) should be set aside in a special account for long-term projects and initiatives without the need of additional taxes or fees.

Second, we should build on the presence of the USOC and focus on athletic activities. We cannot expect professional teams to move here, so instead we should become the center of handicap/special tournaments (including veterans). A downtown complex (perhaps in place of the Drake power plant) would revitalize the city and draw tourists from across America. Every major city (see Denver) has realized this fact.

Third, if indeed University of Colorado Health System takes over Memorial and opens a branch at UCCS, we should ask for it to become dedicated to sports medicine—training, nutrition, treatment. The synergy between USOC, UCCS, and MHS could become a national model. This is not about money but about an execution of ideas in the most efficient way, using the talent we have and responding to community needs.

Fourth, given the many veterans that we have in town, we should integrate them into the previous two ideas, whatever the conditions under which they are discharged. The military has some resources that could be part of what the city plans to do. Whether as participants or fans, veterans should be made to feel as part of the city. They cannot be heroes abroad and pariahs at home.

Fifth, get the business community more involved in education (K-12). Our very own Steve Schuck spearheaded the school voucher initiative that brought about charter schools around the state. The Chamber of Commerce should follow this lead and ensure that graduation rates from our school districts are no longer an embarrassment. School reform should be local (rather than the disastrous federal mandate of No Child Left Behind), but to be meaningful it requires local pressure so as to change entrenched attitudes.

Sixth, we have the bright light of an expanding UCCS, an engine of economic development that can produce new innovations. The Silicon Valley in California proves that academic centers are the foundations of business prosperity. Let our own Digital Rockies serve this role here.

Seventh, as we focus on our indigenous talents and brain-power, we should also take advantage of the natural beauty that surrounds us. Perhaps the leadership of local tourism should be placed in the hands of thirty-something that can generate the kind of excitement the future of our town can enjoy.

Eighth, since attracting tourists and newcomers is still our vision of growth, let’s stop urban or suburban sprawl and focus on the center of town. If you visit any great city in America, you begin with downtown, and not some faraway development. Urban “filling” would also reduce the pressure on our inadequate infrastructure—from sewage lines to fire and police stations.

Ninth, in order to combat the impression that we are religious extremists, let’s emphasize religious diversity and harmony, agreeing on some common religious principles. UCCS’s Center for Religious Diversity and Public Life is only a starting point; the city should foster such initiatives to foster tolerance.

Tenth, if we agree to adopt any of the above initiatives and change our mindset as an emerging mid-size city rather than a small town below Pike’s Peak, we need to promote civility among all stakeholders, from the Mayor to City Council, all the way to every department head and city employee, and the rest of us. We need to learn to exchange ideas passionately but respectfully.

If we execute only half of these ideas in the next year or two, it’ll be amazing. If we execute them all, we would become a model city rather than a national laughing stock of religious fanatics and narrow-minded conservatives. We deserve a better reputation than that. But we must earn it first.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Let’s use common sense,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, June 22 - 28, 2012, 19.

COMMON SENSE

Even the greatest logicians and scientists agree that the most sophisticated formulae can be explained in simple, common sense terms to anyone. If we agree that A is different from not A, or that if A leads to B, and B leads to C, that A therefore leads to C, we can communicate with each other. According to Laplace, “the theory of probabilities is at bottom nothing but common sense reduced to calculus.”

Communication between business partners or between the Mayor and Council is then something that can be achieved. In simple terms, without the aid of experts and specialists, any two people can exchange views and respond to those of others, even when disagreeing with each other.

This was the central idea that governed the writing of our founding fathers in regards to political life conducted by farmers and merchants. Benjamin Franklin warned against paying high salaries to congressional representatives so as not to attract professional politicians.

A farmer can understand the logic of an argument and see through its fallacies; a housewife knows do discern marketing fraud just as well as any expert; and the local retailer figures out quite easily if local politicians are bamboozling him or her. It’s really not that complicated, if you pay attention to common sense.

When esteemed colleagues in the academy tell me that what they work on is too complex to explain to someone like myself, I always encourage them to try. I can only imagine what they say to their unsuspecting students. And when they actually try, two things commonly happen.

Either their explanations make perfect sense; I then understand exactly what they are working on, because they indeed know their “stuff.” Or they fumble terribly, confusing themselves along the way, and ending up so frustrated that they give up. At this point I know they are full of it, and really camouflage their own pretenses with fancy words or formulae. Where is their common sense?

What’s true of the stuffy academic world is true of the public sphere as well. When economists fail to give a simple answer to the question: what should be done to stimulate the economy?, they only prove that theirs is indeed the dismal science or not a science at all. They are clueless, despite fancy computer programs that process mounds of data.

When politicians give similar vague answers to questions, such as: should we intervene in Syria now?, they betray their own insincerities. Of course geopolitical variables come into play: what about the Russians and the Chinese? What about Turkey and Iran? Can we afford a military engagement in another theater? But the complexity of the situation alone doesn’t justify not giving an answer at all.

What common sense forces us to do is get beyond the fancy wordings of our arguments and dissertations, and simply convey the values that guide us. Common sense can tease them out from the complex double-talk politicians have mastered over the years. Just tell us that you believe in personal responsibility and therefore want no government intervention, and we can get it.

But common sense also exacts a price: you must be consistent. You can’t say that you want the government off your back but then ask it to handle your retirement in the form of Social Security and Medicare. When Bush tried to privatize Social Security, even his fellow Republicans were not pleased (because of their constituents of senior citizens), and he had to give up on his initiative.

In some bizarre ways, no American president has been able to be consistent in the application of his ideology—compromises abound. So, why harp on local politicians and their inadequacies? Why chide the Council president, for example, who wonders why I don’t like him. Guess what, Mr. Hente, I don’t know you well enough to form a personal opinion about you. My complaint is always philosophical, that is, one rooted in the common sense idea of a Social Contract. Have you used it lately in your dealings with CSU?

Common sense tells me that there ought to be a division of labor between the Mayor and Council; it also tells me that each ought to be responsible for overseeing various government entities. That’s simple enough. What’s not so simple is how they perform their oversight jobs. No, expertise isn’t essential, but knowing what you vote on is: read the documents before you vote! As one can observe from CSU’s board meetings, unanimous votes are routine. Should they be?

Perhaps Emerson was right when he lamented that “common sense is not so common.” Let’s prove him wrong and find common ground in common sense for responsible governance.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who teaches the use of common sense. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com