A comment by decorahnews.com's Paul Scott about Short Street--and more

Planned improvements of Short Street will be discussed by the city's Streets Committee at 6:30  p.m.Tuesday.

decorahnews.com's Paul Scott has been reading reader e-mails about the Short Street project--and weighs in with this comment.

There is not yet an "Occupy Decorah" protest.  But that doesn't mean that the same emotions involved in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement haven't found their way to Decorah.  Specifically, the emotion that our leaders don't always have our interests at heart.

If you think that conclusion is not valid, read this comment from decorahnews.com reader Beth: "I am saddened by the fact that our city officials think it is OK to just create a project, have engineers design it, and THEN show it to the property owners and say this is what we are going to do and this is the amount the property owner will have to pay for this project that the property owner didn't even want or have a say in creating.  Yes, there is a meeting November 1st, but the city is already decided--they will listen and nod their heads (just as they did with the Division Street project) BUT they will not change their plans, or if they do, it will be minimal."

My comment today is not about Short Street--although it certainly will discuss Short Street.  My comment is about the way political decisions get made and the way the public views them.  I think it's time we discuss the growing feeling that our political system is breaking down.

Part of this is due to the changing attitudes of the public.  As we become more polarized as a society, any decision that doesn't align 100 percent with our beliefs is seen as a "loss."  It's interesting to me that Beth already is discounting any possible compromise on Short Street plans as "minimal."

But our elected officials have to serve a variety of interests.  The city council is rightly concerned not only about the impact the street project will have on neighboring property owners, but the impact it will have on motorists who drive Short Street.  Ideally, city council members would find a solution that would take into consideration both concerns.

But the other part of this is due to the reaction of elected officials to the changing attitudes of the public.  As the public becomes more polarized, so do our elected bodies.  Even locally we see the rise of elected officials who think "The public elected me because I think a certain way, so I am not interested in compromises--I'll continue to do what I think is right until the voters kick me out of office."

Political scientists call this "playing to the base," but it's really a view of governing that sees compromising as a weakness or liability.

But here is my hope for the Short Street discussion: that the public will realize that the city council is trying to do what's best for the entire community and the city council will realize that Short Street isn't just about engineering plans--it's about a lot of different important issues involving the city.

Besides, if both sides do a good job of talking to one another, we won't have any "Occupy Short Street" protest!