See, this is what I was talking about. There’s a reason that we employ representative democracy versus direct democracy at all levels of our government. While the former may be frustrating at times, the representative aspect of it keeps decision making from becoming a free for all. ChatGPT describes the advantage of representative democracy this way: “Decision-making is streamlined in a representative democracy. Instead of requiring all citizens to weigh in on every issue, representatives — who have the time and expertise — can focus on policymaking and governance.” Given that, citizens of Dillon, at some point, you’re gonna have to let the folks that we elected do their jobs without second guessing every decision. 

My case in point has to do with the council meeting held on March 25, at which it was agreed to transfer a town-owned parcel of land (Parcel A) to the Dillon Urban Renewal Authority landbank. According to the town’s engineer, this undertaking was basically a paperwork exercise that enables the council to more efficiently deal with that property going forward as they do their job in renewing the urban blight that Dillon’s core has become. Approving that transfer was a no-brainer. It positioned the town for whatever comes next for Parcel A, and the council voted accordingly. 

But comments at the urban renewal authority meeting gave some council members pause in moving the initiative forward in their secondary role as Dillon Urban Renewal Authority commissioners. The result? A travesty of governance in which the council, in its role as urban renewal authority commissioners, rejected the decision they’d made earlier in the day in their roles as town council members. 

The reason behind this whiplash decision making was presumably the input from three citizens who expressed concerns about the eventual decision about what to do with Parcel A. Reasonable comments having to do with the speed of development and ensuring that the town gets what those properties are worth were expressed by those concerned and engaged citizens. Following that, discussion about the fact that this initial bookkeeping step didn’t commit the town to any specific development direction at this point in time was held. I’m unsure whether those citizens actually want to keep those dilapidated buildings as is or are mostly concerned with the urban renewal process itself. Regardless, the result was demonstrative of one of the problems with direct democracy – you can’t please everyone and if you try to, nothing ever gets done. 

Ironically, our new council members, some of whom played a key role in the removal of three previous council members due to similar public concerns about the renewal process, must have felt themselves under pressure from that public input and ended up disagreeing with their own town council votes from earlier in the day. But with the slippery slope to impeachment requiring a mere 17 signatures, I guess I can’t really blame them for their hesitation to agree with themselves. After all, if they pissed off those three folks, Dillon’s disgruntled citizenry would already be nearly twenty percent of the way to a recall petition.  

The precedent set when we recalled those former council members over disagreement on the Porritt waterfront development was a bad omen for Dillon’s urban renewal efforts. I mean when you’ve got Bruce Butler, Scott Estill and yours truly, representing the left, right, and middle, all in agreement that we should let our representative democracy run its course, there might be something to that opinion. Personally, while I didn’t agree with the ballot initiative to squash the waterfront development, I did think it was a good example of citizen engagement over a controversial issue. But I also felt that once the council had been spanked for not being open enough to citizen input, voters should have allowed them the opportunity to learn from the experience and finish the rest of their term. 

My concern now is that those whose job it is to use their experience and common sense for the betterment of the community will find themselves paralyzed over even the most innocuous bureaucratic formalities. While I think the actions we see in the federal government today, the executive orders and DOGE initiatives, are examples of government run amok and ignoring public sentiment, the meetings on Dillon governance on March 25 are an example of what happens when representative government tips into something more akin to mob rule. 

While I’m all for public input, I do wonder what the metric is for deciding when enough has been garnered to move forward with the crucial task of updating our town core. The desire for this engagement must be balanced with a sense of urgency over urban renewal. These efforts aren’t just about giving the area a face lift but also about ensuring that the town positions itself economically for the future. There’ll be enough time for public input when council begins to address applications for development. Stalling progress over issues that don’t really warrant much discussion are not in the best interests of the town. 

Tony Jones' column "Everything in Moderation" publishes biweekly on Thursdays in the Summit Daily News. Jones is a veteran of the IT industry and has worked in the public and private sectors. He lives part-time in Summit County and Denver. Contact him at eimsummit@gmail.com.