Decentralized authorities to displace the centralized city authority would be the ideal solution. When a city's population gets large enough, it is no longer a city... it is effectively a state... and should be broken up into districts which are self-governing for a more ideal (and fair) distribution of governance... such that the rich catering bureaucrats of one district are not making decisions for other districts.
Decentralization is always a stronger solution for governance (if any such need for authority exists at all). A free market always provides the best solutions to any given problem... and even a free market of competing governance is better than a non-competitive one.
Hi @jbgarrison72
Appreciate your comment.
Personally the biggest problem with regulations I see is the fact, that regulators seem to focus on punishing "abusers" and not on building awareness of the public.
Woudn't you agree?
Yours, Piotr
Government has a limited set of tools to work with. For every carrot a government provides, it must somewhere obtain that carrot through the use of stick.
Government operates with the assumption that all resource managment is a zero sum game.
The free market assumes that new and greater value and resources can always be identified and cultivated.
Any "mixing" of these two polarized approaches yields varying degrees of success, but make no mistake, these two ideals are absolutely in opposition to each other. :)