Philip Howard

is have a clear hierarchy of authority to make decisions, where law is the framing, but whether a permit is given cannot be validated by law. Law is a framing for official authority, which is politically accountable. And today, we look at it as a matter of legal compliance. It's not a matter of legal compliance.

is have a clear hierarchy of authority to make decisions, where law is the framing, but whether a permit is given cannot be validated by law. Law is a framing for official authority, which is politically accountable. And today, we look at it as a matter of legal compliance. It's not a matter of legal compliance.

Courts should have almost nothing to do with it unless someone strays over the boundaries and makes decisions they're not authorized to make. What's difficult about this is that there's so much law in the books now that trade-off judgments are themselves unlawful.

Courts should have almost nothing to do with it unless someone strays over the boundaries and makes decisions they're not authorized to make. What's difficult about this is that there's so much law in the books now that trade-off judgments are themselves unlawful.

Sometimes you have to decide which is more important, the endangered species or the power. No one has authority to make that choice. And courts get involved and say, oh, no, you've got to honor the desert tortoise or whatever it is. You can't put in this wind farm or solar field or whatever. There's no lowest common denominator system that works. It's always trade-offs.

Sometimes you have to decide which is more important, the endangered species or the power. No one has authority to make that choice. And courts get involved and say, oh, no, you've got to honor the desert tortoise or whatever it is. You can't put in this wind farm or solar field or whatever. There's no lowest common denominator system that works. It's always trade-offs.

And all these laws, in effect, prohibit trade-offs. So how can you run a society when you can't make trade-off decisions?

And all these laws, in effect, prohibit trade-offs. So how can you run a society when you can't make trade-off decisions?

Yes. And if we don't trust the person, then have an authority mechanism. So one of the things I recommend is that we replace years of what lawyers call ex ante process hearings and proceedings that go on for years and stuff. that we have some of that, because public transparency is a good thing to have. And the environmental review is, in general, a good thing within reason.

Yes. And if we don't trust the person, then have an authority mechanism. So one of the things I recommend is that we replace years of what lawyers call ex ante process hearings and proceedings that go on for years and stuff. that we have some of that, because public transparency is a good thing to have. And the environmental review is, in general, a good thing within reason.

But it should be dozens of pages, not thousands of pages, because that just obscures. It just gives no pebble left unturned. You end up getting lost in the detail. So you replace most of the process before a decision with transparency, a decision, and then review by some authority group.

But it should be dozens of pages, not thousands of pages, because that just obscures. It just gives no pebble left unturned. You end up getting lost in the detail. So you replace most of the process before a decision with transparency, a decision, and then review by some authority group.

In the case of infrastructure, I recommended creating a national infrastructure board that would comment on big infrastructure projects and could approve them. That takes weeks. That doesn't take years. It's not a legal decision. It's a judgment call by some other group.

In the case of infrastructure, I recommended creating a national infrastructure board that would comment on big infrastructure projects and could approve them. That takes weeks. That doesn't take years. It's not a legal decision. It's a judgment call by some other group.

So if we're afraid that officials are going to be would-be Robert Moseses and put highways through good neighborhoods or whatever... then we can have a review mechanism with authority to veto them. So one of the things I found in a paper I wrote is that all of this process, depending on the area, increases the cost from two times to four times.

So if we're afraid that officials are going to be would-be Robert Moseses and put highways through good neighborhoods or whatever... then we can have a review mechanism with authority to veto them. So one of the things I found in a paper I wrote is that all of this process, depending on the area, increases the cost from two times to four times.

One, law can't govern. Humans govern. Law is a framework for governing. That requires a change. So the next thing, what is the change? We need to have a decade, not unlike the 1960s, but in this case, it's a decade of recodification and simplification so that people take back control of government. People, school teachers and principals can actually have authority to run the schools.

One, law can't govern. Humans govern. Law is a framework for governing. That requires a change. So the next thing, what is the change? We need to have a decade, not unlike the 1960s, but in this case, it's a decade of recodification and simplification so that people take back control of government. People, school teachers and principals can actually have authority to run the schools.

Transportation officials actually have the authority to give permits. And the third takeaway is, you know, right now we're in a period of vilification of government because it's bloated and it doesn't work and it's ineffective and it does need to get disrupted and replaced. But government is not the enemy.

Transportation officials actually have the authority to give permits. And the third takeaway is, you know, right now we're in a period of vilification of government because it's bloated and it doesn't work and it's ineffective and it does need to get disrupted and replaced. But government is not the enemy.