Last month, Vox published a compelling piece by Sean Illing titled “How America made it impossible to build,” based on his interview with Marc Dunkelman, author of Why Nothing Works. The article and podcast probe a common frustration in U.S. civic life: the widespread inability to deliver infrastructure, even when there’s broad agreement that something should be built.
Illing and Dunkelman focus on what they call a crisis of government capacity. The point is not that we lack money or political will — though both matter — but that the very structure of governance in the U.S. has evolved to inhibit action. Layers of well-intentioned checks, review requirements, and public input channels have accumulated into a system where decision-making is so diffused that nearly any stakeholder can delay or derail a project.
That diagnosis has particular relevance for municipal leaders, who must manage this complexity while trying to deliver results.
A procedural thicket that stymies action
As Dunkelman puts it, we’ve built “a governing regime designed to stop government from doing harm. And it largely succeeded. But it also made government far less able to do good, especially at scale.” What began as a response to overreach — think Robert Moses or mid-century federal urban renewal — has calcified into institutional inertia.
This evolution plays out at the city level in the form of endless environmental reviews, duplicative permitting, and litigation risks that discourage ambitious planning. These hurdles are not ideological; they stem from structural features of governance that cut across partisan lines.
The challenge for cities: balancing inclusion with execution
The tension between democratic inclusion and administrative capacity is not new. What’s different today is that local governments face acute pressure — from housing shortages to transit decay — yet lack the authority and institutional bandwidth to respond decisively. Many cities continue to operate under regulatory frameworks written decades ago, designed for a different political and demographic context.
In this environment, local reform isn’t optional. It’s essential.
Policy directions for municipal reform
1. Clarify and consolidate approval authority
City governments should assess where fragmented review processes can be streamlined. Consolidated permitting offices and interagency coordination teams can reduce delays without bypassing accountability.
2. Modernize public engagement protocols
Participation should remain robust, but cities can benefit from setting clear timelines for input and limiting discretionary approvals where zoning already permits development.
3. Invest in institutional talent and continuity
Project delays often stem from turnover or understaffing in planning and engineering departments. Cities should treat technical expertise as a long-term asset, not a variable cost.
4. Make delivery metrics visible
Performance dashboards and post-mortems on major projects — including what caused delays or overruns — can guide future improvements and build public trust.
Reform that respects both voices and outcomes
The Vox piece suggests that the solution is not to swing back toward unchecked power, but to rebuild state capacity with procedural tools better suited to today’s expectations. Cities have a real opportunity to lead this shift. By designing processes that respect public input but also empower timely decisions, they can restore confidence in local government’s ability to get things done.
Rebuilding capacity is not a call to bypass safeguards. It is, instead, an argument to rethink them — to ensure that participation supports progress rather than obstructs it.
Dome, Convention Center are the opposite of ‘regional assets’