By Matt Silverman
Colorado’s debates over land use, energy development and public space have become increasingly polarized. Every local decision is treated as a moral showdown, with success measured only by whether one side wins outright. But governing is not activism, and it is not performance. Governing is the work of dealing with reality — even when reality is inconvenient.
Few recent issues illustrate this better than the Erie Town Council’s decision on the Draco oil and gas project. The council’s vote angered vocal critics, but it demonstrated something too often missing in local politics: a willingness to make the best available choice once circumstances have changed.
By the time Draco returned to Erie’s council chambers, the state’s Energy and Carbon Management Commission had already approved the project after years of review. Many residents wished it had never reached that point. But wishing does not change the law, the regulatory process or the state’s authority. The question before Erie was no longer whether drilling would occur. It was whether the town would negotiate protections and significant monetary payments for the town — or walk away and surrender what leverage remained.
The council chose to negotiate. And because it did, Erie secured real, tangible benefits: additional land, inspection authority, commitments to plug abandoned wells at no cost to Erie, immediate financial compensation and substantial future royalty revenue. These gains do not erase concerns about drilling near neighborhoods. But they do reflect a clear-eyed understanding of the situation. Rejecting the agreement would not have stopped the project. It would simply have guaranteed a far worse outcome for Erie.
Some activists now want to overturn the council’s decision through a referendum. But that would leave Erie with the impacts of drilling and production, but none of the financial, environmental or civic benefits of the deal. To borrow from Dolly Parton, Erie would get the rain but not the rainbow. This is the heart of responsible governance: recognizing when leverage has shifted and using what remains to protect the community. Erie’s council did exactly that. It refused to indulge symbolic gestures that feel good but accomplish nothing. Instead, it delivered practical results.
Boulder’s recent vote on the future of its municipal airport reflects a similar willingness to confront reality rather than avoid it. The council did not close the airport; it could not. Any closure would require years of coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration and careful financial planning. What the council did was acknowledge that indefinitely postponing the conversation no longer serves the public.
Supporters of the airport see a valuable transportation asset and a link to Boulder’s aviation heritage. Others see 179 acres of publicly owned land that could someday meet broader community needs. Rather than clinging to the status quo simply because the path forward is complicated, the council chose to begin evaluating whether a different future better reflects today’s priorities. That’s not radical. It’s responsible.
Neither Erie nor Boulder delivered decisions that made everyone happy. But that’s because neither issue offered a perfect outcome. Our political culture increasingly treats compromise as weakness and treats leaders who adjust to changing circumstances as “sellouts.” Meanwhile, those who refuse to acknowledge reality are praised for “standing on principle.” But principles matter only when they improve outcomes.
Local governments exist to solve problems — not to make statements. They must operate within existing laws, court rulings, state regulations and financial constraints. Citizens can advocate for broader policy changes, but councils must govern within the world as it is. That often means disappointing supporters.
The Erie and Boulder decisions remind us that leadership is rarely about choosing between good and bad options. More often, it means choosing between imperfect alternatives while keeping the community’s long-term interests foremost. In both cases, the councils accepted that some battles had already been decided — or that avoiding difficult choices would only make future decisions harder. Instead of chasing symbolic victories, they focused on securing the best practical outcomes for the people they serve.
That may not satisfy the loudest voices. But it is exactly what good local government is supposed to do.
Matt Silverman lives in Boulder and is semi-retired.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email.