What constitutes good governance.

Is it direct democracy and populism? Is it technocratic, managerial stewardship? Is it nationalistic paternalism?

In the aftermath of the Palisades fire tragedy, this debate has intensified.

Amongst the noise, emotions, and ideological clashes, we seem to have forgotten the basics of what could be called the “hotel model” of governance.

• You (the government) serve your guests and honor the agreement you’ve made with them.

• This means providing good service, safety, and an enjoyable experience within your jurisdiction.

• You (the government) aggressively address anything or anyone that disrupts this enjoyment—be it threats to safety, inefficiency, or neglect.

That’s the basic framework.

Now, let’s apply this to California and the Palisades. If California were a hotel, its leadership would consider the last few days a monumental failure to uphold its contract with the people.

By the “hotel model,” such a failure would require two immediate actions:

1. Issuing significant refunds to compensate for the damage done.

2. Replacing the leadership team that allowed this to happen.

Frankly, both should happen.

What a tragedy this is—not just for the loss of life and property, but for the betrayal of what governance ought to operate.

GSTK @mprinparr