Once there was a town called Hitchbergh, which was governed by a City Council and Mayor Beeb. The town was crisscrossed by a grid of streets running north to south and east to west.

On the west side of Hitchbergh, a big new store opened called "WARMALT". Or maybe it was WALMART, something like that. Fearing the huge changes in traffic heading west toward the grand opening of WarMalt, the Mayor announced that all streets running east to west would now become ONE WAY, heading east. To prevent traffic violations during this exodus of shoppers, only one road would allow residents to travel west. In this way, traffic cops could concentrate on the single road flowing west. This would prevent all the accidents from hysterical shoppers careening towards sales, running over small children, cars flipping over, bonfires, riots, and especially lawsuits. This new Great Migrate Boulevard running west would be opened during regular business hours, but no westward movement would be allowed after hours or on any other streets.

Some residents objected to this new policy at a City Council meeting. They couldn't get around town like they used to. A few people who lived in town were so frustrated that they moved out. Others simply avoided the town because it was too difficult to navigate.

The City Council told them, "You can still get to War-Malt. We're not blocking you from travelling west, only asking you to use one road to get there, during the appropriate hours. And of course, pedestrian routes are still available."

It's really not the City Council's fault. The decision was made somewhere above them with the Mayor or city planners or maybe someone higher than that. Unfortunately complaints are mostly directed towards the City Council, since they are the only group accessible. You can leave a message for the Mayor or email him, but good luck getting any response.

Residents soon organized a petition against the policy.

"You'll never get any changes that way," said the Chairman of the City Council. "It's too negative. Make positive suggestions if you really want things changed."

Now you've butted heads with the administrators of the city before*. They've made excellent progress in some areas, but they've also maintained some illogical policies. A few weeks after signing the petition and hearing that it was just as useless as past protests, you wander into a city council meeting and find them advising some residents on how to write a proposal for a massive westward-arcing bridge over the city.

The Chairman of the City Council told the citizens, "Don't say that a new bridge is needed over the city due to the foolish one-way plan. Just say that a bridge will improve traffic flow."

This solution might work! But doesn't it make you wonder why residents were discouraged from protesting in the first place? And why are amateurs forced to become city planners? If the City Council understands that the status quo harms their town, why don't they form a plan of their own? Are they afraid to bring a plan to the Mayor, or whoever really decides these things?

If you really want to solve the problems created by the Mayor, you must stop criticizing her and create solutions for City Council to present to the Mayor. If I thought our fixes could ever compensate and overtake the Mayor's mistakes, that's what I'd do.