American Singapore(s): Competent city governance hiding in plain sight
Everyone talks about Singapore as an effective (but some say cold) governance model. Many people wish that American cities and towns could follow Singapore's example. However, the ingredients of its success can already be found throughout America. With plenty of cities delivering impressive results. While dysfunction dominates headlines, pockets of quality deserve more attention:
Carmel, Indiana, where Mayor Jim Brainard has transformed a Rust Belt suburb into a nationally recognized, amenity-rich community. Through strategic investments in infrastructure, parks, arts, and urban design, Brainard exemplifies the ambitious, proactive leadership that characterizes Singapore’s success.
In Houston, Texas, a coordinated, housing-first approach has reduced homelessness by over 60% in a decade. This collaboration among city, county, and non-profit stakeholders reflects Singapore's integrated, goal-oriented governance style.
Las Vegas, Nevada, has tackled a historic drought by pioneering water conservation strategies, cutting per capita usage by nearly half despite rapid population growth. This focused, proactive local governance showcases how cities can address significant environmental challenges through effective management and stakeholder engagement.
These success stories suggest that the formula for Singapore's effectiveness— active problem-solving and long-term thinking—is alive and well in many U.S. communities. Celebrating and documenting homegrown models of competent city governance is the first step in determining whether we can create an American Singapore.
Carmel, IN: Rust Belt Cities Can Have Nice Things
In an era where cities and states struggle to deliver results, one Indiana city stands out as an exception: Carmel, aka "The Internet's Favorite Small City".
Over seven terms, outgoing Republican mayor Jim Brainard transformed the city through significant investments in infrastructure, public amenities, services, and more.
The result? A generic sprawlburg became an award-winning, nationally recognized community.
Why it matters: Carmel proves we still have the know-how to deliver local infrastructure projects. The key is improving community quality for existing residents rather than just cutting taxes or focusing on the "economy."
A few of the nice things:
140+ roundabouts nearly eliminated traffic lights
Grew parks from <100 to 1000+ acres
Developed multiple walkable urban districts like the Arts & Design District, Midtown, and City Center
Built a $175M concert hall called the Palladium and installed lots of public art
Took on $1.4B in debt ($14k per capita) to invest in infrastructure and amenities
Wide multi-use paths.
A city-run water utility with lower rates and no drought restrictions.
Yes, but: Taking on that much debt is risky and would give austerity hawks a heart attack, especially those like long-term resident Mike Pence, who ran an austerity-focused government as Indiana's governor. A recession or the Fed's post-COVID higher interest rates could cause many fiscal problems, though debt is more affordable for Carmel's high-income tax base.
The big picture: Carmel followed a playbook different from most Indiana GOP, which focused on cutting taxes and regulation.
These policies have led to declining incomes, low educational attainment, crumbling infrastructure, and social problems across much of the state.
Carmel's approach of investing in place, people, and responsive governance has delivered far better results. It's now a highly educated, high-income city.
Brainard and Carmel aren't the only ones: Despite post-bankruptcy fiscal constraints and a hostile state government (at least until Governor Whitmier), Detriot has seen infrastructure and amenity improvements under Mayor Mike Duggan, but it still has a long way to go. Â
Bottomline: Brainard and Carmel prove there's a path for cities to start delivering nice things again—if they are willing to take it. However, it requires being willing to invest money and political capital and sticking with a long-term vision.
Houston's Non-profit Orchestra: Conducting a Fragile Symphony of Service to Tackle Homelessness
Houston has slashed homelessness by 64% over 12 years through a uniquely coordinated system involving the city, county, and 100+ non-profits.
Outreach teams connect people to services and housing. 90% are still housed after a year.
However, critical federal COVID funds have dried, and a new mayor is causing some nervousness.
Why it matters: As homelessness explodes in many cities, Houston's "The Way Home" model proves significant reductions are possible with the right approach and collaboration.
By the numbers:
Homelessness down from 8,500 to 3,200 (1,200 unsheltered)
64% drop in 12 years, 17% last year alone
90% still housed after one year
There is almost no state funding; the city provides no general funds, and the county $2.6M
Coordination between the city, Harris County, two other counties, 100+ non-profits
How it works: "The Way Home" flips the script from other cities:
A centralized system assesses needs and matches them to services/housing.
Focus on the most visible, costliest cases - single men, encampments.
Housing first, then wrap around services—$18K/year vs. $72K+ for E.R., jail, etc.
Non-profits must take all referrals and focus on overall goals vs their programs.
Business leaders back the effort, and police are part of the solution—I.D. Cards, a homeless outreach team, and targeted encampment closures.
The intrigue: Houston officials bristle at the idea that the city's lack of zoning (and thus NIMBY opposition) helps. But it doesn't hurt. Affordable housing is also easier to find than in high-cost coastal cities.
What they're saying: Chicago, New York, LA and other cities now look to Houston as a model. Even Dallas saw a 32% drop after hiring Houston consultants.
Yes, but Federal COVID funds that housed 12,000 more are expiring, and a leadership transition has some nervous priorities that could change.
Marc Nichols, CEO of Coalition for the Homeless, is retiring
Houston has a new mayor at the time of writing after former Mayor Sylvester Turner's been term-limited
Case in point: The new Centrist Democrat Mayor, former state Sen. John Whitmire, touts a different model focused more on temporary shelter than permanent housing, like the less successful and more external funding-dependent "Haven of Hope"
Flashback:
2010s: Stung by HUD criticism, then-Mayor Annise Parker convened an advisory council, secured business support, forced change
Made ending veteran homelessness a priority - housing 357 in 100 days.
Adopted "housing first," made city departments work together
Non-profits resisted but came around as a centralized approach worked.
Past Failures: Most cities fail to coordinate housing authorities, homeless response, law enforcement, and services. Opposition to housing (both homeless and market rate) is also fiercer and often cuts across political identities. It remains to be seen if Houston's model remains an exception.
Salt Lake City was Housing First's primary success case and pioneer until political powers decided to cut and break the program.
California has massive failures with Housing First because Californian cities refuse to build the required housing, cannot even track funding, and are unwilling to rein in non-profits' worst excesses.
The bottom line: Houston's success was (again) driven by strong leadership willing to spend political capital and force change. Keeping it going will require new leadership willing to do the same or result in the same failures as Salt Lake City, California, and others.
Las Vegas' winning water governance strategy.
Faced with a historic drought, Las Vegas has emerged as a model of effective water governance and conservation.
Strong leadership and innovative policies have cut water use by 48% in 20 years despite 750,000 new residents.
The city's proactive, data-driven approach offers a roadmap for other water-stressed regions.
Why it matters: As climate change strains water resources, competent governance is critical. Las Vegas shows what's possible with the right policies and political will.
By the numbers:
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) has reduced per capita water use from 199 to 110 gallons/day since 2002
Nevada's Colorado River allocation was cut by 7B gallons (25K acre-feet) last year; more cuts are likely
SNWA's 2035 goal: 86 gallons/person/day (vs. 100+ U.S. avg)
The strategy:
Data-driven decision making: 2002 drought & record water use prompted aggressive conservation plan
Targeting biggest users: Incentives & mandates for landscaping (73 gal/sq ft/yr), golf courses, casinos
Carrots & sticks: $3/sq ft to replace grass; bans on turf in front yards (by 2027) & new courses
Adapting: Xeriscaping, water-smart tech, limits on pool size (600 sq ft)
Engaging stakeholders: Casinos, residents, utilities, and developers are all part of the solution
Investing in reuse: 99% of indoor water is treated & returned to Lake Mead via wetlands or reused by utilities
The result: a city embracing its desert setting and changing mindsets about water use—even on the Strip.
Yes, but: Massive political pushback, as many businesses want to avoid paying for the required upgrades and water prices. What's worse, a vocal minority of locals is just hellbent on what they feel is their given right to waste water and not pay for it.
The big picture: From infrastructure to incentives to regulation, SNWA, and local officials pull every lever to manage a dwindling resource. It's a case study in water governance.
Strip resorts use <8% of area's water; 99% recycled
New technology like wastewater recycling explored with other utilities
Meanwhile: 40 million people in 7 states depend on the Colorado River. As the megadrought persists, the Bureau of Land Management has asked states to cut use by up to 4 million acre-feet/year.
Arizona: Cities have begun to adapt to some of Las Vegas's techniques, such as banning lawns on new developments.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs terminated state land leases that have given a Saudi-owned farm nearly unfettered access to pump groundwater for years.
On the other hand, suburbs are being built without water sources, and rather than adapting to the situation, residents refuse to adjust and demand that cities provide water.
California: Massive farming families and groups are hellbent on monopolizing water for themselves
Bottomline: Despite no silver bullet, Las Vegas offers hope that even desert cities can thrive in a drier future with proper governance using existing tools and techniques. Like in other cases, the key is political capital and willingness to force change.
Blackpill
The real lesson is that effective governance requires strategic investments and active management who understands that cities need continuous work and diligence. An under-discussed key to these successes is that most existing civil and non-profit workers want to do a good job, and, given the chance, they will do so.
What makes this so bitter is the lack of competent leadership and a system that doesn't like to reward quality work.
Two main obstacles frequently impede progress:
There is a significant lack of understanding about what's possible and the skillsets required for active city management. This knowledge gap persists due to a lack of training, comprehensive guidance, or civil mentorship paths. You are elected, and most of the time, you are on your own as a leader.
A powerful cross-political spectrum benefits from bad passive governance for various reasons. The Right often pushes for a low tax/low services model that can neglect community needs; the Center undermines successful programs to appease specific constituencies, the desire for "consensus," or personal distaste; and the Left prioritizes optics over quality, enabling bad faith non-profit executives to pursue their agendas.
Bottomline
While competent governance and the desire for better services may cut across political lines, cross-partisan interests benefit from the current system and can make meaningful change difficult.
The prevailing model of austerity, low taxes, and limited government in many Republican-led states and cities has often failed to improve the quality of life. Meanwhile, Democratic-led cities struggle to effectively address issues like homelessness, housing affordability, and public safety despite greater willingness to invest, just not in actual services and infrastructure.
The success stories of Carmel, Houston, and Las Vegas are notable but certainly not the norm. Many leaders face significant challenges in overcoming systemic barriers to progress, spearheaded by bad actors from all over the political spectrum.
The principles of strategic investment, data-driven decision-making, and collaboration across sectors are sound but not always easy to implement. Leaders must have the courage, vision, and integrity to challenge the status quo and prioritize the long-term well-being of their constituents.
What to watch: As cities and states grapple with complex challenges, the demand for competent leadership will grow. However, the supply of leaders willing and able to deliver tangible results is more scarce than water in a drought. The path toward effective governance, as demonstrated by innovators like Carmel, Houston, and Las Vegas, requires a willingness to break from the norm and overcome opposition.
Ultimately, the blackpill is that the current system often rewards bad governance for several reasons, making it difficult for even the most well-intentioned leaders to effect meaningful change, let alone develop new ones. The only thing we can (hopefully) start with is to try to document the success cases, practices, and principles while we can