The City of Oak has an argument for how financial decisions should come from members who live in the city due to their better understanding of the city. This argument comes stemmed from how the city government had problems with the Better Oak Commitee who was workers who live outside of the city. The city government here has very strong points with evidence that support why these financial decisions should come from members who live within the city where they understand the aspects better. However, this argument fails to see the benefits from the opposing perspective. The city should allow for at least some financial perspective from those workers outside of the city for various reasons. Some benefits of hearing from those outside of the city include new perspectives, prior knowledge, and promoting change.
First, the city government of Oak City can hear new perspectives from those who are not residents. In other words, those not living in the city may have a differing idea that brings benefit where the city government may not have ever thought about. Why not hear from other’s opinions outside of the spectrum? There is a massive benefit here to hearing out new ideas from those who are not stuck in the box of living in Oak City where these outside perspectives can bring new life to bringing financial improvements. It is very easy to argue how those who live in the city itself know what is best, but there is a negative here of having bias and a closed off box opinion that may never change for the good of the city. Having fresh blood from outside of Oak City can bring positive aspects of new ideas that the city government may have never came up on their own due to being within the city rather than looking from outside of it. In other words, those seeing the city from the perspective of never living within it can bring new ideas for the better of Oak City. Why should the city council throw this idea away? There may be negatives attached to newer perspectives, but why not at least hear them out? There is another massive benefit that connects here which is prior knowledge.
Another benefit for the city government allowing for new ideas is prior knowledge. In other words, Oak City government allowing to have non city members come in and make the decision brings the benefit of these new faces having prior knowledge to working with other cities. People that are coming into a new city to discuss the financial decisions should and are likely qualified toward having prior knowledge of working with other cities for the same exact issues of finance. Does the Oak City council have these same prior experiences? One may argue yes, but how much experience and knowledge really is there if Oak City is failing financially and not having the proper solution yet? The Oak city government should look into professionals who have saved cities prior by bringing them in to help alleviate the failing financial issues that are occurring. If the current residents of Oak City are not having any resolutions, then there should be new faces with the experience to come in and help get the job done. There is more good to come from this than bad if Oak City is already having their massive financial issues needing to be fixed in the first place. The prior knowledge factor patterns right into another benefit which is promoting change.
Another benefit here is how Oak City government can promote change with new faces. In other words, new perspectives bring new change which is what is needed. With how much issues are happening from the finances of Oak City where the city government does not seem to have an answer, bringing in workers from outside of the city brings a much-needed change. One may argue how change does not mean it can automatically result in a positive aspect meaning the outside perspectives could hinder the finance problems even more. Despite this counterargument having a very strong point, how can Oak City improve their finance problem by keeping these same residents? The city government has not found a solution anyway, so why not bring in new faces to at least give their say and opinions for what change is needed for improvement? Bringing in change with outside members of Oak City can only promote new ideas for how to fix the finance issue of how the government should spend their money properly. Whether this is for the good or for the bad, there is already a glowing issue with the city governments spending that needs to be addressed whether that is from other residents or those from outside Oak City. There is more positives that outweigh the negatives here. Change can only happen with new faces which connects with the prior argument of new perspectives. There is less harm than foul with bringing in new faces from outside Oak City that are bringing change to the poor financial decisions the city government has made.
In conclusion, the initial argument from the Oak City government sees more negatives than positives for bringing in non-resident perspectives. With the prior issues the city government has had with non-residential perspectives creating disagreement, it makes sense for why they want to stay put. However, staying put in a situation that has its glaring financial spending issues does not solve the issue at all. Why not bring outside perspectives from others not in the city where they could bring new ideas that create potential benefits. There is new experience coming into help which only can help promote change. The city government of Oak City should allow for outside residents to come in.
