My friend Mark Weiler, who sometimes refers to himself as ‘an acquired taste’, loaned me a book the other day — at the conclusion of a board meeting at Pagosa Peak Open School. (We both serve on the school’s governing board.) The book, written by Phillip Tetlock and Dan Gardner, is titled Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction, and it describes the various techniques used by people who seem to have a special knack for looking into the future and making relatively accurate predictions.
The book is mainly concerned with large-scale predictions. Political upheavals. The stock market. Global conflicts. Economic trends. And it embraces a generally ‘scientific’ approach to forecasting which — apparently — is not that typical among the people who make or rely on predictions.
1. Gather as much information as scientifically possible
2. Make a prediction based on that information
3. Update your prediction as new information becomes available
Step 3 is often left out of the process, say the authors. And so is Step 4. Especially Step 4.
4. Measure the results. Did you make an accurate prediction? What factors contributed to your success, or failure?
Mr. Weiler had asked the gathered meeting board and audience if anyone was interested in borrowing this book… considering that Pagosa Peak is now halfway through its third year of operation and the decisions made today, by the staff and the board and the students and the parents and the community in general, will determine the school’s future.
Our business manager, Chenni Hammon — who was part of the team that researched and wrote a 450-page charter school application, explaining to the Archuleta School District why the school should be authorized — explained to Mr. Weiler that the school founders had successfully used a deck of Tarot cards to guide them, and so far, that method appears to have produced acceptable results.
Science? Tarot Cards? Is one method better than another?
We’re running an article this morning, sent to us by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) predicting significant snowfall over the Martin Luther King Jr holiday weekend. I am guessing that CDOT did not use Tarot cards. But maybe they did. And maybe their results would have been comparable.
I’m curious about these questions, because I was recently appointed to the Town Planning Commission. In recent years, the main task of the Planning Commission has been to approve development projects, the approvals being based upon the Town’s Land Use and Development Code — the LUDC. Does the development meet the requirements detailed in the LUDC? If yes, then it ought to be approved. If not, then the developer should be sent back to the drawing board.
In this process, there’s very little prediction involved, one might think.
Except that the entire LUDC is based upon a prediction about the future. We’ve assumed, as a society, that one of the roles of local government is to design a comfortable, prosperous future by making rules about how the community can — and cannot — be developed. The Town LUDC is a prescription. If we follow these government rules, going forward, then we will have the best chance, working as a community, of creating the town we still want to live in, 50 years from now.
Or so we assume.
Based upon my limited knowledge of history, humans have always been interested in the future, and in making choices that will lead them to the best possible place. The tools have been many and varied. Tarot cards. Astrology. Crystal balls. Yarrow sticks. Palm reading. Dream interpretation. Prayer. Tea leaves. The internal organs of sacrificed animals. Mattel’s Magic 8-Ball. And so on.
And the professionals who used these tools have been known by various names. Fortune tellers. Soothsayers. Seers. Clairvoyants. Prophets.
In a sense, however, we are all amateur fortunetellers. When I set my alarm at bedtime, I am essentially predicting that I will wake up at 5:15am and head into the kitchen to make a cup of coffee before beginning work on the morning edition of the Pagosa Daily Post. I can also predict, with considerable certainty, that our cat Mutz will wander into the kitchen and rub his face on my feet, looking to have his morning back-rub.
Or, when Bob and Kathy stand at the altar and promise to cherish one another “until death do us part,” they’re also making a forecast. They can also predict, with considerable confidence, that Kathy’s old Subaru will probably get them to Lake Powell, where they will be renting a houseboat for their honeymoon, but there’s also a chance the car will break down on the way back, in the middle of nowhere.
The Town of Pagosa Springs occasionally updates its plans. The Comprehensive Plan was updated during 2017, for example, and officially adopted by the Town Council in 2018. This 111-page document briefly describes what Pagosa Springs currently looks like and how it currently functions, and then lays out 363 “goals” that — in the opinion of the consultants, the Town Planning Department, and various community members — would make Pagosa into a better town, if these goals could be implemented.
Example, from page 33:
Work with the County to identify and secure an organization that can be the primary “Housing Oversight Organization” for advocating, addressing and implementing housing policies and programs within the Town and County.
Easier said than done. For a couple of years, the Town and County governments were meeting on a monthly basis to discuss joint priorities such as workforce housing and broadband internet, but those meetings and discussions ceased about a year ago, around the time Commissioner Alvin Schaaf replaced Michael Whiting on the Archuleta Board of County Commissioners. As far as I can tell, our two local governments engage in limited communication, currently.
Or, from page 78 of the Comprehensive Plan:
Amend the LUDC to allow for community-scale solar energy farms within the Town as a conditional use permit.
Would one or more community-scale solar energy farms make Pagosa Springs a better place to live?
Maybe it would simply attract more people from California? And is that what we want?