I had an enlightening conversation at work this past week. We’d been discussing problems within the city of Blackfoot and then concocting solutions for these problems. One of the problems we discussed was figuring out how to make the city a more attractive option for younger people. I was included in the conversation because I suppose I meet the definition for “younger people.”

One thing a municipality must consider in its decisions is how to attract young couples and just generally young people to reside in their city. After all, those who are young eventually become old. Incentivizing young people to become long-term residents offers stability to a city — both monetarily and socially.

The more long-term residents a city can build as its base, then the more stable it can become. Of course, there are other considerations: types of housing available, employment opportunities, etc. Those are all well-documented and typically focused on aspects of city welfare. Yet not enough cities focus on the impact young residents can have on the economy and stability of a city over time.

This problem especially tends to plague rural areas and smaller cities. The demographics of these areas point to a more aged population as a whole. While older residents are an important aspect of any city or area — because they do offer substantive benefits — there are some negative side effects of an overly dense older population.

These effects traditionally include overburdening social services and limited understanding of newer technology. But there is one other overlooked problem: governance. By governance, I mean the process and consequences of citizens engaging with the government and creating policy. At first glance, the claim that an older population creates problems in this sphere seems ridiculous.

After all, doesn’t it make intuitive sense that we want older people making government decisions? We often have held to the notion that age implies more intelligence if not more wisdom. To be frank, there is some general truth to that. We need older, wiser people involved in government. As the oldest member of the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin had a substantive influence on his peers and the outcome of the newly forming American government.

We as a society need the perspective and influence of those who have been around for a while, those who have learned from the mistakes they already made and the ones I surely will stumble into in the future. We also need the perspective of the younger generation though. And this is why.

People stay where they feel comfortable. This applies to religion, social groups, relationships, geography and, yes, cities. Often, unfortunately, people feel less comfortable around people that don’t resemble them in some ways. Thus, all groups are formed around the commonality of some item: same interpretation of God, same political beliefs, same geographical location, etc. These commonalities create bonds between people.

How, then, can a younger person (or couple) feel comfortable in a city that doesn’t represent his or her or their interests? It’s hard to be truly represented if the administration that makes the decisions in a city doesn’t have a member that can adequately share the viewpoint of its constituency. Isn’t it easier for a younger policymaker to view the experiences and understand the desires of the younger generation?

Isn’t it even socially desirable to consider those individuals lenses? After all, if you want a city to be attractive to younger people, shouldn’t those views be represented? It certainly would make them more comfortable and prone to stay if they knew those interests were adequately being represented.

In too many cities — and states — however, the common theme is that older people fill the policymaking slots. For some, it’s their just “dues.” They spent their life and education working for this. I’m not complaining about this, I get that, but there are younger people with similar qualifications, and younger people with incredible potential.

The common critique of this position, however, is that young people are not prone to be involved in these matters. It’s absolutely true, young people are less likely to be involved in governmental affairs. So, how can we get the younger generation involved in decisions, such as siting decisions, platting decisions, etc.?

It starts with a city administration willing to take a bold leap of faith. If a city administration decided, they could place a younger 20-something- to 30-something-year-old member on any number of their boards: planning and zoning, transportation, library, etc. Older, experienced members of those boards could sufficiently mentor these younger people. Certainly, an appointment to such an important board would make that individual feel valued, making them more likely to become lifelong engaged citizens.

Couldn’t a city become more vibrant, more representative of all its residents’ desires if some of the younger generation were actually requested to be involved? Couldn’t a library board be so much more insightful if someone so familiar with technology were able to pitch ideas about how to incentivize people like them?

I understand these are sweeping generalizations in some cases. But they are not exactly inaccurate. The fact remains that too many of the younger generation could become involved, engaged, and mentored through a careful and considerate administration. The impact this would have on a city, those people, and our democracy would be incredible.

City administrators: Find a way to meaningfully engage this valuable segment of our society.

Tayler Bingham, a Blackfoot native, graduated Summa Cum Laude from Brigham Young University-Idaho and is currently a Masters of Public Administration student at Idaho State University. He works as an administrative associate for the City of Blackfoot.