Because in badly managed projects, the managers have no idea what the project is about. They don't know how anything works. They can't distinguish good work from bad work.

Instead, they rely on rote rules and checklists to "prove" they've done their job. This happens in both public and private sectors.

For example, a friend's employer got bought by a large multinational. The multinational imposed all kinds of processes, checkpoints, checklists, etc. to "ensure product quality". They then got upset that the bids were triple the cost they were previously, and took twice as long.

And that's of course coupled with the fact that no one from the parent company paid any attention to the day to day activities of the (now) division. Instead, they relied on paperwork.

Well, paperwork is no substitute for feet on the ground.

One of my favorite books is "On the psychology of military incompetence". It uses military examples to show how organizations are run (bad vs good), and what quantitative differences there are between bad leaders and good leaders.

Paying attention to details, and ignoring superficial forms is a major differentiator between good leaders and bad leaders.

This is echoed in the story. The city didn't pay attention to the project, while the developer did.