"Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids"

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Fred Goodwin, CMA, Apr 4, 2006.

  1. "Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids"

    It's my personal belief, based on observations of my own and those in
    my neighborhood, that kids don't get outside to play enough, and
    certainly not as much as when I was a kid back in the late 50s and
    early 60s.

    This week (Apr 3-9) happens to be National Public Health Week:
    "Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids":

    http://www.apha.org/nphw/2006/

    One of the recommendations of NPHW is that communities consider adding
    more bike paths and playgrounds as they design their outdoor spaces:

    http://www.apha.org/nphw/2006/Nat FS 3.pdf

    This sounds like an initiative that is worthy of support from both
    Scouters and parents (even tho BSA is not listed as a partner).
     
    Tags:


  2. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
    > "Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids"
    >
    > It's my personal belief, based on observations of my own and those in
    > my neighborhood, that kids don't get outside to play enough, and
    > certainly not as much as when I was a kid back in the late 50s and
    > early 60s.
    >
    > This week (Apr 3-9) happens to be National Public Health Week:
    > "Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids":
    >
    > http://www.apha.org/nphw/2006/
    >
    > One of the recommendations of NPHW is that communities consider adding
    > more bike paths and playgrounds as they design their outdoor spaces:
    >
    > http://www.apha.org/nphw/2006/Nat FS 3.pdf
    >
    > This sounds like an initiative that is worthy of support from both
    > Scouters and parents (even tho BSA is not listed as a partner).
    >

    I don't know where this cross post came from but I would put part of the
    blame on real estate developers. There are about 1,500 new homes being
    built in my area, about 1 mile away, that I ride through to get
    somewhere. Over 100 are finished and people are living in them. The
    Realtor put up sighs at the beginning saying "Proposed park" and
    "Proposed school", neither of which has happened yet. The kids have
    nowhere to play and are forced to go to an old and already overcrowded
    school. Forget about bike paths. The developer knew they would take up
    space (and profit) from his development. He also cut down 3 old growth
    trees that were landmarks to make room for 3 more houses. Now that
    people are seeing how the neighborhood is just wall to wall houses
    without any outdoor facilities, sales have dropped though the floor.
    Poetic justice? Only if the developer goes bankrupt.
    Bill Baka
    From rec.bicycles.misc

    Now please quit cross posting.
     
  3. Pat

    Pat Guest

    Bike paths don't cut into profits, as Bill B suggested. If a developer
    thought that they would be used and highly valued, they would be
    everywhere because people would want to pay for them. Don't blame the
    developers, giving people what they want is how developers make a
    living. If no one wants them, then there's no advantage to building
    them.

    If you want to do social engineering to get back into some
    overly-romanticed time and place where you grew up, then ban satelite
    dishes, cable TV, and air conditioning to force the kids outside. But
    remember, that when you were growing up, your parents and grandparents
    were complaining because you were out playing baseball when they were
    milking cows when they were your age.

    If you want to blame anything for kids staying inside, blame air
    conditioning. It has probably had the biggest impact on the country of
    anything, ever. Without it, CA, NV, AZ, TX and FL would all be
    drastically different than they are now. And without it, kids would be
    outside playing instead of inside and comfortable.

    But life is what it is and there's not much we can do to change it.
    You are right, kids don't ride as much as they used to. And I agree it
    is sad. But I don't think bike trails would make much of a difference.
    If kids want to ride their bikes, they can still use the street. But
    kids congesting the street isn't the problem -- the problem is kids are
    NOT congesting the street -- they are indoors. That's the real problem
    for you to fight.

    (FYI: 2 kids. 13 and 10. Both VERY active in organized sports but
    who don't do too much "unorganized" sports. And yes, I think the lack
    of spontanaity is somehow bad, but at least they're active. And I do
    know a bit about kids and sports).

    Here's a thought for all of you planners. Maybe stop fighting the
    problem and look for other ways to address it. Why not working to join
    developers with sports leagues to allow/encourage the leagues to go
    door-to-door and recruit kids for teams. Stop thinking of developers
    as the enemy and think of ways to make them allies. If you can give
    them a reason to do something, they will do it. They are very
    predictable about that. And I bet you could even talk most of them
    into sponsoring a team or two (they want to market to the kids
    parents). I guess I am saying, stop focusing on the supply of
    recreational stuff and instead focus on the demand for it. Create
    demand and the supply will follow.

    I know this will be controversial and many of you will want to flame
    me. Okay, if that helps you, go ahead. But I do real estate
    development and I know how developers think. We are a predictable
    group of people. Planners can increase costs through regulation and
    require lots of things we don't want to do -- or you can encourage the
    demand for it and we will gladly do it without being asked because
    people will see it as an amenity.
     
  4. Pat

    Pat Guest

    Shoot, my replay cross-posted as the original post did. I didn't mean
    it to. Sorry for all of the cross posts.
     
  5. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Pat wrote:
    > Bike paths don't cut into profits, as Bill B suggested.

    Talked to a developer lately?
    If a developer
    > thought that they would be used and highly valued, they would be
    > everywhere because people would want to pay for them.

    They take space away from where they could cram more houses.
    Don't blame the
    > developers, giving people what they want is how developers make a
    > living.

    Not the local developers. We had some old growth trees that were like
    landmarks and even they were cut down to make room for one more house.
    Greed rules developers minds.
    If no one wants them, then there's no advantage to building
    > them.

    Schools and a park were proposed but never built, just the houses and
    now the people who bought houses have their kids going to an extremely
    crowded school with no park to play in.
    >
    > If you want to do social engineering to get back into some
    > overly-romanticed time and place where you grew up, then ban satelite
    > dishes, cable TV, and air conditioning to force the kids outside. But
    > remember, that when you were growing up, your parents and grandparents
    > were complaining because you were out playing baseball when they were
    > milking cows when they were your age.


    Not my grandparents.
    >
    > If you want to blame anything for kids staying inside, blame air
    > conditioning. It has probably had the biggest impact on the country of
    > anything, ever. Without it, CA, NV, AZ, TX and FL would all be
    > drastically different than they are now. And without it, kids would be
    > outside playing instead of inside and comfortable.


    I couldn't stand to stay in, and never missed the air conditioning
    because I never had it in the 50's. All I remember is my exploits, not
    sweating.
    >
    > But life is what it is and there's not much we can do to change it.
    > You are right, kids don't ride as much as they used to. And I agree it
    > is sad. But I don't think bike trails would make much of a difference.
    > If kids want to ride their bikes, they can still use the street. But
    > kids congesting the street isn't the problem -- the problem is kids are
    > NOT congesting the street -- they are indoors. That's the real problem
    > for you to fight.


    Another change from the 50's is that now we have twice as many people in
    this country and your kids are more than twice as likely to get hit due
    to the overcrowding.
    >
    > (FYI: 2 kids. 13 and 10. Both VERY active in organized sports but
    > who don't do too much "unorganized" sports. And yes, I think the lack
    > of spontanaity is somehow bad, but at least they're active. And I do
    > know a bit about kids and sports).
    >
    > Here's a thought for all of you planners. Maybe stop fighting the
    > problem and look for other ways to address it. Why not working to join
    > developers with sports leagues to allow/encourage the leagues to go
    > door-to-door and recruit kids for teams. Stop thinking of developers
    > as the enemy and think of ways to make them allies. If you can give
    > them a reason to do something, they will do it. They are very
    > predictable about that. And I bet you could even talk most of them
    > into sponsoring a team or two (they want to market to the kids
    > parents). I guess I am saying, stop focusing on the supply of
    > recreational stuff and instead focus on the demand for it. Create
    > demand and the supply will follow.
    >
    > I know this will be controversial and many of you will want to flame
    > me. Okay, if that helps you, go ahead. But I do real estate
    > development and I know how developers think. We are a predictable
    > group of people. Planners can increase costs through regulation and
    > require lots of things we don't want to do -- or you can encourage the
    > demand for it and we will gladly do it without being asked because
    > people will see it as an amenity.
    >

    Not me, I am going to watch television. 8PM, dark, rain, no bike day.
    Bill Baka
     
  6. I'm thinking of retiring in one of those Earthships. That's those
    "energy independent" homes that they're making out of car tires with
    packed sand. Their home is in Taos, NM. I'm even thinking of moving
    either there or Santa Fe.

    They have entire communities of Earthships, and I like the idea of
    living in this kind of "aware" neighborhood. I think that the kind of
    people who live in these communities will probably be very
    bike-friendly.
    Jim Gagnepain
    http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/
     
  7. "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Bike paths don't cut into profits, as Bill B suggested. If a developer
    > thought that they would be used and highly valued, they would be
    > everywhere because people would want to pay for them. Don't blame the
    > developers, giving people what they want is how developers make a
    > living. If no one wants them, then there's no advantage to building
    > them.
    >
    > If you want to do social engineering to get back into some
    > overly-romanticed time and place where you grew up, then ban satelite
    > dishes, cable TV, and air conditioning to force the kids outside. But
    > remember, that when you were growing up, your parents and grandparents
    > were complaining because you were out playing baseball when they were
    > milking cows when they were your age.
    >
    > If you want to blame anything for kids staying inside, blame air
    > conditioning. It has probably had the biggest impact on the country of
    > anything, ever. Without it, CA, NV, AZ, TX and FL would all be
    > drastically different than they are now. And without it, kids would be
    > outside playing instead of inside and comfortable.
    >
    > But life is what it is and there's not much we can do to change it.
    > You are right, kids don't ride as much as they used to. And I agree it
    > is sad. But I don't think bike trails would make much of a difference.
    > If kids want to ride their bikes, they can still use the street. But
    > kids congesting the street isn't the problem -- the problem is kids are
    > NOT congesting the street -- they are indoors. That's the real problem
    > for you to fight.
    >
    > (FYI: 2 kids. 13 and 10. Both VERY active in organized sports but
    > who don't do too much "unorganized" sports. And yes, I think the lack
    > of spontanaity is somehow bad, but at least they're active. And I do
    > know a bit about kids and sports).
    >
    > Here's a thought for all of you planners. Maybe stop fighting the
    > problem and look for other ways to address it. Why not working to join
    > developers with sports leagues to allow/encourage the leagues to go
    > door-to-door and recruit kids for teams. Stop thinking of developers
    > as the enemy and think of ways to make them allies. If you can give
    > them a reason to do something, they will do it. They are very
    > predictable about that. And I bet you could even talk most of them
    > into sponsoring a team or two (they want to market to the kids
    > parents). I guess I am saying, stop focusing on the supply of
    > recreational stuff and instead focus on the demand for it. Create
    > demand and the supply will follow.
    >
    > I know this will be controversial and many of you will want to flame
    > me. Okay, if that helps you, go ahead. But I do real estate
    > development and I know how developers think. We are a predictable
    > group of people. Planners can increase costs through regulation and
    > require lots of things we don't want to do -- or you can encourage the
    > demand for it and we will gladly do it without being asked because
    > people will see it as an amenity.
    >


    Good comment Pat. I purchased the house I now have because there were
    trails and common land. But the current residents refuse to pay for keeping
    these amenities up, and want to abandon them. Even a $25 dues increase is
    'too much' for the more vocal people with about $25 a month also decried as
    'too much money.' Planners can force developers to put in trails, but I
    don't see that most buyers will pay fifty cents a month for upkeep since 'I
    don't use them' seems to be the current thought pattern.
     
  8. "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Shoot, my replay cross-posted as the original post did. I didn't mean
    > it to. Sorry for all of the cross posts.
    >


    Please keep posting to alt. planning
     
  9. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Pat" <[email protected]> writes:
    > Bike paths don't cut into profits, as Bill B suggested. If a developer
    > thought that they would be used and highly valued, they would be
    > everywhere because people would want to pay for them. Don't blame the
    > developers, giving people what they want is how developers make a
    > living. If no one wants them, then there's no advantage to building
    > them.


    In the Greater Vancouver (British Columbia) area, bike/multi-user
    paths seem to /add/ value, particularly in suburban areas where there
    is still undeveloped, bushy areas where crooks could otherwise lurk
    in the shadows. The paths/trails open up those areas to public
    scrutiny. The addition of some night lighting that's minimally
    intrusive to nearby residences on those trails helps in that regard.

    Our trails/paths also offer the neighbourhoods they traverse the
    option of more peaceful (than on the regular roads & streets)
    transportational and recreational cycling. Also, they usually
    connect with other bicycle-friendly areas, so it's possible to
    traverse fairly long distances by bicycle without having to
    mingle with the more hectic traffic on the busier streets & roads.

    The problem is: not enough people know where these paths are,
    or that they even exist, let alone how to "connect the dots"
    to get from, say, Vancouver to Maple Ridge. Folks know where
    to drive from A to B, but are unaware of these optional cycling
    routes. If they did know, maybe they'd opt to leave the car at
    home once in a while, and go for a pleasant spin. On my last
    cycle-commute home from work on such a path, I saw a blue heron
    wading in the adjacent ditch. I looked at him, he looked at me,
    we acknowledged each other's existance, and in our own ways said
    "Good morning" to each other - and that was cool. One doesn't get
    that kind of interactive experience while sealed within in a steel
    box on an 'asphalt railroad' with all the other car commuters.

    Anyhow, we've got all these bike routes/paths/trails all over
    the place. And few people know where they are, unless they look
    at some few specialized, out-dated bike-route maps, live alongside
    the routes, go looking for them, or chance upon them.


    cheers,
    Tom

    --
    -- Nothing is safe from me.
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
     
  10. "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Pat" <[email protected]> writes:
    > > Bike paths don't cut into profits, as Bill B suggested. If a developer
    > > thought that they would be used and highly valued, they would be
    > > everywhere because people would want to pay for them. Don't blame the
    > > developers, giving people what they want is how developers make a
    > > living. If no one wants them, then there's no advantage to building
    > > them.

    >
    > In the Greater Vancouver (British Columbia) area, bike/multi-user
    > paths seem to /add/ value, particularly in suburban areas where there
    > is still undeveloped, bushy areas where crooks could otherwise lurk
    > in the shadows. The paths/trails open up those areas to public
    > scrutiny. The addition of some night lighting that's minimally
    > intrusive to nearby residences on those trails helps in that regard.
    >

    Housing prices in Vancouver are a classic case of inflation due to bad
    planning. It is a good thing the rest of the world does not follow
    Vancouver in pricing out the middle class---on purpose.
     
  11. i artikel [email protected], skrev Pat
    [email protected] den 06-04-12 04.18:

    > Bike paths don't cut into profits, as Bill B suggested. If a developer
    > thought that they would be used and highly valued, they would be
    > everywhere because people would want to pay for them. Don't blame the
    > developers, giving people what they want is how developers make a
    > living. If no one wants them, then there's no advantage to building
    > them.



    snip


    > I know this will be controversial and many of you will want to flame
    > me. Okay, if that helps you, go ahead. But I do real estate
    > development and I know how developers think. We are a predictable
    > group of people.




    I see where you're coming from and disagree. Anyone who sells anything has
    the power to move things in the direction they want it to go. In your case,
    as a property developer, you don't just have to follow trends, you can set
    them! If you think bike paths would make your developments fetch a higher
    price, then it's your responsibility to put them in. You have to decide
    where they go, what people might use them for, and hence what they should
    look like.

    Next, you make it a selling point. Tell people your dwellings are better
    because they have bike paths that are a pleasure to use and connect each
    dwelling with the school, grocery store etc. Tell them the car roads/bike
    paths are social meeting points and make life in your development fun and
    secure.

    You are absolutely not a slave to your potential customers. You have the
    power to sell them great stuff they didn't even know they needed, at a high
    price, because it improves their lives.

    Haven't you read any marketing literature, Philip Kotler? You anticipate
    needs and wants. You create new ones. "Principles of Marketing":
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0131469185/102-5539861-1425721?v=glance&n=2
    83155

    --
    Erik Sandblom
    my site is EriksRailNews.com
    for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
    for those who do, no explanation is necessary
     
  12. Tom Keats wrote:
    >
    > In the Greater Vancouver (British Columbia) area, bike/multi-user
    > paths seem to /add/ value, particularly in suburban areas where there
    > is still undeveloped, bushy areas where crooks could otherwise lurk
    > in the shadows. The paths/trails open up those areas to public
    > scrutiny....


    I'm ambivalent at best about most bike paths I've seen. But it's true
    that the last one that went in near here added value to the neighboring
    homes. Developers in adjoining areas paved connections to it at their
    own expense, and some of the most vocal opponents to the path ended up
    asking me about what kind of bike to buy.

    > Our trails/paths also offer the neighbourhoods they traverse the
    > option of more peaceful (than on the regular roads & streets)
    > transportational and recreational cycling. Also, they usually
    > connect with other bicycle-friendly areas, so it's possible to
    > traverse fairly long distances by bicycle without having to
    > mingle with the more hectic traffic on the busier streets & roads.


    I _am_ in favor of paths that connect modern "mushroom" developments -
    the kind that consist of mazes of twisty roads all ending in
    cul-de-sacs, with only one or two exits onto busy thoroughfares. I'd
    favor zoning regulations to require "leak through" paths to connect
    such developments with, say, parks, libraries, shopping centers and
    each other.

    The reason for the "mushroom" design is to exclude cut-through cars.
    But there's not much reason to exclude cut through bikes and peds.

    > The problem is: not enough people know where these paths are,
    > or that they even exist, let alone how to "connect the dots"
    > to get from, say, Vancouver to Maple Ridge. Folks know where
    > to drive from A to B, but are unaware of these optional cycling
    > routes. If they did know, maybe they'd opt to leave the car at
    > home once in a while, and go for a pleasant spin. ...


    Is there a local bike map that clearly indicates them? How about
    signs? Would that do? I recall being in England and pedaling past
    footpath crossings. "East Midfield, 4.3 miles" or some such thing,
    with the white arrow pointing out a public footpath across farmers'
    fields. Charming!

    > Anyhow, we've got all these bike routes/paths/trails all over
    > the place. And few people know where they are, unless they look
    > at some few specialized, out-dated bike-route maps, live alongside
    > the routes, go looking for them, or chance upon them.


    Sounds like some publicity is what's needed!

    (But the publicity should probably also reinforce that cyclists have a
    legal right to the roads.)

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  13. "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:C06E0C74.1BB16%[email protected]
    >
    >
    > I see where you're coming from and disagree. Anyone who sells anything has
    > the power to move things in the direction they want it to go. In your

    case,
    > as a property developer, you don't just have to follow trends, you can set
    > them!


    And why should a developer appeal to your special interests? If you want
    a safe community, you do not need trails and bike paths, and who is going to
    maintain them? More homeowner dues? I can tell you from experience that
    there is strong resistance from homeowners to pay for even trails already
    provided by the developer. They would rather abandon them.
     
  14. == Planners can force developers to put in trails, but I
    == don't see that most buyers will pay fifty cents a month for upkeep
    since 'I
    == don't use them' seems to be the current thought pattern.

    The trails ought to be part of a public park system.
     
  15. == I can tell you from experience that
    == there is strong resistance from homeowners to pay for even trails
    already
    == provided by the developer. They would rather abandon them.

    Where do these troglodytes cluster in this country? In some
    areas people know the value of
    trails. Such as Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Ohio will catch on
    hopefully.
     
  16. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > == Planners can force developers to put in trails, but I
    > == don't see that most buyers will pay fifty cents a month for upkeep
    > since 'I
    > == don't use them' seems to be the current thought pattern.
    >
    > The trails ought to be part of a public park system.
    >

    You don't understand development rules. By law, for Durham, NC, for
    example, such trails must be owned by a non-profit homeowner association,
    which then does NOT have to keep the trails up, paved or anything. It is a
    way of making new developments pay for de facto parks, while the taxes the
    new developments pay go to keeping up public parks established before 1960.
     
  17. i artikel [email protected], skrev George
    Conklin på [email protected] den 06-04-24 03.27:
    >
    > "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:C06E0C74.1BB16%[email protected]
    >>
    >>
    >> I see where you're coming from and disagree. Anyone who sells anything has
    >> the power to move things in the direction they want it to go. In your

    > case,
    >> as a property developer, you don't just have to follow trends, you can set
    >> them!

    >
    > And why should a developer appeal to your special interests?



    To make more money! If the developer thinks bike paths would make the
    developments fetch a higher price, it's their responsibility to put them in.

    And it's not just a special interest. If the bike paths are well executed,
    the developer can explain to potential clients how great they are and why
    they should buy a house there. It's like MP3 players. Initially people might
    not understand what good they are. Thus the company that sells them has to
    explain why they are great, and why theirs are better than the competition.



    > If you want
    > a safe community, you do not need trails and bike paths, and who is going to
    > maintain them? More homeowner dues? I can tell you from experience that
    > there is strong resistance from homeowners to pay for even trails already
    > provided by the developer. They would rather abandon them.



    I don't see how maintenance could be an issue. Water and sewage and roads
    etc also need maintenance, but you don't get people saying "oooh, can't have
    sewage pipes, who is going to maintain them?"

    --
    Erik Sandblom
    my site is EriksRailNews.com
    for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
    for those who do, no explanation is necessary
     
  18. "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:C07431BF.1C139%[email protected]

    > > If you want
    > > a safe community, you do not need trails and bike paths, and who is

    going to
    > > maintain them? More homeowner dues? I can tell you from experience

    that
    > > there is strong resistance from homeowners to pay for even trails

    already
    > > provided by the developer. They would rather abandon them.

    >
    >
    > I don't see how maintenance could be an issue. Water and sewage and roads
    > etc also need maintenance, but you don't get people saying "oooh, can't

    have
    > sewage pipes, who is going to maintain them?"
    >
    >


    Well, right now we are in a fight with the younger members of the
    homeowner association who want nothing to do with maintaining paths. It is
    a real situation and your imagination fails to deal with the reality we
    face.
     
  19. Mike Kruger

    Mike Kruger Guest

    "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:C07431BF.1C139%[email protected]
    >
    > I don't see how maintenance could be an issue. Water and sewage and roads
    > etc also need maintenance, but you don't get people saying "oooh, can't
    > have
    > sewage pipes, who is going to maintain them?"
    >

    Wrong. "Who pays for replacement" is often an interesting political battle
    for upgraded water lines, sewage lines, and roads. For example, if upgraded
    storm sewers are needed to prevent storm flooding, should this cost be borne
    by all the taxpayers in the district, those who live along the line to be
    rebuilt, or only that subset who have flooding problems? There are no right
    or wrong answers, just hard questions.

    As for roads: why are some expressways in the Chicago area toll roads paid
    for by those who use them , while others are free and paid for by general
    taxes? In the end, it was who had (a) more money and (b) less political
    clout.
     
  20. i artikel [email protected], skrev Mike
    Kruger på [email protected] den 06-04-26 03.42:

    > "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:C07431BF.1C139%[email protected]
    >>
    >> I don't see how maintenance could be an issue. Water and sewage and roads
    >> etc also need maintenance, but you don't get people saying "oooh, can't
    >> have
    >> sewage pipes, who is going to maintain them?"
    >>

    > Wrong. "Who pays for replacement" is often an interesting political battle
    > for upgraded water lines, sewage lines, and roads. For example, if upgraded
    > storm sewers are needed to prevent storm flooding, should this cost be borne
    > by all the taxpayers in the district, those who live along the line to be
    > rebuilt, or only that subset who have flooding problems? There are no right
    > or wrong answers, just hard questions.
    >
    > As for roads: why are some expressways in the Chicago area toll roads paid
    > for by those who use them , while others are free and paid for by general
    > taxes? In the end, it was who had (a) more money and (b) less political
    > clout.



    Okay, I didn't know that. Sometimes I think democracy can get a little
    excessive. Why not just pay your tax and leave things like sewage to the
    experts? Do you have arguments about what colour to paint the stripes on the
    road too?

    --
    Erik Sandblom
    my site is EriksRailNews.com
    for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
    for those who do, no explanation is necessary
     
Loading...
Loading...