Ride an SUB not an SUV



On Apr 6, 1:18 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > Of course they claim to adhere to the "Smart Growth" principles. The
> > problem is you can't live in a vacuum. The loss of retail, industry,
> > jobs, and the increase in traffic and decrease in walkability are
> > going to be the fallout of "Smart Growth."

>
> Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there are
> no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all the
> distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones and
> eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally blocks upon
> curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses that look more like
> barns than homes. Businesses are generally in unpleasant strip malls
> with cretinously designed parking lots and anonymous, homogenized
> franchises.


Gee. Is that planned or unplanned? Either way it seems like a money-
making scheme.

Or is it the ultimate expression of freedom that people can readily
choose between McDonalds and Burger King when eating out?
 
donquijote1954 wrote:

> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)


My favorite story was when the Sierra Club thought they had a deal where
the developers would pay $100 million dollars and in return the Sierra
Club would not oppose development in San Jose's Coyote Valley.

A Sierra Club member, upset by this extortion, leaked the story.

"http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/01/02/story2.html"

The whole thing collapsed when it was made public.

The city of San Jose, to their credit, is not letting developers build
housing in the Coyote Valley until the industrial and commercial space
is developed and sold (or leased). Both Apple and Cisco abandoned plans
for large campuses in that area. Apple sold the land and is adding a
campus in Cupertino (and they oppose the conversion of commercial to
residential) while Cisco may still own the land but has no plans to
develop it. The developers are chomping at the bit to build housing
there. They tried to elect a mayor that would eliminate the requirement
for intelligent growth, but they lost...for now.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Gated communities are themselves a microcosm of the larger spatial
> pattern of segmentation and separation.


Well, you should look at South America and Europe, where houses have walls
along the street, a sure sign of European and South American segmentation,
right? No, wait a minute, everything they do in Europe is better, right?

First planners condemn houses with yards as selfish use of space.
They want it all open to the world, anyone can walk in.

Then if people put up a fence or a wall, they get mad. Can't have it both
ways boys.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 5, 7:57 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in

message
> > > >news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > >> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >>news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > >> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in

> > message
> > > >> >news:D[email protected]...

> >
> > > >> >> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >> >>news:[email protected]...
> > > >> >> <>> > To say that Smart Growth is the only way is like saying

> > only
> > > >> >> > Chevrolet
> > > >> >> >> > makes cars.

> >
> > > >> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the

only
> > way
> > > > if
> > > >> >> >> you
> > > >> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.

> >
> > > >> >> > Wrong again. Smart Growth has stated that they are the only

way
> > to
> > > > go,
> > > >> >> > like
> > > >> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The

future is
> > > > not
> > > >> >> > what
> > > >> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.

> >
> > > >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for

> > other
> > > >> > ideas
> > > >> >> on formulating urban plans?

> >
> > > >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean

> > that
> > > > the
> > > >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the

planning
> > > >> > board
> > > >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and

> > then
> > > >> > spend
> > > >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> > > > happens
> > > >> > one decision at a time when the commands of Smart Growth violate
> > > >> > everyone's
> > > >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,

things
> > > > get
> > > >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite

well,
> > > >> > even
> > > >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we

can
> > > >> > have
> > > >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he

would do
> > > > (he
> > > >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The

> > commision?
> > > > 5
> > > >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by

> > grand,
> > > >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)

> > future.
> >
> > > >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.

> >
> > > > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.

> >
> > > If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer

some
> > > better alternative, then she was one smart lady. I suspect she was,

given
> > > all she accomplished.

> >
> > You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
> > Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
> > said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise

what
> > is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome

of
> > hate which always praises the past

>
> Or perhaps it's a syndrome of common sense when you have 6 and 1/2
> billion inhabitants on this planet.
>


Irrelevant. With the densities the Sierra Club wants for an 'efficient
city,' you could put the entire world's population in the state of Texas.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > >news:[email protected]:

> >
> > > > "Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[email protected]...
> > > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > > >> >"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:[email protected]...
> > > >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
> > > >> >> corners
> > > >> >except
> > > >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> > > >> >> factories
> > > > all
> > > >> >over
> > > >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk

to
> > > >> >> work.
> > > >> >There's
> > > >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
> > > >> >> traffic
> > > > a
> > > >> >bit,
> > > >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> > > >> >> whistles,
> > > > and
> > > >> >use
> > > >> >> them to tell time without your watch.

> >
> > > >> >> Dave Head

> >
> > > >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> > > > business
> > > >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global

competition.
> >
> > > >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
> > > >> exactly
> > > > how?

> >
> > > >> DPH

> >
> > > > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> > > > close enough.

> >
> > > 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> > > dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.

> >
> > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot

have
> > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was

impossible in
> > 1890 too.-

>
> It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.
>
> By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...


It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended the
walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 6, 8:01 am, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot
> > > have
> > > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
> > > impossible in 1890 too.

> >
> > Your children, depending on your age, your grandchildfren will once
> > again see a 'walkable city' when the oil runs out

>
> Or when Venezuela breaks relations with the US, the troops abandon
> Iraq and the Oil Kingdom is toppled.
>


The anti-trolley people were saying the same thing: wait until the
trolley breaks down. That ended the walkable city, and the modern
industrial city could not exist without mechanized transport. If you are
talking about putting people back on farms, then most of us would die off
because it would kill the efficiency which we need to feed ourselves.
Walkable cities are non-sustainable.
 
"William O'Hara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:timmcn->
> >
> > . Seems to me that there are
> >> just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
> >> right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
> >> sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
> >> density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
> >> infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
> >> life.
> >>

> > All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give
> > it up
> > boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
> > people will move to the few areas where growth is happening. But stop
> > worrying about it. Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style
> > apartment building and remember that what Smart Growth now calls good
> > development was at one time condemned as bad.

>
> My community has very similar issues as previously mentioned by other
> posters. I am in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Throughout the 20's &
> 30's Plymouth was the worse county in Massachusetts. Now, it is adding
> population while some of the other counties are losing population.
>
>
> Smart Growth over here means providing tax incentives to a developer that
> sells a condo for $750k! It doesn't make much sense.


Yes it does. Smart Growth is a developer-sponsored ripoff.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 6, 7:40 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> >
> > > >news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > > > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in

message
> > > > >news:D[email protected]...

> >
> > > > >> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > >>news:[email protected]...
> > > > >> <>> > To say that Smart Growth is the only way is like saying

only
> > > > >> > Chevrolet
> > > > >> >> > makes cars.

> >
> > > > >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the

only
> > way if
> > > > >> >> you
> > > > >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.

> >
> > > > >> > Wrong again. Smart Growth has stated that they are the only

way to
> > go,
> > > > >> > like
> > > > >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future

is
> > not
> > > > >> > what
> > > > >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.

> >
> > > > >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for

> > other
> > > > > ideas
> > > > >> on formulating urban plans?

> >
> > > > > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean

that
> > the
> > > > > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the

planning
> > > > > board
> > > > > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and

then
> > > > > spend
> > > > > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It

> > happens
> > > > > one decision at a time when the commands of Smart Growth violate
> > > > > everyone's
> > > > > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,

things
> > get
> > > > > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite

well,
> > even
> > > > > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we

can
> > have
> > > > > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would

do
> > (he
> > > > > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The

> > commision? 5
> > > > > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by

> > grand,
> > > > > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)

> > future.
> >
> > > > So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.- Hide

> > quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -

> >
> > > I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
> > > planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
> > > School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
> > > "I'm smarter than you and know what is better" school that most
> > > planners subscribe to.

> >
> > > Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
> > > people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
> > > The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
> > > closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
> > > do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
> > > influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
> > > elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
> > > Also, if you try, smarter people (and there are always smarter people)
> > > will find away around any reg you can imaging.

> >
> > Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning

fails.
> > It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should

look.http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/jentsch.htm
> >
> > Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with Smart Growth

in
> > various jurisdictions as a planner.

>
> This should be an interesting read too...
>
> Sprawl Costs Us All
>
> Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
> result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
> But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
> planning and development.
>
> "Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
> can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
> dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
> consumers, have to pay."
>
> http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/landuse/sprawl/costofsprawl.htm
>


Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to pay
for a developer's schemes.
 
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
> > children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)

>
> My favorite story was when the Sierra Club thought they had a deal where
> the developers would pay $100 million dollars and in return the Sierra
> Club would not oppose development in San Jose's Coyote Valley.
>
> A Sierra Club member, upset by this extortion, leaked the story.
>
> "http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/01/02/story2.html"
>
> The whole thing collapsed when it was made public.
>
> The city of San Jose, to their credit, is not letting developers build
> housing in the Coyote Valley until the industrial and commercial space
> is developed and sold (or leased). Both Apple and Cisco abandoned plans
> for large campuses in that area. Apple sold the land and is adding a
> campus in Cupertino (and they oppose the conversion of commercial to
> residential) while Cisco may still own the land but has no plans to
> develop it. The developers are chomping at the bit to build housing
> there. They tried to elect a mayor that would eliminate the requirement
> for intelligent growth, but they lost...for now.


The computer industry knows it cannot command its employees to live in a
Smart Growth ghetto. You should be smart enough to see that too, but I
guess not.
 
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:28:37 GMT, "George Conklin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Across the street would be fine. I lived across the street from the

>National
>> Carbon Company in Fostoria, and, once we got 'em to clean up some

>particularly
>> nasty particulates, it was just great.
>>
>> Dave Head

>
> Most people don't want lower class housing.


Hey, the price was right. I sold it about 15 years ago for $12K. Now, I'ts
prolly worth $50K 'cuz the neighborhood has improved dramatically. Small
house. But lotsa space outside. And... nobody really cares about the carbon
plant.

DPH
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I don't hear that many complaints from the people who live on the cliff
> > above Swan Island - and that includes some fairly pricey homes.

>
> What were residents saying _before_ the industrial facilities were built?
>

That's lost in history, but they probably were glad for the jobs. There's
been industry on Swan Island since probably before 1900.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer
> to pay for a developer's schemes.


Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before
"smart growth."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:timmcn->
>
> > Seems to me that there are just too many people, who all have to
> > live somewhere and have as much right to good housing as I have.
> > There's no perfect solution- allow sprawl and spend trillions of
> > dollars subsidizing cars. Increase density and get the problems of
> > crowding- increased crime, pummeled infrastructure, and a tendency
> > towards a bleaker and more aggressive life.
> >

> All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give it
> up boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
> people will move to the few areas where growth is happening.


That's one of those statistics that follows lies and damned lies.

> But stop worrying about it.


It's worth worrying about if you live in one of those places people are
moving to, and it's worth worrying about if you live in one of those
places people are moving from.

> Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style apartment building and
> remember that what Smart Growth now calls good development was at one
> time condemned as bad.


It's inevitable as cities grow. Density will increase and with that
comes urban gulags. But there are ways to avoid the "vertical ghettos"
syndrome (I grew up near Chicago, and the failings of the housing
projects is vivid even though I didn't live near them. Having to
occasionally go down into those areas for work was like entering another
world a horrible one of bleak concrete and harsh light, of filth and
despair). I think cooperative housing is a better notion than
traditional apartment buildings. Personal investment and some type of
ownership of one's home encourage pro-social behavior.
 
On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> > >news:[email protected]...

>
> > > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > >news:[email protected]:

>
> > > > > "Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > >news:[email protected]...
> > > > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > >> >"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > >> >news:[email protected]...
> > > > >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
> > > > >> >> corners
> > > > >> >except
> > > > >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> > > > >> >> factories
> > > > > all
> > > > >> >over
> > > > >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk

> to
> > > > >> >> work.
> > > > >> >There's
> > > > >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
> > > > >> >> traffic
> > > > > a
> > > > >> >bit,
> > > > >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> > > > >> >> whistles,
> > > > > and
> > > > >> >use
> > > > >> >> them to tell time without your watch.

>
> > > > >> >> Dave Head

>
> > > > >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> > > > > business
> > > > >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global

> competition.
>
> > > > >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
> > > > >> exactly
> > > > > how?

>
> > > > >> DPH

>
> > > > > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> > > > > close enough.

>
> > > > 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> > > > dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.

>
> > > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot

> have
> > > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was

> impossible in
> > > 1890 too.-

>
> > It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.

>
> > By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...

>
> It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended the
> walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.


I take it that you have never read "The Revenge of the Methodist
Biycle Company"? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
>> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> (this is serious)
>>
>> 'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
>> in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
>> also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
>> nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
>> we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
>> rights, and humanitarian relief.'

>
> No ****. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass.
> Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S.
> We have no REAL partnerships because they will **** on us and change sides
> as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is way
> overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put you out
> of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our money.
> Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us.
> Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric.
> Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not
> appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at
> home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc.


I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media attention.
Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely wiped
off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of some
sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get back
to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New Orleans
chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
failed them so badly in power.
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


<please learn to snip>

>> Sprawl Costs Us All
>>
>> Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
>> result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
>> But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
>> planning and development.
>>
>> "Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
>> can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
>> dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
>> consumers, have to pay."
>>
>> http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/landuse/sprawl/costofsprawl.htm
>>

>
> Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to
> pay
> for a developer's schemes.


All developers try to get other people (especially taxpayers) to pay for as
much of what they are building as they can. This is not unique to any one
school of thought. Smart Growth is just a convenient label, both for
developers and critics, because it is the only school of thought that has a
name. So all developers will try to call their developers Smart Growth if
they think they can find an advantage in it (even if they actually are not
applying smart growth principles), and all critics will be quick to label
anything they don't like smart growth, because it's much easier to criticize
something if you can label it.
 
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
> attention. Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were
> completely wiped off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us
> as a symptom of some sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that
> our leadership made the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our
> bootstraps and get back to work, whether or not there was any aid at the
> federal level. New Orleans chose a different path--even worse, they chose
> to keep the mayor who'd failed them so badly in power.


Damned freaking straight, sister. Well put.

Bill S.
 
"John Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> >
> > > >news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > > >news:[email protected]:

> >
> > > > > > "Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > > > > >> >"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in

all
> > > > > >> >> corners
> > > > > >> >except
> > > > > >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> > > > > >> >> factories
> > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >over
> > > > > >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can

walk
> > to
> > > > > >> >> work.
> > > > > >> >There's
> > > > > >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by

truck
> > > > > >> >> traffic
> > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >bit,
> > > > > >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> > > > > >> >> whistles,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >use
> > > > > >> >> them to tell time without your watch.

> >
> > > > > >> >> Dave Head

> >
> > > > > >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going

out of
> > > > > > business
> > > > > >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global

> > competition.
> >
> > > > > >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to

work
> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > how?

> >
> > > > > >> DPH

> >
> > > > > > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That

is
> > > > > > close enough.

> >
> > > > > 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> > > > > dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.

> >
> > > > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You

cannot
> > have
> > > > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was

> > impossible in
> > > > 1890 too.-

> >
> > > It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.

> >
> > > By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...

> >
> > It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended

the
> > walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.

>
> I take it that you have never read "The Revenge of the Methodist
> Biycle Company"? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>


I read honest demography, not propaganda.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:timmcn->
> >
> > > Seems to me that there are just too many people, who all have to
> > > live somewhere and have as much right to good housing as I have.
> > > There's no perfect solution- allow sprawl and spend trillions of
> > > dollars subsidizing cars. Increase density and get the problems of
> > > crowding- increased crime, pummeled infrastructure, and a tendency
> > > towards a bleaker and more aggressive life.
> > >

> > All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give it
> > up boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
> > people will move to the few areas where growth is happening.

>
> That's one of those statistics that follows lies and damned lies.
>


You mean Atlanda is also not growing while Buffalo is shrinking? Can't
deal with reality can you?
 

Similar threads