wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 9, 2009 20:54:22 GMT -5
"Wayne A ribbon of seafront development stretching for miles. OK so no one wants to develop the hinterland behind the seafront so how does such a place develop? I think the clue to that is in its twelve mile crawl up the coast. What next a twenty four mile long ribbon city? What happens when you run out of suitable coastline?. " It stops when it gets to a national park, state park, or agricultural zoned area. These areas are where the sprawl stops. Fort Lauderdale has stopped at the Everglades for instance, and now developers are buying up blocks downtown and putting up condos. Wilton Manor is cleaning up and becoming an upscale area for gays. Liberty City in Miami has some of the finest condos backed right up to slums. The urban poor, criminals, and drug dealers are leaving the downtown areas for the suburbs. So Stuart, Fl may just be Jim-dandy when it comes to bicycle infrastructure (although personally I don't infer that from your descriptions, and I suspect I'd get a different story from your local cyclists). That means precisely squat when it comes to whether the greater good is served by investing in cycling. Why should your small-town situation dictate national spending priorities?
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 9, 2009 21:13:44 GMT -5
Stuart, Florida isn't the best place to ride a bike, I ride here, and I'll be the first to admit it. But the infrastructure is in place. The problem lies in the way the town has grown- very quickly and very recently- I'd say 90% of our town has been built in the last 30 years, and our entire town was built in the days of the automobile. Older cities, small and large, in other parts of the country may benefits from spending on bicycle infrastructure, but that's not a federal thing.
"Why should your small-town situation dictate national spending priorities? "
It won't. States and municipalities can still raise and spend their own money. But it's wasteful for the feds to rain money down on communities that don't need it.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 9, 2009 23:34:21 GMT -5
Stuart, Florida isn't the best place to ride a bike, I ride here, and I'll be the first to admit it. Make up your mind. And just because your town doesn't need it doesn't mean it shoudl be deleted form the Bill.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 9, 2009 23:52:28 GMT -5
"Make up your mind."
I did. Things aren't perfect, but it has nothing to do with putting in more bike lanes and racks.
"And just because your town doesn't need it doesn't mean it shoudl be deleted form the Bill."
Sure, not just because of my town. It should be deleted from the bill because my town and many others like it do not need the money. Geez, if you think money ought to be pissed away so freely, why don't you send us some of yours?
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Feb 10, 2009 4:30:29 GMT -5
So is the town of Stuart, Fla. planning on building bike paths it doesn't want or need simply because there are funds available to do so? If that's the case, I don't wonder why the US is going broke.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Feb 10, 2009 6:38:21 GMT -5
It should be deleted from the bill because my town and many others like it do not need the money. Geez, if you think money ought to be pissed away so freely, why don't you send us some of yours? That's just the point. Investment in bicycle infrastructure is not pissing things away. Full stop. You make the conclusion that Stuart and small towns like it don't need the infrastructure (which I frankly doubt) so nobody in the entire nation ought to have access to such investment. Sorry, but that's crap.
|
|
|
Post by wayneinfl on Feb 10, 2009 9:42:09 GMT -5
"So is the town of Stuart, Fla. planning on building bike paths it doesn't want or need simply because there are funds available to do so? If that's the case, I don't wonder why the US is going broke."
Martin County may or may not. I don't know because we have new commissioners this year, and not the ones I voted for. I am positive Port St. Lucie would. They'll do anything they can to dip into the pork barrel, just like they did with the busing. There are many other municipalites throughout the country that will do the same thing.
"That's just the point. Investment in bicycle infrastructure is not pissing things away. Full stop."
It is when it is not needed or not practical.
"You make the conclusion that Stuart and small towns like it don't need the infrastructure (which I frankly doubt) so nobody in the entire nation ought to have access to such investment. "
That's not what I'm saying. Everybody ought to have access to such an investment, and they do have access to such an investment. They can add 1/2% to the sales tax and get far more money for bike paths than they can get from the feds. If biking infrastructure like that is practical and necessary in a community they can buy it, just the same as they can pay more federal taxes to buy it.
By choosing not to fund it federally, we lose the incentive for community leaders to do something wasteful, just because they can get the money. And local voters can hold their leaders accountable locally by overseeing the project, and how much it costs, and how it is funded- far better than relying on some bureaucrat in Washington to do it for them.
|
|