The Mayor's comments

Post by William
On facebook I am "friends" with the Mayor of Minneapolis. On his
profile he said one of his goals as Mayor is to "Reaweave the urban
fabric." I was'nt sure what this meant so I asked him. Here was his
reply.
"Glad you asked: I talked about reweaving the urban fabric because
today's cities need to be reconnected. Cities grew as places where you
could find work, home, shopping, recreation and pretty much everything
you wanted within walking distance or on transit lines. After WW2,
when suburbs started to spread, that fabric that held communties
together was torn apart...transit ripped up, strip malls replaced the
corner store, etc. Now people finally realize what we lost so we need
to weave it back together into neighborhoods where we can once again
find all that within a walk or transit ride. So that means more
transit, better urban design, better landscape, and more decisions
that keep us from spreading even further apart."
What do you think?

Cities began losing density in 1900, not after World War II. So he is
flat-out lying, and knows it. What you see here is typical professional
propaganda from someone who blames others for his own problems.

Pat

2007-09-08 21:48:49 UTC

I doubt he know it. He's a politician. You give him way too much
credit.

Baxter

2007-09-09 02:02:52 UTC

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by George Conklin
Cities began losing density in 1900, not after World War II. So he is
flat-out lying, and knows it. What you see here is typical professional
propaganda from someone who blames others for his own problems.

Reminds me about how Conklin and others were going on about how Portland
"lost density" even though people were moving in to the city. Seems the
city annexed some suburban areas. Conklin is parsing words - net outflows
did not occur until after WWII and the policies by banks and planners began
favoring suburbs over urban.

Rotten

2007-09-08 21:15:48 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Post by William
"Glad you asked: I talked about reweaving the urban fabric because
today's cities need to be reconnected. Cities grew as places where you
could find work, home, shopping, recreation and pretty much everything
you wanted within walking distance or on transit lines. After WW2,
when suburbs started to spread, that fabric that held communties
together was torn apart...transit ripped up, strip malls replaced the
corner store, etc. Now people finally realize what we lost so we need
to weave it back together into neighborhoods where we can once again
find all that within a walk or transit ride. So that means more
transit, better urban design, better landscape, and more decisions
that keep us from spreading even further apart."
What do you think?

Cities declined mostly because of crime. It had nothing to do with strip
malls or "transit being ripped up" or any other nonsense. People want to
feel safe, when many cities exploded in the 60's with "righteous racial
fury", all it did was scare people more. Cities declined also because people
inherently want more space and a slower pace of life, which is naturally
offered in suburbia. "Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term. What can
cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control crime.
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability. Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage
because most families will probably inherently want what is only found in
the suburbs. So cities will have to make do with a higher amount of young
single professionals, artists, and gays (who are naturally attracted to
cities, not that that's a bad thing mind you) than the suburbs. City
governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them, that's
all. They need not attract families.

George Conklin

2007-09-09 00:12:42 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

disadvantage

Post by Rotten
because most families will probably inherently want what is only found in
the suburbs. So cities will have to make do with a higher amount of young
single professionals, artists, and gays (who are naturally attracted to
cities, not that that's a bad thing mind you) than the suburbs. City
governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them, that's
all. They need not attract families.

As density goes up, fertility goes down in animals, and since humans are
animals, in humans too.

William

2007-09-09 17:50:36 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

people

Post by Rotten
inherently want more space and a slower pace of life, which is naturally
offered in suburbia. "Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term. What

can

Post by Rotten
cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control crime.
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability. Cities need to realize that they have a natural

disadvantage

As density goes up, fertility goes down in animals, and since humans are
animals, in humans too.

That must be why New York's population is so low.

Jack May

2007-09-09 19:49:01 UTC

Post by William
That must be why New York's population is so low.

You are saying that the population of NYC was born there? People don't move
there for jobs?

George Conklin

2007-09-09 20:42:02 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

people

Post by Rotten
inherently want more space and a slower pace of life, which is naturally
offered in suburbia. "Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term. What

can

disadvantage

As density goes up, fertility goes down in animals, and since humans are
animals, in humans too.

That must be why New York's population is so low.

Cities grow by immigration, not natural reproduction. This has been
commented on for about 300 years, but your education seems lacking bit time.

William

2007-09-10 03:27:30 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Post by William
"Glad you asked: I talked about reweaving the urban fabric because
today's cities need to be reconnected. Cities grew as places where

you

Post by William
could find work, home, shopping, recreation and pretty much

everything

Post by William
you wanted within walking distance or on transit lines. After WW2,
when suburbs started to spread, that fabric that held communties
together was torn apart...transit ripped up, strip malls replaced

the

Post by William
corner store, etc. Now people finally realize what we lost so we

need

Post by William
to weave it back together into neighborhoods where we can once again
find all that within a walk or transit ride. So that means more
transit, better urban design, better landscape, and more decisions
that keep us from spreading even further apart."
What do you think?

Cities declined mostly because of crime. It had nothing to do with

strip

Post by Rotten
malls or "transit being ripped up" or any other nonsense. People want

Post by Rotten
feel safe, when many cities exploded in the 60's with "righteous

racial

Post by Rotten
fury", all it did was scare people more. Cities declined also because

people

Post by Rotten
inherently want more space and a slower pace of life, which is

naturally

Post by Rotten
offered in suburbia. "Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

What

Post by William
can

Post by Rotten
their ability. Cities need to realize that they have a natural

disadvantage

Post by Rotten
because most families will probably inherently want what is only found

Post by Rotten
the suburbs. So cities will have to make do with a higher amount of

young

Post by Rotten
single professionals, artists, and gays (who are naturally attracted

Post by Rotten
cities, not that that's a bad thing mind you) than the suburbs. City
governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them,

that's

Post by Rotten
all. They need not attract families.

As density goes up, fertility goes down in animals, and since humans are
animals, in humans too.

That must be why New York's population is so low.

Cities grow by immigration, not natural reproduction.

Thats a good point.

John

2007-09-19 01:21:49 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this thread.
You're wrong here.

Post by Rotten
It had nothing to do with strip malls or "transit being ripped up" or any
other nonsense. People want to feel safe, when many cities exploded in the
60's with "righteous racial fury", all it did was scare people more.

But the exodus did not start--or end--with crime. Many other issues started
the movement away from cities before anyone spoke about crime.

Post by Rotten
Cities declined also because people inherently want more space and a slower
pace of life, which is naturally offered in suburbia.

Slower pace of life in Surburbia? Really? Where I have to drive my kids
everywhere they need to go? Where I have to commute to the City--or another
suburb--for a job because my suburb wants to be a bedroom community?
Suburbs were looked at cleaner and the govt made it easier to build in green
space rather than rebuild in the city.

Post by Rotten
"Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

Do you prefer the term "urban character?" Goes right along with "rural
character." I can define urban character better than rural character.

Post by Rotten
What can cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control
crime.

Nope. First thing they need to do is improve schools. Families move where
the schools are the best.

Post by Rotten
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability.

Many cities have cheaper housing than the suburbs. What they need to do is
to remake the streets and consolidate lots to provide more space for people
used to growing up in the suburbs.

Post by Rotten
Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage because most
families will probably inherently want what is only found in the suburbs.

No. Cities have a disadvantage because most people have already formed
negative opinions without really experiencing what City life is actually
like. Most people want what is in the city, they just want it in a suburb
setting.

Post by Rotten
So cities will have to make do with a higher amount of young single
professionals, artists, and gays (who are naturally attracted to cities,
not that that's a bad thing mind you) than the suburbs.

That is a very good thing. Then they need to hold onto those peole and show
them that a City is an ideal place to raise a family.

Post by Rotten
City governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them,
that's all.

That goes for all governments.

Post by Rotten
They need not attract families.

Yes they do--in big fat hairy gibs.

rotten

2007-09-19 19:54:23 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this thread.
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

But the exodus did not start--or end--with crime. Many other issues started
the movement away from cities before anyone spoke about crime.

Crime, corruption, and chaos started the exodus and was the most
prevalent factor.

Post by Rotten
Cities declined also because people inherently want more space and a slower
pace of life, which is naturally offered in suburbia.

No, it truly is a slower, relaxed, and safer pace of life in suburbia
for most people with families.

Post by Rotten
"Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

Do you prefer the term "urban character?" Goes right along with "rural
character." I can define urban character better than rural character.

Welp, let's just say it was the whole sentence... it was total
nonsense. The US "seperates transportation from the urban form"? Huh?
Sounds like postmodern BS to me.

Post by Rotten
What can cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control
crime.

Nope. First thing they need to do is improve schools. Families move where
the schools are the best.

People will never move to where they don't feel safe. Who wants to put
up with that, especially if you have a family?

Post by Rotten
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability.

Many cities have cheaper housing than the suburbs. What they need to do is
to remake the streets and consolidate lots to provide more space for people
used to growing up in the suburbs.

Good luck with that. How do you propose to accomplish that?

Post by Rotten
Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage because most
families will probably inherently want what is only found in the suburbs.

Which is why suburbs form outside of cities. Over time, the city loses
relative importance while the suburb urbanizes.

That is a very good thing. Then they need to hold onto those peole and show
them that a City is an ideal place to raise a family.

Post by Rotten
City governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them,
that's all.

That goes for all governments.

I'm in agreement there.

Post by Rotten
They need not attract families.

Yes they do--in big fat hairy gibs.

John

2007-09-20 12:20:07 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this thread.
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

I would like to know where you got that info then. It goes against
everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

But the exodus did not start--or end--with crime. Many other issues started
the movement away from cities before anyone spoke about crime.

Crime, corruption, and chaos started the exodus and was the most
prevalent factor.

Again, until I see some primary info I'll have to disagree with you.

Post by Rotten
Cities declined also because people inherently want more space and a slower
pace of life, which is naturally offered in suburbia.

No, it truly is a slower, relaxed, and safer pace of life in suburbia
for most people with families.

Maybe at the outset, but not anymore. Life truly is slower in the
cities than in the suburbs. I've lived in both.

Post by Rotten
"Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

Do you prefer the term "urban character?" Goes right along with "rural
character." I can define urban character better than rural character.

Welp, let's just say it was the whole sentence... it was total
nonsense. The US "seperates transportation from the urban form"? Huh?
Sounds like postmodern BS to me.

It's "academicese." It's how academics and architects speak. It's
true though. It could be said in terms more people could understand.

Post by Rotten
What can cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control
crime.

Nope. First thing they need to do is improve schools. Families move where
the schools are the best.

People will never move to where they don't feel safe. Who wants to put
up with that, especially if you have a family?

Funny thing though--if you fix the schools, you generally fix the
crime problem. And oh, by the way, crime is just as prevalent--if not
more prevalent--in suburbs as it is in cities--especially when
considering per capita crime. It's just a perception that crime is
greater in the city.

If you fix the schools, more middle class families move in. That
drives up the cost of housing which drives out poorer people who have
higher incidences of crime. Gentrification is generally the term
given to that phenomenom.

Post by Rotten
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability.

Many cities have cheaper housing than the suburbs. What they need to do is
to remake the streets and consolidate lots to provide more space for people
used to growing up in the suburbs.

Good luck with that. How do you propose to accomplish that?

I live in the midwest. Lots of rustbelt cities here. The City of
Youngstown OH has a plan to shrink from it's older boundaries. They
propose to tear down abandoned houses, help the remaining people who
live on those streets move to a more populated area, remove the
infrastructure and let the area return to a natural state. Lots of
cities could do the same thing.

Post by Rotten
Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage because most
families will probably inherently want what is only found in the suburbs.

Which is why suburbs form outside of cities. Over time, the city loses
relative importance while the suburb urbanizes.

So people don't want a city but they turn the suburb they're residing
in into a city in order to enjoy the benefits of a city. You're
defeating your own argument.

I hope I'm not coming across as a dick. It's kind of nice to debate
Urban Planning without resorting to name calling and such.

John

That is a very good thing. Then they need to hold onto those peole and show
them that a City is an ideal place to raise a family.

Post by Rotten
City governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them,
that's all.

That goes for all governments.

I'm in agreement there.

Post by Rotten
They need not attract families.

Yes they do--in big fat hairy gibs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

George Conklin

2007-09-20 13:49:07 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this thread.
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

I would like to know where you got that info then. It goes against
everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

Cities kept growing and natually they expanded on the edges, since the
rest was already taken up. The so-called flight to the suburbs was a
political slogan cooked up by big-city mayors who wanted more well-to-do
residents.

rotten

2007-09-20 15:13:28 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Post by William
"Glad you asked: I talked about reweaving the urban fabric because
today's cities need to be reconnected. Cities grew as places where

you

Post by William
could find work, home, shopping, recreation and pretty much

everything

the

Post by William
corner store, etc. Now people finally realize what we lost so we

need

Post by William
to weave it back together into neighborhoods where we can once

again

Post by William
find all that within a walk or transit ride. So that means more
transit, better urban design, better landscape, and more decisions
that keep us from spreading even further apart."
What do you think?

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this

thread.

Post by John
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

I would like to know where you got that info then. It goes against
everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

That not entirely true, look at the population for major cities in the
US from after WW2, their populations went down.

George Conklin

2007-09-20 20:05:56 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Post by William
"Glad you asked: I talked about reweaving the urban fabric because
today's cities need to be reconnected. Cities grew as places where

you

Post by William
could find work, home, shopping, recreation and pretty much

everything

the

Post by William
corner store, etc. Now people finally realize what we lost so we

need

Post by William
to weave it back together into neighborhoods where we can once

again

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this

thread.

Post by John
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

I would like to know where you got that info then. It goes against
everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

That not entirely true, look at the population for major cities in the
US from after WW2, their populations went down.

Starting in 1950 the population of the most dense areas went down. But
the vast growth in suburban populations could never have been placed in the
old-style cities. As the movement from rural to urban continued, and the
population of the nation went up sharply, the old cities were not able to
take even 10% of the changes.

rotten

2007-09-20 21:25:03 UTC

Post by rotten
That not entirely true, look at the population for major cities in the
US from after WW2, their populations went down.

Well if central city population went down and suburban population went
up, I'd call it reasonable to assume that some of those people from
the central cities were moving out to the suburbs.

George Conklin

2007-09-21 00:01:45 UTC

Post by rotten
That not entirely true, look at the population for major cities in the
US from after WW2, their populations went down.

Starting in 1950 the population of the most dense areas went down.

But

Post by George Conklin
the vast growth in suburban populations could never have been placed in the
old-style cities. As the movement from rural to urban continued, and the
population of the nation went up sharply, the old cities were not able to
take even 10% of the changes.

Well if central city population went down and suburban population went
up, I'd call it reasonable to assume that some of those people from
the central cities were moving out to the suburbs.

Some, yes, but that is not the main issue. Unless the cities enlarged,
then they could not have handled the large population growth they were
called upon to handle. In NC the cities just annexed all new areas, so it
was moot. You could move to the edge, but then they annexed you. In the
Northeast, the city boundaries were fixed, but the resulting patterns are
the same.

Baxter

2007-09-21 01:49:35 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Cities kept growing and natually they expanded on the edges, since the
rest was already taken up. The so-called flight to the suburbs was a
political slogan cooked up by big-city mayors who wanted more well-to-do
residents.

That not entirely true, look at the population for major cities in the
US from after WW2, their populations went down.

There was a pent-up demand for housing after WWII. It was right after WWII
that the suburb was born - it was technological application of
mass-production techniques. Also right after WWII came VA and FHA
mortages - which were only for new construction - the mass-produced suburban
developments.

John

2007-09-21 12:44:17 UTC

-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---------

That not entirely true, look at the population for major cities in the
US from after WW2, their populations went down.

There was a pent-up demand for housing after WWII. It was right after WWII
that the suburb was born - it was technological application of
mass-production techniques.

Suburbs were born with the advent of the streetcar. Shaker Heights
and Cleveland Heights in Ohio were some of the first so-called "street-
car suburbs." That is also what doomed the cities of the northeast--
they could no longer grow because there were incorporated areas along
their borders.

The modern form of the suburb came about as you said--after WWII. But
suburbs, themselves, were born many years before.

Also right after WWII came VA and FHA

mortages - which were only for new construction - the mass-produced suburban
developments.

George Conklin

2007-09-21 17:24:44 UTC

Post by Baxter
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

Post by Baxter
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

That not entirely true, look at the population for major cities in the
US from after WW2, their populations went down.

There was a pent-up demand for housing after WWII. It was right after WWII
that the suburb was born - it was technological application of
mass-production techniques.

Post by Baxter
mortages - which were only for new construction - the mass-produced suburban
developments.

Actually the whole process started with the steam railroads...in short,
anything beyond the horse and buggy. Chicago moved from being a walking
city to a street car city, and increased its effective radius from 3.2 miles
(about 1 hour walking) to 12 miles, about 1 hour on a street car. Since
area goes up with the square, that is 9 vs. 144, so you can see the
difference.

Besides, the population of the nation has gone up, up and up, and the
proportion making its living from farming went from 80% down to 1 to maybe
2%.

rotten

2007-09-20 15:08:06 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this thread.
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

I would like to know where you got that info then. It goes against
everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

Really? Look at "white flight" out of Newark after the 1967 riots.

But the exodus did not start--or end--with crime. Many other issues started
the movement away from cities before anyone spoke about crime.

Crime, corruption, and chaos started the exodus and was the most
prevalent factor.

Again, until I see some primary info I'll have to disagree with you.

Use common sense. Nearly everyone I've read, including experiences
from relatives, indicates that people fled the cities because of crime
and chaos. I'm sure I could dig up some "primary info" to support this
but... it's not really worth the effort.

Post by Rotten
Cities declined also because people inherently want more space and a slower
pace of life, which is naturally offered in suburbia.

No, it truly is a slower, relaxed, and safer pace of life in suburbia
for most people with families.

Maybe at the outset, but not anymore. Life truly is slower in the
cities than in the suburbs. I've lived in both.

Maybe for you. I don't know what city you live in, but life is slower
in the suburbs around here than in the city. Most everyone I would
talk to would agree. Most people who enjoy city life move there
because of the "action".

Post by Rotten
"Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

Do you prefer the term "urban character?" Goes right along with "rural
character." I can define urban character better than rural character.

Welp, let's just say it was the whole sentence... it was total
nonsense. The US "seperates transportation from the urban form"? Huh?
Sounds like postmodern BS to me.

It's "academicese." It's how academics and architects speak. It's
true though. It could be said in terms more people could understand.

No, it's not calculus, it's not chemistry, it's not sociology. It
sounds like BS to me. How does the US separate transportation from the
"urban form"? What transportation? Where is he talking about? How is
it seperated any more than any other country? It's not true in any
sense of the word... I can walk 10 feet from my house and get hit by a
car. So transportation is seperated from residents? It's a BS
statement.

Post by Rotten
What can cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control
crime.

Nope. First thing they need to do is improve schools. Families move where
the schools are the best.

People will never move to where they don't feel safe. Who wants to put
up with that, especially if you have a family?

You've got to be kidding. So fixing schools will automagically fix
crime? Are you joking? Crime is higher in the suburbs than in the
cities? For one thing, I'm talking violent crime here, the kind most
people care the most about. But either way, your statement is BS.

Post by John
If you fix the schools, more middle class families move in. That
drives up the cost of housing which drives out poorer people who have
higher incidences of crime. Gentrification is generally the term
given to that phenomenom.

Young single people might be willing to brave a crime-ridden area, but
nobody with a family to worry about will.

Post by Rotten
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability.

Many cities have cheaper housing than the suburbs. What they need to do is
to remake the streets and consolidate lots to provide more space for people
used to growing up in the suburbs.

Good luck with that. How do you propose to accomplish that?

To me it sounds like you want to save cities by turning them into
sprawl-type areas. Remove the infrastructure? So we'll save the cities
by tearing them up, Robert Moses style? You have some odd ideas.

Post by Rotten
Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage because most
families will probably inherently want what is only found in the suburbs.

Which is why suburbs form outside of cities. Over time, the city loses
relative importance while the suburb urbanizes.

So people don't want a city but they turn the suburb they're residing
in into a city in order to enjoy the benefits of a city. You're
defeating your own argument.

You need to lose your preconcieved notion of what a suburb is. A
suburb is merely a smaller town that has attached itself onto the edge
of a larger city. It can very urban or not very urban, it can be
transit-oriented or not transit-oriented. Generally speaking, suburbs
are seperate political entities, they are usually a fraction of the
size of the "host city", and they are usually less dense. But they
really don't have to be. Suburbs have seperate political entities
called "exurbs" that attached to them as well. Cities, suburbs, and
exurbs all form the larger category that we call "urban areas". I live
in what is considered a "streetcar suburb", although politically it is
part of the "host city". So it's not really a true suburb in my mind.

I fall into the trap of referring to "sprawl" as suburbs as well, and
have done so in this argument.

Post by John
I hope I'm not coming across as a dick. It's kind of nice to debate
Urban Planning without resorting to name calling and such.

No you're not, but many people hold this issue very dear to their
heart so they respond very angrily when you question them.

That is a very good thing. Then they need to hold onto those peole and show
them that a City is an ideal place to raise a family.

Post by Rotten
City governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them,
that's all.

That goes for all governments.

I'm in agreement there.

Post by Rotten
They need not attract families.

Yes they do--in big fat hairy gibs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

John

2007-09-20 17:28:54 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this thread.
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

I would like to know where you got that info then. It goes against
everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

Really? Look at "white flight" out of Newark after the 1967 riots.

1967? The flight from the City to the suburbs began much sooner than
that. Think Levittown. It began with the streetcar around the turn
of the Century but that was mostly to suburbs which were, in effect,
smaller versions of the cities they were adjoined to. The greatest
flight began after WWII with the GI Bill and the automobile. It
wasn't crime that caused people to move--at least in the beginning--it
was what they considered a better opportunity. And it was racism.
White flight was real and was helped along by real estate agents. It
was helped along further by "red-lining" by banks and insurance
companies.

But the exodus did not start--or end--with crime. Many other issues started
the movement away from cities before anyone spoke about crime.

Crime, corruption, and chaos started the exodus and was the most
prevalent factor.

Again, until I see some primary info I'll have to disagree with you.

Save yourself the time. I disagree with you and am convinced that
you're looking at too recent history.

Post by Rotten
Cities declined also because people inherently want more space and a slower
pace of life, which is naturally offered in suburbia.

No, it truly is a slower, relaxed, and safer pace of life in suburbia
for most people with families.

Maybe at the outset, but not anymore. Life truly is slower in the
cities than in the suburbs. I've lived in both.

What is your definition of city life? It seem to me like you may have
some preconceived notions of density within a city? Most city
neighborhoods cannot be distinguished from suburban neighborhoods.

Post by Rotten
"Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

Do you prefer the term "urban character?" Goes right along with "rural
character." I can define urban character better than rural character.

Welp, let's just say it was the whole sentence... it was total
nonsense. The US "seperates transportation from the urban form"? Huh?
Sounds like postmodern BS to me.

It's "academicese." It's how academics and architects speak. It's
true though. It could be said in terms more people could understand.

What he's saying is that transportation is designed for the suburbs
with acres of parking lots, not for the close-in, parking on the
street that typifies urban commercial centers.

Post by Rotten
What can cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control
crime.

Nope. First thing they need to do is improve schools. Families move where
the schools are the best.

People will never move to where they don't feel safe. Who wants to put
up with that, especially if you have a family?

No it's not. Look at per capita crime and you'll see that it is
generally lower in urbanized cities than it is in smaller cities and
suburbs. The overall amount of crime may be greater because of more
people, but there is less of a chance for any individual to be a
victim.

Young single people might be willing to brave a crime-ridden area, but
nobody with a family to worry about will.

You seem to think that all cities are over run with crime. Where did
you get such a notion? Most people who live in a city--any city--are
not vicitims of crime.

Post by Rotten
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability.

Many cities have cheaper housing than the suburbs. What they need to do is
to remake the streets and consolidate lots to provide more space for people
used to growing up in the suburbs.

Good luck with that. How do you propose to accomplish that?

To me it sounds like you want to save cities by turning them into
sprawl-type areas.

No. If there are abandoned houses on streets, tear the houses down
and offer the lots to existing homeowners to expand their own lots--
but not to build houses on. Make the neighborhoods less dense.

Post by rotten
Remove the infrastructure?

Sure. Why not? Maybe not remove it, but don't keep it under repair.
If no one lives there, there is no reason for fire or police.

Post by rotten
So we'll save the cities
by tearing them up, Robert Moses style? You have some odd ideas.

No that's "Urban Renewal" which hoped that by removing slums new
development would occur. Stupid idea then, stupid idea now. I say
remove the houses and buildings and let the land lay fallow until you
have a use for it. Maybe odd ideas, but it's the coming thing for
renewing older rust-belt cities.

Post by Rotten
Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage because most
families will probably inherently want what is only found in the suburbs.

Which is why suburbs form outside of cities. Over time, the city loses
relative importance while the suburb urbanizes.

So people don't want a city but they turn the suburb they're residing
in into a city in order to enjoy the benefits of a city. You're
defeating your own argument.

You need to lose your preconcieved notion of what a suburb is. A
suburb is merely a smaller town that has attached itself onto the edge
of a larger city.
It can very urban or not very urban, it can be
transit-oriented or not transit-oriented. Generally speaking, suburbs
are seperate political entities, they are usually a fraction of the
size of the "host city", and they are usually less dense. But they
really don't have to be. Suburbs have seperate political entities
called "exurbs" that attached to them as well. Cities, suburbs, and
exurbs all form the larger category that we call "urban areas". I live
in what is considered a "streetcar suburb", although politically it is
part of the "host city". So it's not really a true suburb in my mind.

The term suburb is merely a name that has little meaning anymore since
the places we used to think of as suburbs are now full-fledged
cities. Exurb is a fairly new term as is the stupid "edge City."

Post by rotten
I fall into the trap of referring to "sprawl" as suburbs as well, and
have done so in this argument.

It's an easy trap. Even the professionals do.

Post by John
I hope I'm not coming across as a dick. It's kind of nice to debate
Urban Planning without resorting to name calling and such.

No you're not, but many people hold this issue very dear to their
heart so they respond very angrily when you question them.

Oh I know. That's why I was hesitant to first respond.

John

That is a very good thing. Then they need to hold onto those peole and show
them that a City is an ideal place to raise a family.

Post by Rotten
City governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them,
that's all.

That goes for all governments.

I'm in agreement there.

Post by Rotten
They need not attract families.

Yes they do--in big fat hairy gibs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

rotten

2007-09-20 20:51:50 UTC

Post by rotten
Maybe for you. I don't know what city you live in, but life is slower
in the suburbs around here than in the city. Most everyone I would
talk to would agree. Most people who enjoy city life move there
because of the "action".

What is your definition of city life? It seem to me like you may have
some preconceived notions of density within a city? Most city
neighborhoods cannot be distinguished from suburban neighborhoods.

Well for the purpose of argument, a city will generally have a high
population density than a suburb and for that I'd say that a suburb
has a slower pace of life.

Post by Rotten
"Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

Do you prefer the term "urban character?" Goes right along with "rural
character." I can define urban character better than rural character.

Welp, let's just say it was the whole sentence... it was total
nonsense. The US "seperates transportation from the urban form"? Huh?
Sounds like postmodern BS to me.

It's "academicese." It's how academics and architects speak. It's
true though. It could be said in terms more people could understand.

What he's saying is that transportation is designed for the suburbs
with acres of parking lots, not for the close-in, parking on the
street that typifies urban commercial centers.

He said it was seperated from the urban form... rectify that with what
you're telling me.

Post by Rotten
What can cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control
crime.

Nope. First thing they need to do is improve schools. Families move where
the schools are the best.

People will never move to where they don't feel safe. Who wants to put
up with that, especially if you have a family?

I'm sorry but there's simply no way that cities have a lower per
capita crime rate than suburbs. I'm calling BS until I see some proof
of that.

Young single people might be willing to brave a crime-ridden area, but
nobody with a family to worry about will.

You seem to think that all cities are over run with crime. Where did
you get such a notion? Most people who live in a city--any city--are
not vicitims of crime.

I never said anything you said I said.

Post by rotten
To me it sounds like you want to save cities by turning them into
sprawl-type areas.

No. If there are abandoned houses on streets, tear the houses down
and offer the lots to existing homeowners to expand their own lots--
but not to build houses on. Make the neighborhoods less dense.

It seems the free market could take care of that.

Post by rotten
Remove the infrastructure?

Sure. Why not? Maybe not remove it, but don't keep it under repair.
If no one lives there, there is no reason for fire or police.

Elaborate further on that, please.

Post by rotten
So we'll save the cities
by tearing them up, Robert Moses style? You have some odd ideas.

Remove what houses and buildings? Maybe we should set off nuclear
bombs in our cities and destroy everything... it might solve some
problems. ;)

Post by rotten
You need to lose your preconcieved notion of what a suburb is. A
suburb is merely a smaller town that has attached itself onto the edge
of a larger city.
It can very urban or not very urban, it can be
transit-oriented or not transit-oriented. Generally speaking, suburbs
are seperate political entities, they are usually a fraction of the
size of the "host city", and they are usually less dense. But they
really don't have to be. Suburbs have seperate political entities
called "exurbs" that attached to them as well. Cities, suburbs, and
exurbs all form the larger category that we call "urban areas". I live
in what is considered a "streetcar suburb", although politically it is
part of the "host city". So it's not really a true suburb in my mind.

The term suburb is merely a name that has little meaning anymore since
the places we used to think of as suburbs are now full-fledged
cities. Exurb is a fairly new term as is the stupid "edge City."

No... I'd say a suburb is merely a geographical location with a
seperate political government which has attached itself to a larger
and denser city. The designation still makes sense.

Pat

2007-09-20 15:10:07 UTC

It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
politicians.

Cities declined mostly because of crime.

I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this thread.
You're wrong here.

No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.

I would like to know where you got that info then. It goes against
everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

But the exodus did not start--or end--with crime. Many other issues started
the movement away from cities before anyone spoke about crime.

Crime, corruption, and chaos started the exodus and was the most
prevalent factor.

Again, until I see some primary info I'll have to disagree with you.

Post by Rotten
Cities declined also because people inherently want more space and a slower
pace of life, which is naturally offered in suburbia.

No, it truly is a slower, relaxed, and safer pace of life in suburbia
for most people with families.

Maybe at the outset, but not anymore. Life truly is slower in the
cities than in the suburbs. I've lived in both.

Post by Rotten
"Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.

Do you prefer the term "urban character?" Goes right along with "rural
character." I can define urban character better than rural character.

Welp, let's just say it was the whole sentence... it was total
nonsense. The US "seperates transportation from the urban form"? Huh?
Sounds like postmodern BS to me.

It's "academicese." It's how academics and architects speak. It's
true though. It could be said in terms more people could understand.

Post by Rotten
What can cities do to attract families? Well first they need to control
crime.

Nope. First thing they need to do is improve schools. Families move where
the schools are the best.

People will never move to where they don't feel safe. Who wants to put
up with that, especially if you have a family?

Funny thing though--if you fix the schools, you generally fix the
crime problem. And oh, by the way, crime is just as prevalent--if not
more prevalent--in suburbs as it is in cities--especially when
considering per capita crime. It's just a perception that crime is
greater in the city.
If you fix the schools, more middle class families move in. That
drives up the cost of housing which drives out poorer people who have
higher incidences of crime. Gentrification is generally the term
given to that phenomenom.

Post by Rotten
Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing under
control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the best of
their ability.

Many cities have cheaper housing than the suburbs. What they need to do is
to remake the streets and consolidate lots to provide more space for people
used to growing up in the suburbs.

Good luck with that. How do you propose to accomplish that?

Post by Rotten
Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage because most
families will probably inherently want what is only found in the suburbs.

Which is why suburbs form outside of cities. Over time, the city loses
relative importance while the suburb urbanizes.

So people don't want a city but they turn the suburb they're residing
in into a city in order to enjoy the benefits of a city. You're
defeating your own argument.
I hope I'm not coming across as a dick. It's kind of nice to debate
Urban Planning without resorting to name calling and such.
John

That is a very good thing. Then they need to hold onto those peole and show
them that a City is an ideal place to raise a family.

Post by Rotten
City governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect them,
that's all.

That goes for all governments.

I'm in agreement there.

Post by Rotten
They need not attract families.

Yes they do--in big fat hairy gibs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You both need to consider if the expansion of the suburbs has nothing
to do with crime or income or poverty or "chaos" or none of those
things but was merely a political development caused by political
actions and with a large amount of racism built in. I'll use NYS as
an example.

Until about 1900, suburbs were almost non-existent for a physical
reason -- no public water or sewer. In order to receive those
services you needed to be in a city or village. That was the state
law. Period. If there was expansion around the city, the city
expanded as part of it. That kept going but there were circumstances
where cities/villages bumped into each other but it was fairly good.
Then, as a political action, the state legislature changed the law and
allowed "special districts" for water, sewer, fire protection,
lighting, etc. From that day on, municipal borders became almost
stagnant. The growth then switched from the cities to the townships.
That created the conditions for the suburbs as we know it, with their
reliance on the cities for some services like libraries. Now we have
suburbs -- where they often exceed the population of the city -- where
they rely on the city for services and many government functions but
they don't pay the taxes to support those services. This keeps the
taxes down in the suburbs, hits the cities hard with added expenses,
and effectively has the city-residents (often a high concentration of
poor and minorities) subsidizing the (more affluent) people who live
in the suburbs.

Pat

2007-09-08 21:46:29 UTC

First off, what makes you think that HE/SHE answered it. More than
likely, it was a PR person or a planner or some other political
operative.

I don't know what a Facebook friend is, but I have a picture of me
taken with the Gov. of NY. Does that make us best buds?

Almost finally, what the heck did you expect him to say, that people
were fleeing to the suburbs in droves because they hate cities and
want a better lifestyle? Of course he wouldn't say that, he's the
mayor of a city. Go ask whoever runs your areas outside your cities
the same question and see if you get a markedly different answer.

Finally, what the heck does "reweave the urban fabric mean". It is so
vague it means whatever you WANT it to mean, so it means something
different to you and to him. It is all things to all people.

Oh, what it REALLY means is that you're now on his list to solicate
contributions from. Start saving your allowance.

Baxter

2007-09-09 01:57:40 UTC

Post by Pat
Almost finally, what the heck did you expect him to say, that people
were fleeing to the suburbs in droves because they hate cities and
want a better lifestyle? Of course he wouldn't say that, he's the
mayor of a city. Go ask whoever runs your areas outside your cities
the same question and see if you get a markedly different answer.

People "fled" the cities because of two, and only two, reasons:
- it was nearly impossible for the average person to get a loan to buy a
house in anywhere except the suburbs. FHA and VA loans went overwhelminly to
new construction in suburban developments
- advertising by the oil and auto companies glorifying the automobile and
denigrating Transit. It even went a bit further that just denegrating
Transit with a cabal of auto-related companies buying up commuter rail and
shutting it down.

William

2007-09-09 03:34:16 UTC

Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

George Conklin

2007-09-09 10:46:10 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Becuase a mayor lies?

Pat

2007-09-10 15:14:50 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.

And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.

... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

Amy Blankenship

2007-09-10 15:30:40 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.

The problem is the extra "r".

:-)

William

2007-09-11 00:43:08 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.
... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

on my garage (it got into our cities newspaper website)
after the bridge collapsed he said that it was on of the things less
troubled after the worst week of his life.

Pat

2007-09-11 03:05:48 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.
... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

Okay, I'' bealive you. But you have to know that The Mayor of
Minneapolis is not some charlatan
or anything. He's a very nice guy, my brother met him when he worked
as an intern. He takes a route home from city hall that goes past my
house everyday. When he saw thishttp://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4357/mymuralinstartribuneeo6.png
on my garage (it got into our cities newspaper website)
after the bridge collapsed he said that it was on of the things less
troubled after the worst week of his life.

You know that Senator who just resigned because of "bathroom-gate".
He was a nice guy.

You know that mayor in NJ who was just arrested. He was a nice guy.

You know that President who can't get us out of Iraq? He's a nice
guy.

There are lots of nice guys in politics. But don't trust any of them.

I work in lots of communities. I know lots of elected officials. I'm
on the county Democratic committee (gee, technically that makes ME an
elected official, go figure). I work with lots of planning boards and
lots of government offices. There are two mayors I like and trust and
there are two planners as well. That's it. When it doubt, watch your
back. They all have an agenda and YOU don't know what it is. Believe
it or not, I think the most trustworthy people are the mid-level
bureaucrats in State and Federal government. They are mostly lifers
and have little to win or lose by having much of an agenda.

William

2007-09-13 02:36:03 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.
... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

You know that Senator who just resigned because of "bathroom-gate".
He was a nice guy.
You know that mayor in NJ who was just arrested. He was a nice guy.
You know that President who can't get us out of Iraq? He's a nice
guy.
There are lots of nice guys in politics. But don't trust any of them.
I work in lots of communities. I know lots of elected officials. I'm
on the county Democratic committee (gee, technically that makes ME an
elected official, go figure). I work with lots of planning boards and
lots of government offices. There are two mayors I like and trust and
there are two planners as well. That's it. When it doubt, watch your
back. They all have an agenda and YOU don't know what it is. Believe
it or not, I think the most trustworthy people are the mid-level
bureaucrats in State and Federal government. They are mostly lifers
and have little to win or lose by having much of an agenda.

Tell that to the mayor of the biggest city in the state with the best
ACT scores in the country,best medical facilities that have made the
most inovations, rated one of the highest standards of living in the
country, ranked one of the funnest cities to live in, and cleanest
with some of the best art institutes. Minne = Lakes Apolis=
City :Minneapolis, the city of lakes

Oh but Pat, you got feilds and shit, thats pretty cool too. And since
your Mayor, is the Mayor of a small town, he's all nice local which
means you can trust him unlike those bigger cities, right?

Pat

2007-09-13 17:22:04 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.
... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

You know that Senator who just resigned because of "bathroom-gate".
He was a nice guy.
You know that mayor in NJ who was just arrested. He was a nice guy.
You know that President who can't get us out of Iraq? He's a nice
guy.
There are lots of nice guys in politics. But don't trust any of them.
I work in lots of communities. I know lots of elected officials. I'm
on the county Democratic committee (gee, technically that makes ME an
elected official, go figure). I work with lots of planning boards and
lots of government offices. There are two mayors I like and trust and
there are two planners as well. That's it. When it doubt, watch your
back. They all have an agenda and YOU don't know what it is. Believe
it or not, I think the most trustworthy people are the mid-level
bureaucrats in State and Federal government. They are mostly lifers
and have little to win or lose by having much of an agenda.

Tell that to the mayor of the biggest city in the state with the best
ACT scores in the country,best medical facilities that have made the
most inovations, rated one of the highest standards of living in the
country, ranked one of the funnest cities to live in, and cleanest
with some of the best art institutes. Minne = Lakes Apolis=
City :Minneapolis, the city of lakes
Oh but Pat, you got feilds and shit, thats pretty cool too. And since
your Mayor, is the Mayor of a small town, he's all nice local which
means you can trust him unlike those bigger cities, right?

You're jumping to all kinds of conclusions.

Besides the above, your brother "met" the mayor and therefore thinks
he's a nice guy, or whatever. Give me a break. Any politician can
make you think that or they're not much of a politician. There's more
to knowing a guy than shaking his hand once. If that's all it takes,
I know two Presidents, three governors, etc. etc. I bet you have fun
chatting with Newt Gingrich or Ollie North or Dick Nixon or Attilla a
Hun or Satan. But it doesn't mean you should trust them.

Second off, you assuming that just because you got an email from him
that he sent it. I doubt it. If you want, I'll forge an email header
from him and send you an email, too, and I'm not even one of his
staffers. Responding to routine mail is the job of staffers.

In this city, I know where the mayor lives. His sister used to live
next door to me. I have the mayor's home and cell phone numbers and
I've talked to quite a bit. We are members of the same church and the
same social club. I've even voted for him. But none of that means
that I trust him.

Go play in professional politics for a while and you'll find it's very
difficult to trust anyone. It is a profession of wheeling and dealing
-- and you don't always know what's in play. Most politicans won't
lie to your face, but they are very good at avoiding answers. Or if
they answer, you have to realize that things change and your agreement/
opinion/whatever might not be part of the new strategy.

The old saying in politics is "if you want a friend, go buy a dog".

William

2007-09-14 00:29:34 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.
... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

You know that Senator who just resigned because of "bathroom-gate".
He was a nice guy.
You know that mayor in NJ who was just arrested. He was a nice guy.
You know that President who can't get us out of Iraq? He's a nice
guy.
There are lots of nice guys in politics. But don't trust any of them.
I work in lots of communities. I know lots of elected officials. I'm
on the county Democratic committee (gee, technically that makes ME an
elected official, go figure). I work with lots of planning boards and
lots of government offices. There are two mayors I like and trust and
there are two planners as well. That's it. When it doubt, watch your
back. They all have an agenda and YOU don't know what it is. Believe
it or not, I think the most trustworthy people are the mid-level
bureaucrats in State and Federal government. They are mostly lifers
and have little to win or lose by having much of an agenda.

Tell that to the mayor of the biggest city in the state with the best
ACT scores in the country,best medical facilities that have made the
most inovations, rated one of the highest standards of living in the
country, ranked one of the funnest cities to live in, and cleanest
with some of the best art institutes. Minne = Lakes Apolis=
City :Minneapolis, the city of lakes
Oh but Pat, you got feilds and shit, thats pretty cool too. And since
your Mayor, is the Mayor of a small town, he's all nice local which
means you can trust him unlike those bigger cities, right?

You're jumping to all kinds of conclusions.
Besides the above, your brother "met" the mayor and therefore thinks
he's a nice guy, or whatever. Give me a break. Any politician can
make you think that or they're not much of a politician. There's more
to knowing a guy than shaking his hand once. If that's all it takes,
I know two Presidents, three governors, etc. etc. I bet you have fun
chatting with Newt Gingrich or Ollie North or Dick Nixon or Attilla a
Hun or Satan. But it doesn't mean you should trust them.
Second off, you assuming that just because you got an email from him
that he sent it. I doubt it. If you want, I'll forge an email header
from him and send you an email, too, and I'm not even one of his
staffers. Responding to routine mail is the job of staffers.
In this city, I know where the mayor lives. His sister used to live
next door to me. I have the mayor's home and cell phone numbers and
I've talked to quite a bit. We are members of the same church and the
same social club. I've even voted for him. But none of that means
that I trust him.
Go play in professional politics for a while and you'll find it's very
difficult to trust anyone. It is a profession of wheeling and dealing
-- and you don't always know what's in play. Most politicans won't
lie to your face, but they are very good at avoiding answers. Or if
they answer, you have to realize that things change and your agreement/
opinion/whatever might not be part of the new strategy.
The old saying in politics is "if you want a friend, go buy a dog".

You need to look in the mirror, look at all the conclusions your
making. My brother did meet the mayor, he talked to him for half an
hour about city issues, and my mural as well. And he didn't send me an
email, he has a facebook that he told my brother about, I added him as
a "friend"(thats just what they call it it's not me) and I saw the
stuff he said on his profile. Most of it was'nt really about being the
Mayor,just him(he is a human being just like you and me), but
"reweaving the urban fabric" was on of his goals as Mayor. I asked him
about it and he responded with a short "message" they call it. Relax
Pat. Drop the paranoia. This isn't New York city were talking about.

Pat

2007-09-14 01:17:33 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.
... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

You know that Senator who just resigned because of "bathroom-gate".
He was a nice guy.
You know that mayor in NJ who was just arrested. He was a nice guy.
You know that President who can't get us out of Iraq? He's a nice
guy.
There are lots of nice guys in politics. But don't trust any of them.
I work in lots of communities. I know lots of elected officials. I'm
on the county Democratic committee (gee, technically that makes ME an
elected official, go figure). I work with lots of planning boards and
lots of government offices. There are two mayors I like and trust and
there are two planners as well. That's it. When it doubt, watch your
back. They all have an agenda and YOU don't know what it is. Believe
it or not, I think the most trustworthy people are the mid-level
bureaucrats in State and Federal government. They are mostly lifers
and have little to win or lose by having much of an agenda.

Tell that to the mayor of the biggest city in the state with the best
ACT scores in the country,best medical facilities that have made the
most inovations, rated one of the highest standards of living in the
country, ranked one of the funnest cities to live in, and cleanest
with some of the best art institutes. Minne = Lakes Apolis=
City :Minneapolis, the city of lakes
Oh but Pat, you got feilds and shit, thats pretty cool too. And since
your Mayor, is the Mayor of a small town, he's all nice local which
means you can trust him unlike those bigger cities, right?

You're jumping to all kinds of conclusions.
Besides the above, your brother "met" the mayor and therefore thinks
he's a nice guy, or whatever. Give me a break. Any politician can
make you think that or they're not much of a politician. There's more
to knowing a guy than shaking his hand once. If that's all it takes,
I know two Presidents, three governors, etc. etc. I bet you have fun
chatting with Newt Gingrich or Ollie North or Dick Nixon or Attilla a
Hun or Satan. But it doesn't mean you should trust them.
Second off, you assuming that just because you got an email from him
that he sent it. I doubt it. If you want, I'll forge an email header
from him and send you an email, too, and I'm not even one of his
staffers. Responding to routine mail is the job of staffers.
In this city, I know where the mayor lives. His sister used to live
next door to me. I have the mayor's home and cell phone numbers and
I've talked to quite a bit. We are members of the same church and the
same social club. I've even voted for him. But none of that means
that I trust him.
Go play in professional politics for a while and you'll find it's very
difficult to trust anyone. It is a profession of wheeling and dealing
-- and you don't always know what's in play. Most politicans won't
lie to your face, but they are very good at avoiding answers. Or if
they answer, you have to realize that things change and your agreement/
opinion/whatever might not be part of the new strategy.
The old saying in politics is "if you want a friend, go buy a dog".

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that people aren't really
out to get you.

I guess after you've dealt with elected officials long enough, you get
a little jaded. But you're right, just because you've been burned by
the last 100 politicians, it doesn't mean the next one won't burn
you. But when I'm doing development and throwing money into projects,
it's a bet I'm not willing to make. Been there, done that, been
burned, now I watch my fingers and toes.

William

2007-09-14 01:38:49 UTC

Post by William
Pat and George you must have no friends. You trust nothing. You take
everything personal.

Oh, I don't take things personally, you good-for-nothing-little rat.
And the comment about no friends, geez, what's that all about. I have
friends. Lots and lots of friends. More than I can count. Yeah,
friends everywhere. Well, at least I think they are friends, you
can't really be sure, you know. I mean, how can you be sure what
they're thinking. Hmm. Interesting thought. Maybe they're just
acting like friends. I wonder what they're after.
... got to go. I just heard something behind me. Need to go triple-
check the dead-bolts.

You know that Senator who just resigned because of "bathroom-gate".
He was a nice guy.
You know that mayor in NJ who was just arrested. He was a nice guy.
You know that President who can't get us out of Iraq? He's a nice
guy.
There are lots of nice guys in politics. But don't trust any of them.
I work in lots of communities. I know lots of elected officials. I'm
on the county Democratic committee (gee, technically that makes ME an
elected official, go figure). I work with lots of planning boards and
lots of government offices. There are two mayors I like and trust and
there are two planners as well. That's it. When it doubt, watch your
back. They all have an agenda and YOU don't know what it is. Believe
it or not, I think the most trustworthy people are the mid-level
bureaucrats in State and Federal government. They are mostly lifers
and have little to win or lose by having much of an agenda.

Tell that to the mayor of the biggest city in the state with the best
ACT scores in the country,best medical facilities that have made the
most inovations, rated one of the highest standards of living in the
country, ranked one of the funnest cities to live in, and cleanest
with some of the best art institutes. Minne = Lakes Apolis=
City :Minneapolis, the city of lakes
Oh but Pat, you got feilds and shit, thats pretty cool too. And since
your Mayor, is the Mayor of a small town, he's all nice local which
means you can trust him unlike those bigger cities, right?

You're jumping to all kinds of conclusions.
Besides the above, your brother "met" the mayor and therefore thinks
he's a nice guy, or whatever. Give me a break. Any politician can
make you think that or they're not much of a politician. There's more
to knowing a guy than shaking his hand once. If that's all it takes,
I know two Presidents, three governors, etc. etc. I bet you have fun
chatting with Newt Gingrich or Ollie North or Dick Nixon or Attilla a
Hun or Satan. But it doesn't mean you should trust them.
Second off, you assuming that just because you got an email from him
that he sent it. I doubt it. If you want, I'll forge an email header
from him and send you an email, too, and I'm not even one of his
staffers. Responding to routine mail is the job of staffers.
In this city, I know where the mayor lives. His sister used to live
next door to me. I have the mayor's home and cell phone numbers and
I've talked to quite a bit. We are members of the same church and the
same social club. I've even voted for him. But none of that means
that I trust him.
Go play in professional politics for a while and you'll find it's very
difficult to trust anyone. It is a profession of wheeling and dealing
-- and you don't always know what's in play. Most politicans won't
lie to your face, but they are very good at avoiding answers. Or if
they answer, you have to realize that things change and your agreement/
opinion/whatever might not be part of the new strategy.
The old saying in politics is "if you want a friend, go buy a dog".

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that people aren't really
out to get you.
I guess after you've dealt with elected officials long enough, you get
a little jaded. But you're right, just because you've been burned by
the last 100 politicians, it doesn't mean the next one won't burn
you. But when I'm doing development and throwing money into projects,
it's a bet I'm not willing to make. Been there, done that, been
burned, now I watch my fingers and toes.

The R.T. ( the mayor) isn't out to get the city of Minneapolis though.
Do you think your mayor is out to get you pat?

2007-09-16 23:20:38 UTC

Post by William
Relax
Pat. Drop the paranoia. This isn't New York city were talking about.

Just don't ride your bicycle after dark in Minneapolis.

William

2007-09-22 13:12:11 UTC

Post by RJ

Post by William
Relax
Pat. Drop the paranoia. This isn't New York city were talking about.

Just don't ride your bicycle after dark in Minneapolis.

Ouch! 35 homcides in Minneapolis this year so far, how many in New
York I wonder?

Pat

2007-09-22 14:31:21 UTC

Post by RJ

Post by William
Relax
Pat. Drop the paranoia. This isn't New York city were talking about.

Just don't ride your bicycle after dark in Minneapolis.

Ouch! 35 homcides in Minneapolis this year so far, how many in New
York I wonder?

In this part of New York, we didn't have any. We had one about 10
years ago, if that counts.

William

2007-09-22 17:58:40 UTC

Post by RJ

Post by William
Relax
Pat. Drop the paranoia. This isn't New York city were talking about.

Just don't ride your bicycle after dark in Minneapolis.

Ouch! 35 homcides in Minneapolis this year so far, how many in New
York I wonder?

In this part of New York, we didn't have any. We had one about 10

Hmm, avoiding the question I see.... I wonder what this could mean.....

rotten

2007-09-10 17:58:57 UTC

Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- it was nearly impossible for the average person to get a loan to buy a
house in anywhere except the suburbs. FHA and VA loans went overwhelminly to
new construction in suburban developments
- advertising by the oil and auto companies glorifying the automobile and
denigrating Transit. It even went a bit further that just denegrating
Transit with a cabal of auto-related companies buying up commuter rail and
shutting it down.

You're such a nitwit you can't even get your conspiracy theories
straight... the claim was they converted the streetcars to busses, not
that they shut them down.

And you're completely wrong, what you mentioned had a minor effect on
people moving out of cities.

George Conklin

2007-09-10 18:55:24 UTC

Post by Baxter
-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

Post by Baxter
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

- it was nearly impossible for the average person to get a loan to buy a
house in anywhere except the suburbs. FHA and VA loans went

overwhelminly to

Post by Baxter
new construction in suburban developments
- advertising by the oil and auto companies glorifying the automobile and
denigrating Transit. It even went a bit further that just denegrating
Transit with a cabal of auto-related companies buying up commuter rail and
shutting it down.

You're such a nitwit you can't even get your conspiracy theories
straight... the claim was they converted the streetcars to busses, not
that they shut them down.
And you're completely wrong, what you mentioned had a minor effect on
people moving out of cities.

Actually cities continued to expand after 1900, and somehow Baxter does not
define the modern city as city, only what was built 5 generations back.

Baxter

2007-09-11 01:53:56 UTC

You're such a nitwit you can't even get your conspiracy theories
straight... the claim was they converted the streetcars to busses, not
that they shut them down.

Just how would you convert a streetcar to a bus without shutting down the
streetcar?

Post by rotten
And you're completely wrong, what you mentioned had a minor effect on
people moving out of cities.

I'm completely rignt - financing is the MAJOR cause of people moving from
cities.

drydem

2007-09-09 01:57:18 UTC

He's advocating urban planning via mixed-use and *smart growth*

Post by William
From what I've found so far the earliest talk of Mixed used was Jane

Jacobs.
Andres Duany name is often muttered with the term *smart growth.*

Smart growth policy theoretically at requires rezoning properties
so that residential zones are connected to commerical and
employment centers via subways/trains instead of roads or
highways at the very least. Smart growth is attractive to many
local goverments because it seeks to optimize infrastructures
resources with respect to demands - so a local government
can advocate or restrict growth so as to channel growth around
a limited number of local infrastructure projects

Mixed used policy is mainly directed at revitalizing
economically depressed/stagnated urban area by
rezoning properties to allow higher densities of
simulatanous residential, commercial and or
institutional usage. The challenge is that what
percentage of residential commerical or institutional
usage in a particular zone is allowed. Sometimes
local goverments don't have any restrictions for
percentage of usage (declaring that the market should
decide) however that is a big mistake since
free market boom or bust forces don't naturally
create mixed use communities - but instead have
a tendency to focus on one type of usage.

In order for pedestrian traffic to be encourage
over automobiles - residential, commerical center,
employment centers, and mass transits need to
be under a 10 minute 2mph walk away (within 1800 ft ).

In order for bus/mass transit traffic to be encourage
over automobiles - the time in one direction for a
mass transit trip needs to be under 30 minutes.
This translates to about a max of 8 mile long trip via
a slow moving metrobus in Washington DC.
This translates to about a max of 16 miles long trip via
a rush hour subway train in Washington DC.

Jane Jacob postulated cities as economic market
places where people exchange goods and services.
Cities thrived based on the success of the goods
and services they are able to *export* in exchange
for goods and service they must *import.* Because
the market and demand for goods and services
are dynamic -- cities must adapt to market forces
( can you say globalization very fast 15 times)
if they are to stay economically vibrant. Jacob
asserts the ability to simulataneously foster
multiple commerical ventures and/or *export* as
one of the key economic characteristic that help
urban areas survive economic loss or downturns
of one its *exports* - i.e. Jacob was advocating
a kind of economic diversity as a way to cushion
urban economies. (see The life and death
of great American cities by Jane Jacob).

Smarth growth and mixed used doesn't necessary
equate to better landscaping. What constitutes
*better* urban design could be a point of debate
- the devil is in the details.

George Conklin

2007-09-09 10:47:57 UTC

Post by drydem
Mixed used policy is mainly directed at revitalizing
economically depressed/stagnated urban area by
rezoning properties to allow higher densities of
simulatanous residential, commercial and or
institutional usage.

Smart growth has only one real goal: more density. But more density
makes the city less and less desirable for people who might want to live
there.

William

2007-09-09 17:41:50 UTC

Smart growth has only one real goal: more density. But more density
makes the city less and less desirable for people who might want to live
there.

No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Jack May

2007-09-09 20:01:40 UTC

Smart growth has only one real goal: more density. But more density
makes the city less and less desirable for people who might want to live
there.

No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Road surface area in cities goes up with population raised to the 0.83
power. A less than linear increase with population but hardly an indication
of a return to lots of walking to local shopping.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

George Conklin

2007-09-09 20:44:35 UTC

Smart growth has only one real goal: more density. But more density
makes the city less and less desirable for people who might want to live
there.

No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Road surface area in cities goes up with population raised to the 0.83
power. A less than linear increase with population but hardly an indication
of a return to lots of walking to local shopping.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESUL
TFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
ACCESS pointed out years ago that a well-designed city had more road space
per person than a car-dependent suburb did.

William

2007-09-10 03:33:24 UTC

Smart growth has only one real goal: more density. But more density
makes the city less and less desirable for people who might want to

live

Post by George Conklin
there.

No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Road surface area in cities goes up with population raised to the 0.83
power. A less than linear increase with population but hardly an

indication

Post by Jack May
of a return to lots of walking to local shopping.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=1...
TFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
ACCESS pointed out years ago that a well-designed city had more road space
per person than a car-dependent suburb did.

Tru dat, the grid system works well.

George Conklin

2007-09-09 20:43:32 UTC

Smart growth has only one real goal: more density. But more density
makes the city less and less desirable for people who might want to live
there.

No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop at the
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable flats from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids form gangs
and amuse themselves.

William

2007-09-10 03:31:08 UTC

Smart growth has only one real goal: more density. But more density
makes the city less and less desirable for people who might want to live
there.

No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

So if a plan area by my house gets developed into a SA so I don't have
to drive that doesn't benefit me at all?

Tadej Brezina

2007-09-10 08:45:09 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day alone
in a car, among other loners where you can try to break the lonliness
with a mobile phone, to pay big bucks for cars and the oil one is now
depending upon, to live in neighbourhoods, where the least shopping need
needs vast amount of fussil fuel burnt for it, to shop in huge shopping
cities, where you get the same cheap, short lasting, throw away crap, so
that you will be coming back for shure, ...

Tadej

--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

George Conklin

2007-09-10 11:17:09 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day alone
in a car,

\

As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that most
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit down while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone, except that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car for a
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

among other loners where you can try to break the lonliness

Post by Tadej Brezina
with a mobile phone, to pay big bucks for cars and the oil one is now
depending upon, to live in neighbourhoods, where the least shopping need
needs vast amount of fussil fuel burnt for it, to shop in huge shopping
cities, where you get the same cheap, short lasting, throw away crap, so
that you will be coming back for shure, ...

Small stores sell the same things big ones do, but at vastly higher
prices.

Post by Tadej Brezina
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

Pat

2007-09-10 15:10:45 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop at

the

Post by George Conklin
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable flats from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids form

gangs

Post by George Conklin
and amuse themselves.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day alone
in a car,

\
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that most
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit down while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone, except that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car for a
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

Oh be serious. Go ask your students how many catch a ride to college
and pay someone "gas money". Same for commuters. Plus, many
commuters have one person drive one week and someone else drive the
other. That's the same as pay -- it is barter and exchange. Granted,
you'd get caught eventually if you drove a yellow minivan and had a
big "taxi" light on the top. But friendly exchanges are okay.

Post by George Conklin
among other loners where you can try to break the lonliness> with a mobile phone, to pay big bucks for cars and the oil one is now

Post by Tadej Brezina
depending upon, to live in neighbourhoods, where the least shopping need
needs vast amount of fussil fuel burnt for it, to shop in huge shopping
cities, where you get the same cheap, short lasting, throw away crap, so
that you will be coming back for shure, ...

Small stores sell the same things big ones do, but at vastly higher
prices.

Post by Tadej Brezina
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die w�chst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde rei�t, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>

Amy Blankenship

2007-09-10 15:29:52 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop at

the

Post by George Conklin
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable flats from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids form

gangs

Post by George Conklin
and amuse themselves.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day alone
in a car,

\
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that most
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit down while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone, except that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car for a
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

Pat

2007-09-10 17:30:49 UTC

On Sep 10, 11:29 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop at

the

Post by George Conklin
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable flats from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids form

gangs

Post by George Conklin
and amuse themselves.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day alone
in a car,

\
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that most
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit down while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone, except that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car for a
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

... and don't forget the "Park and Ride" lots next to expressways --
especially toll roads around here" where you can meet up with someone
and leave your car.

George Conklin

2007-09-10 18:57:30 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop at

the

Post by George Conklin
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable flats from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids form

gangs

Post by George Conklin
and amuse themselves.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day alone
in a car,

\
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that most
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit down while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone, except that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car for a
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

But not if you charged them.

Amy Blankenship

2007-09-10 19:06:32 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping

mart.

Post by George Conklin
Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop

Post by George Conklin
the

Post by George Conklin
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable flats from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids

form

Post by George Conklin
gangs

Post by George Conklin
and amuse themselves.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day

alone

Post by Tadej Brezina
in a car,

\
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that

most

Post by George Conklin
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit down while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone, except that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car
for

Post by George Conklin
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

rides

Post by Pat
with.

But not if you charged them.

Wrong again http://www.coastcommuter.com/cp.htm

George Conklin

2007-09-10 19:36:13 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping

mart.

Post by George Conklin
Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop

Post by George Conklin
the

Post by George Conklin
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable

flats

Post by George Conklin
from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids

form

Post by George Conklin
gangs

Post by George Conklin
and amuse themselves.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day

alone

Post by Tadej Brezina
in a car,

\
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that

most

Post by George Conklin
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit

down

Post by George Conklin
while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone,

except

Post by George Conklin
that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car
for

Post by George Conklin
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

rides

Post by Pat
with.

But not if you charged them.

Wrong again http://www.coastcommuter.com/cp.htm

I am NOT talking about carpooling. That is a pre-arrangement, and bound to
fail. I am talking about the SLUG system, where you do NOT ride with the
same person each day. You ride with strangers AND you pay. Carpooling is a
failure because people do not get off work at the same time these days.

Amy Blankenship

2007-09-10 20:26:57 UTC

Post by George Conklin
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that

most

Post by George Conklin
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit

down

Post by George Conklin
while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone,

except

Post by George Conklin
that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car
for

Post by George Conklin
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

rides

Post by Pat
with.

But not if you charged them.

Wrong again http://www.coastcommuter.com/cp.htm

I remind you your original contention was " And of course you don't have to
be alone,
except that the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your
private car
for a fee agreed upon by you and the passenger."

You did not mention constantly renegotiating your fee with totally different
people every day. Seems like that wouldn't really be workable anyhow.

But let me be clear: your contention is that it's the fact that it's the
same group of people every day more or less that makes it OK to charge?

If that's your contention, why do you say college students "get away" with
exchanging rides for gas money? If you think they're "getting away" with
it, that implies you think there's a law against it that is not being
enforced here, but I think it is clear that college students are, in fact,
carpooling. If you really were not talking about carpooling not being part
of the activity you were saying the "pro transit" laws are somehow
preventing before I presented evidence to the contrary, you would have said
something like "college students are clearly carpooling, which isn't
something that I believe the transit laws are trying to prohibit." Instead,
your words were:

"College students get away with it. SLUGS get away with it because they
don't charge. If if most people started to charge, they would be illegal
taxis and the insurance would be void."

Just for once George say "OK, I was wrong. Pro transit laws don't prohibit
most forms of vehicle sharing as practiced by most people."

It's not difficult. I dare you.

-Amy

George Conklin

2007-09-10 21:01:14 UTC

Post by George Conklin
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that

most

Post by George Conklin
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit

down

Post by George Conklin
while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone,

except

Post by George Conklin
that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car
for

Post by George Conklin
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

Granted,

Post by Pat
you'd get caught eventually if you drove a yellow minivan and had a
big "taxi" light on the top. But friendly exchanges are okay.
...
Our local transit authority will match you with other people to share

rides

Post by Pat
with.

But not if you charged them.

Wrong again http://www.coastcommuter.com/cp.htm

Post by Baxter
a
failure because people do not get off work at the same time these days.

Wrong. It was banned because it WAS successful and the transit companies
called it "unfair competition." The SLUG system is only semi-legal, but
successful.

Amy Blankenship

2007-09-11 03:22:45 UTC

Post by George Conklin
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others
you
don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that

most

Post by George Conklin
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit

down

Post by George Conklin
while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone,

except

Post by George Conklin
that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private

car

Post by George Conklin
for

Post by George Conklin
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

Oh be serious. Go ask your students how many catch a ride to

college

Post by Pat
and pay someone "gas money". Same for commuters. Plus, many
commuters have one person drive one week and someone else drive the
other. That's the same as pay -- it is barter and exchange.

Granted,

Post by George Conklin
rides

Post by Pat
with.

But not if you charged them.

Wrong again http://www.coastcommuter.com/cp.htm

I am NOT talking about carpooling. That is a pre-arrangement, and
bound
to
fail. I am talking about the SLUG system, where you do NOT ride with

the

Post by Baxter
same person each day. You ride with strangers AND you pay. Carpooling

Post by Baxter
a
failure because people do not get off work at the same time these days.

I remind you your original contention was " And of course you don't have

Post by Amy Blankenship
be alone,
except that the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your
private car
for a fee agreed upon by you and the passenger."
You did not mention constantly renegotiating your fee with totally

different

Post by Amy Blankenship
people every day. Seems like that wouldn't really be workable anyhow.

Wrong. It was banned because it WAS successful and the transit companies
called it "unfair competition." The SLUG system is only semi-legal, but
successful.

In the UK last week, a camper woke up to find his forehead being eaten by a
man-eating slug. True story.

George Conklin

2007-09-10 18:56:41 UTC

Post by William
No, the goal for density is to make things more local and eaiser to
get to as to the suburbs with there one central massive shopping mart.

Density does none of the above. Remember they want you to shop at

the

Post by George Conklin
small, expensive local store, and live in tiny, uncomfortable flats from
which there is no escape except playing on the streets. So kids form

gangs

Post by George Conklin
and amuse themselves.

So much for a biased blinders view.
On the other hand, "the others" want you to spend many hours a day alone
in a car,

\
As opposed to standing in a subway car jammed against others you don't
know and don't want to know. The problem with your viewpoint is that most
people don't like being crowded and don't find the ability to sit down while
traveling bad at all. And of course you don't have to be alone, except that
the pro-transit laws forbid you carrying someone in your private car for a
fee agreed upon by you and the passenger.

Oh be serious. Go ask your students how many catch a ride to college
and pay someone "gas money". Same for commuters.

College students get away with it. SLUGS get away with it because they
don't charge. If if most people started to charge, they would be illegal
taxis and the insurance would be void.

Baxter

2007-09-10 17:13:48 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Small stores sell the same things big ones do, but at vastly higher
prices.

Someone did a survey of WalMarts prices and found that after the loss
leaders, WalMart regular prices were the same as or HIGHER THAN their
competitors.

Pat

2007-09-10 17:31:39 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Small stores sell the same things big ones do, but at vastly higher
prices.

Someone did a survey of WalMarts prices and found that after the loss
leaders, WalMart regular prices were the same as or HIGHER THAN their
competitors.

Not where I live.

rotten

2007-09-10 18:04:53 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Small stores sell the same things big ones do, but at vastly higher
prices.

Someone did a survey of WalMarts prices and found that after the loss
leaders, WalMart regular prices were the same as or HIGHER THAN their
competitors.

Not where I live.

With Baxter, someone leftist kook has always done some dubious
"survey" and they generally cook the data until they find what they
want.

Baxter

2007-09-11 02:03:15 UTC

Post by George Conklin
Small stores sell the same things big ones do, but at vastly higher
prices.

Someone did a survey of WalMarts prices and found that after the loss
leaders, WalMart regular prices were the same as or HIGHER THAN their
competitors.

Not where I live.

With Baxter, someone leftist kook has always done some dubious
"survey" and they generally cook the data until they find what they
want.

I guess you're one of those guys that define anybody who disagrees with your
glorious self as "leftist".

Tadej Brezina

2007-09-11 07:46:42 UTC

Post by rotten
With Baxter, someone leftist kook has always done some dubious
"survey" and they generally cook the data until they find what they
want.

I guess you're one of those guys that define anybody who disagrees with your
glorious self as "leftist".

Hey Baxter, don't be annoyed, with all the damage that the right wing
ideas have done to society, and still do, being called "leftist" should
be considered an accolade!

Tadej

rotten

2007-09-11 15:21:06 UTC

Post by rotten
With Baxter, someone leftist kook has always done some dubious
"survey" and they generally cook the data until they find what they
want.

I guess you're one of those guys that define anybody who disagrees with your
glorious self as "leftist".

Hey Baxter, don't be annoyed, with all the damage that the right wing
ideas have done to society, and still do, being called "leftist" should
be considered an accolade!

What would those be? I'm talking about the "new left", the yogurt
eating, volvo driving garden variety kook leftist.

Baxter

2007-09-11 18:50:39 UTC

Post by rotten
With Baxter, someone leftist kook has always done some dubious
"survey" and they generally cook the data until they find what they
want.

I guess you're one of those guys that define anybody who disagrees with your
glorious self as "leftist".

Hey Baxter, don't be annoyed, with all the damage that the right wing
ideas have done to society, and still do, being called "leftist" should
be considered an accolade!

What would those be? I'm talking about the "new left", the yogurt
eating, volvo driving garden variety kook leftist.

And you accuse a lot of peope who don't eat yogurt or drive volvos of being
"leftist".

George Conklin

2007-09-11 18:50:05 UTC

Post by rotten
With Baxter, someone leftist kook has always done some dubious
"survey" and they generally cook the data until they find what they
want.

I guess you're one of those guys that define anybody who disagrees with your
glorious self as "leftist".

Hey Baxter, don't be annoyed, with all the damage that the right wing
ideas have done to society, and still do, being called "leftist" should
be considered an accolade!

What would those be? I'm talking about the "new left", the yogurt
eating, volvo driving garden variety kook leftist.

What about Vegetarians? Or just plain egg-a-tarians? Or vegans?

rotten

2007-09-11 19:05:14 UTC

Post by rotten
With Baxter, someone leftist kook has always done some dubious
"survey" and they generally cook the data until they find what they
want.

I guess you're one of those guys that define anybody who disagrees

with your

Post by Baxter
glorious self as "leftist".

Hey Baxter, don't be annoyed, with all the damage that the right wing
ideas have done to society, and still do, being called "leftist" should
be considered an accolade!

What would those be? I'm talking about the "new left", the yogurt
eating, volvo driving garden variety kook leftist.

What about Vegetarians? Or just plain egg-a-tarians? Or vegans?

What about 'em?

Jack May

2007-09-22 03:04:06 UTC

In other words the world will be perfect if we all go back to the past.
Typical nonsense from a politician glorifying something that he never
experienced.

People going back to living in the past on TV shows soon find out that life
was horrible then.

George Conklin

2007-09-22 12:43:38 UTC