Bill and bikeeez, From: Bill Lueders, via Michael Forster Rothbart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Wrong. The state, under state law and litigated case law, is exempt from > local building code ordinances, except zoning ordinances as they pertain to land > use. Although the bike rack ordinance is enforced by city zoning, city zoning > does not consider it a land-use ordinance and agrees that there is no obligation > for the state to comply.
The "land use" bit is a somewhat hair-splitting, but fairly arguable point. The broader idea of the exemption is further proof that this is a "company town" (the "company" being the state gummint). Useless factoid #47: this must not extend to the County level. The City-County Building, a County-owned and - operated facility, is routinely subject to City fire inspection. This, in fact, was why I mistakenly assumed that State buildings were likewise subject. Silly me. > The state DOT official I spoke to, and the building's on-site property > manager, say the issue of bicycle accomodation has never come up. No one has > ever asked about it. Absolute NONSENSE (another eight-letter synonym applies, but discretion prevails...)! Perhaps this property manager has never gotten wind of it, but that's a communication problem at their end. I specifically raised this with the "entrance desk" assistants, and was given assurance that it would be conveyed to those to whom it is consequential. So either someone is lying or someone else is incompetent (not ruling out both, of course). > The property manager says people sometimes bike to the > facility and chain their bikes to poles, which is what I usually do, even in > places with bike racks. Great! They're encouraging citizens to do what constitutes a violation of City ordinance in some places (and emphatically discouraged most everywhere else). Way to set an example! These are the same people who puzzle at why car-driving citizens speed, run red lights, don't signal, close-shave cyclists, et al. DUH! [Excessive use of exclamation point, 15 yard penalty...] > Here's what I wonder: Is the lack of bike parking at the state DMV building at > Bartillon Drive a sore spot for any of you? Would you type me a sentence or two > (please not much more) as to why you think it's a problem for the state not to > accomodate bikes? Whether it's a "sore spot" is irrelevant. It's bad policy and procedure. Using a phrase like "sore spot" reduces the question to how some individuals _feel_ about the issue. It doesn't matter how any of us feel about it, not having sufficient bike parking is bad business. It shows a lack of responsibility to the community. Granted, bad business, poor community citizenship of this flavor is rampant in this town (examples, comerades?). That it's being practiced at a taxpayer-funded facility, by the state agency charged with addressing the state's transportation challenges, just adds a few milligrams of irony and a pinch of poigniancy. Why is failure to accomodate bikes a problem? In two sentences (okay, answering a question with a question): Why is it considered _not_ a problem to devote acres of watershed-ruining pavement to environment-damaging cars, but not relative postage-stamps of space to more environmentally responsible forms of transportation? Isn't it equally meaningful to ask whether all that pavement is the real "problem"? --------------------- Paul T. O'Leary Desktop Insurgent Madison WI USA _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
