I encourage everyone on this list to write a letter to the editor
of the WSJ. Sure it's what they're hoping for but it will
marginally increase the odds they will print one of them. The
WSJ and CapTimes have a history of not printing bike
transportation editorials unless they've written them so its best
to keep your expectations low.
WSJ Link to letter: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joseph King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bombay: www.BombayBicycle.org
madnorski: www.MadNorSki.org
--
Dear Editor,
You are absolutely right that when you frame an economic argument
that ignores much of the costs and incomes, you can favor any
argument you like. With regard to the State Budget, for example,
if we omit from our economic analysis school costs, we end up
with a budget surplus thereby eliminating the budget woes as
effectively has you have dismissed the arguments of
transportation advocates over the Capital City trail fee.
In framing the your supposed economic argument in favor of fees
you neglected to take into the account that road costs are
subsidized by property taxes because the gas tax, and license
plate fees don't cover the costs of roads and parking. You also
neglected to point out that most of the non-polluting commuters
pay their fair share of gas tax and license plate fees that some
how endow the motorized commuters with subsidies that are
thousands of times greater than what the non-polluting commuters
receive. And finally, and perhaps most significantly, experts
agree that local, state, and federal governments would all save
money if more people commuted to work by non-polluting means.
When one considers the complete economic picture it would appear
that the debate as your paper framed it was economically
irresponsible.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
