Dear Group, "Smart Land Use" seems to be rubbing a scab with those who are less concerned with biking than they are about social planning and control of society. Why should a bicycle group be engaged at redirecting land uses into a synthetic "planned society?" Regardless of the disagreeable comparison with the Soviet Union and its phases of planning, this IS what we are talking about. In the USA, land use planning comes in all flavors from commandeering historical houses and sites to "preserving this or that" according to the whims of individuals or committees appointed by autocrats. We do not have a Stalin at the top, but consensus can easily duplicate such an influence. As an example, I brought up the horse to see the reaction about "another alternative" to the automobile. Of course such a notion was treated as a joke by those who write regularly here. But if I were a "Smart Growth" commissar or planner, why wouldn't I advocate horse trails, stables, and hitching posts if I were "personally" convinced "society" needed a return to the horse? So what if few have or ride horses?
The fact is that land use coercion and planning should not be a subject of concern to bike promotion. I am sure there is a pressure group for "land use coercion" just like for most important "money topics." And you had better believe that "lnad use" IS a money topic. That is where it should remain and bikers who are also socialists (against land rights) in this way should join such groups. And if "Smart Growth" is a cornerstone of the BFW, well then "land rights preservationists" should form another bicycle group divorced from dual advocacy, split by other social goals--"Smart Growth, combating man's Glbl Wrming, etc.". Changing land uses are inevitable. Most cities demonstrate that fact. Land uses are dynamic when people are involved. If people want timelessness, they should go to the country where Steve Fossett disappeared. I do not need a litany of the reasons for the myriads of land use controls. My "graduate" study field was "resource economics." The pros and cons of the competing "institutions" of land controls in place in the USA could be discussed endlessly. But whether or not the mission of BFW should be in the middle of political land use IS THE QUESTION. Eric _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
