Dear Anonymous "wag" "Mitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your view is abundantly clear???
---"Cul-de-sacs and low-density single use developments tends to create an environment where bikers have to travel long distances over dangerous roads to get where they want to go. Traditional grids and multi-use development, like the Madison Isthmus or TND subdivisions, tend to be a lot safer and more pleasant for bikes."-------"If BFW is fighting for the interests of bicyclists, it makes a lot of sense for BFW to support rules that encourage bike-friendly development, in place of rules that make those developments illegal."----------. But let me get this straight. You contend that BFW should be an advocacy pressure group for those who want the world looking like a Chicago street grid? And in this pursuit you understand that "the peoples local zoning" does not allow for this? And this is to be understood by all bicyclists as desirable? No "garden cities" of the old "Greenbelt MD planners for you" therefore for nobody? In high school "American Problems" class we were to describe those trends used in the "Levit Towns" and Urban Planners of the 1950s. Instead I drew a big map of a Chicago grid with diagonals like Milwaukee Avenue. In fact I solved the "integration topic and problem" of those days by including a big arrow on the bottom of my grid map which said: "This way to an identical city grid for colored people." It was not surprising I was graded an "F" or incomplete!! But, maybe you are still "joshing" by implying such a role of land use advocacy for BFW; and if so, my funny bone does not coincide with yours. Eric Westhagen _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
