At my very first board retreat, we had this same argument. Should we
throw our weight behind efforts to halt the highway 12 expansion or do
we focus our efforts purely Bike Fed related matters? Mike Barrett
fought agressively for the former and Bill Hauda for the latter. This
Smart Growth argument is the same issue, brought forward a decade or so.
I personally support Smart Growth and other reasonable attempts at land
use planning. After all, bike facilities require planning, so the aims
are, for the most part, parallel.
The question still goes back to how much we want BFW to split its focus
between the needs of cyclists and this legitimate though distinctly
different issue?
One problem is that it alienates cyclists who oppose Smart Growth. This
is a growing group of cyclists joining the Bike Fed.
A much bigger problem is that it damages the Bike Fed's political
relationship with politicians and other leaders who either oppose Smart
Growth or who do not want to visibly support it. When we visibly align
ourselves to Smart Growth, then politicians can use the this aliance as
an reason to vote against money for projects like bike routes, bike
planning, maps, education, etc. that they might otherwise support.
Conversely, when politicians support bicycle-related projects, they are
generally supporting the objectives of Smart Growth. By not pasting
Smart Growth all over the organization, BFW is more likely to attract
support from politicians who oppose Smart Growth. A number of
politicians may support the objectives of Smart Growth without being
seen as Smart Growth supporters. They help the movement if they can
vote for projects that support the movement even if they can't support
the movement itself.
The more people cycle, the more they are likely to support the
objectives of the Smart Growth movement. If the Bike Fed throws its
efforts behind increasing ridership, it is more likely to breed growing
support for the objectives Smart Growth. Isn't that really our smartest
path?
I don't know how the statement about Smart Growth got into the list of
principal objectives on the web site. It does not reflect any strategic
plans in recent years. I just reviewed the most recent plan draft I
have, which Dar Ward authored during the summer of 2006. It makes no
mention of Smart Growth, though it lists an number of programs, such as
Safe Routes to School, actively promoted by Smart Growth forces.
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
