Dear Matt, I leave it to the reader to determine whether or not the primary cycling organization in Wisconsin, BFW, should be an organ of general "social change" or one of following the narrower interpretation of cycling advocacy.
I would question whether or not any "public" money should be gotten from "consulting contracts" if the organization and its members determine it is a "lobby for STATE directed general social change." And wouldn't that hinge on the "platform" mission question of SMART GROWTH ADVOCACY? Eric Westhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Eric, > > You have made a lot of accusations lately that Bikies care more about > social rights control and central planning than promoting bicycling. > Yet, most of the supporters of smart growth on this list seem to be > arguing from a "it promotes better bicycling" position. I was wondering > if what you are complaining about has more to do with your agenda of > fighting social rights control and central planning than it does about > promoting better bicycling. Perhaps it is you that is putting other > issues ahead of bicycling. Do you have any thoughts on that topic that > you would like to share with us? Just how does fighting big government > compare with promoting better bicycling on your personal priorities > list? > > - Matt > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [Bikies] BFW, Wisconsin DNR, & Smart Growth > > From: Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, October 29, 2007 2:52 pm > > To: "Schimpff, Jeff A - DNR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > BikiesSubmissions <[email protected]> > > Dear Jeff, > > Of course the Wisconsin DNR has been involvement in CENTRAL PLANNING. That > > is what they do. But if the BFW attacks "land rights" it will pit one > > bicyclist against another; --the city vs. the country, the land "owners" > > and the land "renters" etc., etc. Straight biking issues will be lost in > > the shuffle of overall SOCIAL RIGHTS CONTROL. This issue of cycling has > > been lost in the various claims on "bikies" that "a better society" means > > "better biking" and that one faction is to determine such a BETTER > > "smarter" SOCIETY. I do agree with Dar Ward that the BFW should be > > explicit as to whether the entire COSMOS is the topic of their advocacy. > > But as clearly as the disagreement over "grid streets" vs "garden planning" > > shows the acrimony "land rights" questions evoke, why extend cycling > > advocacy into the "socio-economic" sphere? > > Eric Westhagen > > "Schimpff, Jeff A - DNR" wrote: _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
