Hi all, I have been following the discussion on whether the Bicycle Federation should or should not support Smart Growth. Since it seems to be a somewhat polarizing term among a couple people on the bikies list, maybe the discussion should be around "What should the Bicycle Federation support to make bicycling better in Wisconsin?" rather than, "Should the BFW support Smart Growth?"
What would make for better bicycling? Perhaps encouraging the State to fund more bicycle lanes and paths... (isn't that a form of state control though??) Perhaps supporting Safe Routes to School... (isn't that getting the BFW involved in education??) Perhaps supporting Complete Streets legislation... (isn't that getting the BFW involved in automobile transportation??) Perhaps supporting the bicycle commuter tax credit... (isn't that getting the BFW involved in government subsidies??) Perhaps having all of Wisconsin's communities become "Bicycle Friendly Communities"... (but isn't that getting the BFW involved in local community issues??) The point I am making is that improving the bicycling conditions in a place like Wisconsin involve more than just one approach. You can have beautifully smooth bicycle lanes, but if the grocery store or hardware store are 10 miles away (20 miles round trip), will you bike or just jump in the car? If we want to encourage more bicycling, we have to get involved in issues related to bicycling and this includes land use. Encouraging bicycling among children, commuters, as well as encouraging cars to share the streets and help communities think about bicycling facilities when they do their planning, means having the bicycle federation get involved in issue areas not completely about bicycling. Should my desire for better bicycling trump other people's desires for better roads exclusively for cars or to build anywhere they want? No. But, as bicyclists we all have a right to advocate for better bicycling and that means being clear about what that means. So, "What should the Bicycle Federation support to make bicycling better in Wisconsin?" -Kirk Rappe On 11/2/07, Eric Westhagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Richard, > > Yes, that is all I suggest.-------- Richard Schwinn-<"Whether it's Smart > Growth, global warming or any of the host of other > issues we confront every day, parking our guns at the door will help us > move forward. > > I'd agree with you that we need to limit our lobbying activities to > cycling issues and not the broader topics. It does a disservice to our > members not just by misleading them but by creating enemies of cycling > for these off-topic. > > Speaking of off-topic, I would think there are a number of listserves > dealing specifically with land use and smart growth issues. Do you post > > to them?"> > > As far as posting to other sites which might be on the topic of land > rights--you have answered why I have found fault with trying to "solve > the cosmos" in the name of bicycling. That is why I am the "troll" > here. Whichever side such regular land question groups might be on, > their views "are coming in the front door." It is when organizations > take a particular stance and gain acceptance claiming advocacy for > another issue, that I become disturbed. For instance, the Screen > Actors Guild in the pre and post WWII days when they were controlled by > collectivists; their issues and influences were far beyond just better > working conditions for actors. > > I don't know if such an example has anything to do with the modern BFW, > but I do know about the "Madison tradition" of collectivism of twenty > and thirty years ago." Possibly many of those surrounding the > University at that time have moved on into the mainstream--but > then-------maybe not? One such group from the 1970s ran a newspaper > called, "Free for ALL." Maybe that was the name of the group, also. > Anyway, they were totally in favor of Soviet styled collectivism and > land reform. Back then I wanted to do my own "publishing" and I bid on > some obsolete type setting equipment from a type setter in Sun Prairie. > I was outbid by this communist group. I kept track of the typesetters > which I still wanted to buy. Well this communist news paper sold the > equipment to another communist group at the University. And when they > closed up shop, I finally bought the type setters and supplies from > them. Anyway, they had kindred spirits in numbers to absorb the > pamphleteering of two socialist/communist groups. And the name of the > one--"Free for All" is much like the W. Guthry/Pete Seeger ditty, THIS > LAND --(is yours and mine). So, you can see my concern, particularly if > there is only one recognized bicycle advocacy lobby in Wisconsin. > > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies > -- Kirk Rappe Masters of Urban Planning College of Architecture and Urban Planning University of Washington | 608 | 215-4590 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
