I should clarify my point on land rights and the STATE. Advocating for bike trails, easy access to populated areas, locations for schools and such---LAND USES does not entail the THEFT of land rights from individuals. (At least not normally) Certainly a bike advocacy group should advocate, recommend, or consult on such sound bicycle use issues. But that is not where the WIDE OPEN concept of LAND CONTROL called SMART GROWTH begins or ends.
I hope I am clear on the destination. When somebody has acquired the major asset of their lives--their house and land--they should not have the STATE come and STEAL half or more of their use rights. Some believe that ALL LANDS and USAGE RIGHTS are owned COMMUNALLY for the benefit of ALL and determined by THE FEW.(Pete Seeger, the Weavers, Woody Guthrie, GUS HALL----etc.) And there are all sorts of NAMES for that belief.
As I pointed out before, our consolidated schools were not chosen by THE LOCAL PEOPLE but by our WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT. That was the "Smart Growth" by the minority of forty years ago. I know well how that happened in my area and just WHO headed up the WISCONSIN initiative which lead to the loss of our local high school. Consolidation was forced upon us by the STATE.
Eric
Kirk Rappe wrote:
Hi Richard,No, I'm not a plant - I moved out to Seattle for grad school and really have not been that directly involved with the BFW (although until last year I was a card carrying member). I'm simply pointing out that if one wants (as Eric does) to strip out "land use" as a valid area of concern for cyclists then maybe we shouldn't care about, say, "safe routes to school" because that might get the BFW into advocating for new schools to be located in areas accessible to children on bikes (most new schools are built on the fringes of developments because of the cheap land, but shouldn't transportation linkages also be considered?).
Eric's theory isn't limited to just "smart growth".
-Kirk
On 11/3/07, Richard Schwinn < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Kirk,Your list below sounds suspiciously familiar. Except for the Bike Commuter Tax Credit (an interesting idea), it sounds like several of the main programs of the Bike Fed. You're not a plant, are you?
Richard
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??)
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
--
Kirk RappeMasters of Urban Planning
College of Architecture and Urban Planning
University of Washington| 608 | 215-4590
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
