Kirk,
Just because the Bike Fed doesn't endorse a Smart Growth doesn't mean
that it can't encourage its members and staff to participate in land use
planning. We absolutely want people to participate actively in land use
meetings and boards, such as MPO's. It's clear that getting involved
with road and development planning at the early stages results in low
cost adaptations which save taxpayers many times more the cost down the
road for bike facilities.
For the Bike Fed, this is really a matter of political discipline. If
we stick to bikes, we can get support from people - both citizens and
politicians - who support cycling but, for whatever reason, oppose Smart
Growth. I doubt that Eric, for example, will change his attitude about
Smart Growth anytime soon, but I'll bet there are many others for whom
increased ridership will facilitate a change in their attitude about the
benefits of land use planning.
Much of the opposition to Smart Growth comes from a small number of
people with big bucks and therefore political power. Though we hate to
think of the possibilitu that politicians might two-faced about
supporting Smart Growth, but it wouldn't surprise me that they would
want to support cycling as a way to provide land use planning a boost
without being seen as a direct supporter of the Smart Growth. If we
come out visibly in support of Smart Growth, they may be forced to
oppose our cause.
For us, Smart Growth is a tool for spreading cycling - it is not a goal.
Richard
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
