There is one mistake in the message below, and it's my fault. I was mistaken in conveying the sponsors of the amendment.
The sponsors were as listed at the bottom of this message: Webber, Rummel, Konkel, Gruber. Satya Rhodes-Conway sponsored a similar amendment at the Board of Estimates - the city's financial committee - but didn't have her name on the final budget amendment. Small matter, as she obviously supported it and spoke in favor of it. I just wanted to be sure Brenda got appropriate kudos for sponsoring. Robbie On Nov 15, 2007 6:35 PM, Michael D. Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recently my neighbors & I got a bill from the city that penalizes us > for living in a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. The special tax > bill charges each of us hundreds of dollars for the privilege of that > most basic of human activities: walking. This is a bill that vast > areas of automobile-oriented parts of the city will never have to pay. > > Meanwhile, the costs for the dominant mode of transportation in the > auto-oriented parts of the city are spread across the entirety of the > tax base. No special bills for them! > > Thus residents of older, walkable neighborhoods end up having to pay > to walk *and* for others to drive. > > The free-loading of the peripheral sprawl/car-oriented areas of the > city has never been questioned before in any meaningful way. > > This year, was different. > > Several awake alders attempted to rescind the worst of the worst > sprawl funding out in the Mineral Pt. Rd/Junction Rd/Valley View Rd > area. The amendment went down in flames. But the mere existence of > the amendment was historic. > > Below is the language for the amendment. Had it gone through, it > would have forced better, more urban, less costly land use and > transportation. True, the failure did provide a victory for the > sprawlmeisters & car freaks in the Planning Dept. and City & Traffic > Engineering. > > But I'm hoping that this portends a sea-change in transportation > planning at the political level. Yes, the thing went down in flames, > but the 5 votes for saner, more efficient, more civilized > transportation and land use were five votes more than we got last > year. There is evidence that the amendment did resonate with others, > even thought they couldn't bring themselves to go against the power > this time. So we'll see.... > > Thank you Alds. Robbie Webber, Satya Rhodes-Conway, Marsha Rummel and > Tim Gruber for sponsoring & voting for the amendment, and Ald. Brenda > Konkel for voting for this important amendment. They deserve a thanks > from all of us for their brave effort. > > The rest deserve wrath. They voted for more CO2. They voted for more > paving. They voted for more strip malls. They voted for dirtier air. > They voted for dirtier water. They voted for epidemics of sedentary > lifestyles. They voted for chronic diseases. They voted > for...Oklahoma City. > > This mayor deserves particular blame given that he supposedly knows > better and ran against *exactly* this sort of bad transportation > planning. > > -Mike Barrett > > ********************************** > > You can see the entire debate about the amendment on the > streaming coverage of the Council meeting. > http://www.cityofmadison.com/mcc12/archive/mc111407.ram > Click on Cap A6 > > The debate goes for about 25 minutes. I speak first, and then again at > around hour 2:20. Satya speaks around 2:14. > > Amendment No. 6 > Agency/Project: Engineering - Major Streets / Project #14 - CTH M (CTH PD > Area) > Engineering - Major Streets / Project #15 - CTH M (Mid Town Road Area) > Engineering - Major Streets / Project #16 - CTH M (Valley View Road Area) > Engineering - Major Streets / Project #17 - CTH M > Engineering - Major Streets / Project #18 - CTH M (CTH S Intersection) > Page(s): 62, 67, 68, and 69 > Sponsor(s): Alds. Webber, Rummel, Konkel, Gruber > General Obligation Debt $ (1,050,000) > Other Funding - > Total $ (1,050,000) Levy Impact: $ (135,980) > Remove funding for all components of County Trunk Highway M projects > for 2008 through 2013. Future years' > funding will be contingent upon the development of favorable cost > sharing arrangements with Dane County. > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > PDDISCUSS is available and limited to PD members and members of the > newsmedia. Members of the newsmedia on this list are expected to abide by > the same high standards of journalism expected in other forums, including the > standard of responsibility to ask for confirmation of any quotes or > statements they wish to attribute to any other member(s) of this > list. Nothing stated on this listserve necessarily represents the position > of the members of Progressive Dane, or even of the individual person(s) > making the statement. This is a discussion list, a town square, an open > forum, for deliberation and debate. Please respect the deliberative purposes > of this list. > _______________________________________________ > Pddiscuss mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/pddiscuss > -- Please note that my personal email has changed. Please delete robbiew at tds.net from your address book. My alder account remains active, and city business should be sent there. _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
