OK, my point was that there is already a study underway to plan for a two-block development on land the city owns. If Robert doesn't want to use the bike station, that's fine. But shouldn't we at least look at whether a bike station is appropriate in that location - a development that is going to happen whether we put a bike station in there or not?
Just because he doesn't feel a bike station is needed - and I think his arguments as to why it is not overlook many factors - doesn't mean we shouldn't at least look at the possibility. I also read into his comments that he assumes the bike station will be run by or financed by the city, which isn't necessarily the case. Robbie Webber On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > This is an idiotic and offensive statement. No one is forcing me to stay > at the Edgewater Hotel, but I stand by my decision to vote Mayor Dave out > of office for cheerleading that particular corporate subsidy, among other > reasons. > > ... > > > No one is forcing anyone to use the bike station. If you don't feel it is > > needed, then you don't have to use it. There are many models for how they > > are financed and managed. Maybe it will be entirely private. > > ... > > > Robbie Webber > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
