Robert, Good call. My apologies. I understand that I had poor word choice in my last email. I think I was trying to recognize that we do prioritize differently when we view something as recreational or "essential" and in this case, the paths are both.
If my intentions can be clarified, I had already sent a correspondence to the mayor about the cut in funding for the ice rinks, which could be viewed as "merely recreational", but should not be written off because of that. I think that the rinks provide much-needed healthy outlet for our community especially (but not solely) for teenagers looking for an active, safe, healthy afternoon/evening/weekend activity. -India On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:04 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote: > India Viola [email protected] wrote on Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:51:16 -0500: > [snip] > > Let's remind the mayor that the mixed use paths are not merely > > recreational. They are some city inhabitants' main transportation > > corridors. > > I understand the point you are trying to make (that bikeways should be on > par with priority for "regular" streets), but am a little bothered by the > dismissive "merely recreational" (whether for bikeways, rinks, or beaches). > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on > Microsoft® > Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > -- :typed by one hand while nursing: WeAreAllMechanics.com [email protected] Stay connected- Follow WAAM on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/We.Are.All.Mechanics>
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
