Carol Becker's argument that a parking garage is necessary for the
Library because it provides access for the disabled would make more
sense if all the spaces were assigned to the disabled. But that is not
the case. This argument about access is often used to open up
wilderness areas to roads and motorized vehicles. It's not disabled
groups making these arguments but construction companies and
construction unions and the government officials who represent those
interests who plead for more roads, more cars and more parking
facilities.
When I ask people in government if they will support snow removal
for sidewalks as well as streets... for people in wheelchairs and blind
people, they tell me it costs too much....it appears that the concern
for disabled people who cannot drive is not as great as the concern for
disabled people who drive and own cars .
I also disagree with Carol's argument that the city must provide
equally for all forms of transit. The City should favor walking, biking,
and mass transit over the private automobile because those forms of
transit are beneficial to the environment, to urban communities, the
streetscape, public safety and public health. Cars in every possible way
are toxic to the environment, dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists.
noisy, ugly ,dirty, smelly and a drain on the public purse.
When loggers clear-cut a forest, they leave a strip of trees along
the highway to screen the devastation, they call it the "beauty strip".
For pedestrians, Nicollet Mall has become a beauty strip. along many
of the side streets off of the Mall, where new building have parking
garages there are long stretches of windowless walls punctuated by
gaping entrances and exits where pedestrians must either run for their
lives or wait while a disembodied voice repeats, "Car approaching...Car
approaching".
If pedestrians stay on the Mall and avoid the dismal side streets,
the small businesses on the other avenues and streets that depend on
casual foot traffic will go out of business (this has already happened
)...creating a car-oriented, suburban-style city...a city of glitzy
big-box destinations with convenient parking and none of the surprise
and delight of a pedestrian -friendly city like Venice ( take the
delightful and instructive tour of Venice on the www.carfree.com web
site.)
I think too much emphasis is placed on comfort and convenience in
urban planning. Must aesthetic, safety and health considerations be
sacrificed to laziness? Perhaps a little walking and carrying would do
us good. Many people who still walk and use mass transit have figured
out how to carry heavy loads. Neighborhood hardware stores sell folding
, two wheeled baskets. The downtown library will also send books to your
neighborhood library. When my kids and I go to the downtown library we
take the bus and share the load of books. They may have gotten sore arms
from the effort but I don't think that amounts to child abuse.
There is enough parking for cars downtown already. The current
Library is surrounded by ramps and lots. Why not purchase and reserve
space for patrons at those lots and ramps?
The officials involved in this decision have an opportunity to show
us thay care more for people than cars.
Ken Avidor
Kingfield
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
