"The implication that we should totally ban automobiles, busses and anything else that pollutes isn't very reasonable, either in Minneapolis or any other major city."
Which would be a legitimate point, had Gary ever said anything about banning motor vehicles. Since he hasn't, this sentence is utterly meaningless. What Gary advocates - very clearly, if you read his post without prejudice - is that each individual in our city think about the consequences of his or her private, legal actions. Are there still legitimate reasons for automobile use? Of course. I work all day with folks who have cerebral palsy and other disabling conditions, folks who can't walk, much less ride a bicycle. There must and should be vans to transport them from home to work to recreation. But the vast majority of automobile trips in this city are unnecessary. Since they contribute to all sorts of social evils (which I consider to be well-established enough not to list again here), it is fair to exhort each Minneapolitan to do something for their city, themselves, (and yes, their children) - cut down on unnecessary car usage. Gary and others aim to place automobiles in a social place similar to cigarettes - a behavior which, while not banned, is viewed as a pretty bad idea. A behavior strangers can expect you to refrain from in certain situations as a matter of courtesy - think secondhand smoke. A behavior that is universally regarded as self-destructive. Now, why should we not take into account what effect our behavior has on the children in our city? I'd think that this lack of concern for the basic safety of Minneapolis kids would be met with far less tolerance if the threat was, say, child molesters. But hey, pop quiz: which kills more kids each year, crazy perverts or automobiles? Terrel then writes: "Or maybe the switch is the vote to go to the job that provides the money to pay the taxes to support the kid's school." This argument only makes sense if an automobile was the only way to get to work. The other vital fact Terrel ignores is that the majority of motor vehicle trips are not commute-related. So the negative behavior is not balanced by such an ostensibly positive outcome as paying for schools. Terrel goes on: "I choose to live here. I know that there is both good and bad. I could live somewhere with possibly cleaner air (albeit the stats show that ours is getting cleaner so we must be doing something right) but I'm not sure that I like the idea of the things I'd lose. I'd rather work to make here better." First of all, as I've stated, Gary's point is not to take anything from you. He is trying to motivate you and others to consciously eschew a destructive behavior which has an impact on his child. Which is entirely fair. If you're truly willing to work to "make here better," I don't think you have any disagreement with Gary. That's all he's asking: that you, as an individual, make the choice to stay out of the car when you can. Your defense-of-driving post, however, makes me wonder if that statement of yours isn't false. Terrel finishes: "Some days I really wonder about some of the stuff I read on this list." I know the feeling. Robin Garwood Seward _______________________________________ 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
