The idealistic fools at the Sierra Club recently took their "no new roads ever!" pitch to the pages of the Tacoma News Tribune op-ed pages.
The short version of their argument is that Prop 1 failed last fall because voters hate roads and everyone should move into compact, urban neighborhoods because...well...it would just be really nice.
Cute fantasy. Not so good on the implementation.
Example: digest former State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald's analysis of the success or failure of regional planning that would give any hope to the "everybody to live in the type of neighborhood we tell you to" theory.
As MacDonald discusses, the Puget Sound area's population is growing, but it isn't concentrating as the no-road zealots would like.
If results to date were on target, 98,000 of the 307,000 new people already added to the region from 2000 to 2007 should have located in those five cities [Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and Bremerton].Oops. The actual number (discounting annexations in Bellevue and Everett) was 41,000, including Bremerton, whose population actually shrank by 1,500. That's 13 percent of the actual population growth so far, not 32 percent as targeted in Vision 2040
[snip]
What about Vision 2040's 14 core cities -- Auburn, Bothell, and so on? According to Vision 2040, 21 percent of the new population should collect in those cities as a group. If that had happened with the overall 307,000 new people regionwide, 64,000 new people would have joined the populations of those 14 core cities.Oops. The actual number was 38,500 (taking into account annexations in Federal Way, Kent, Redmond, and Puyallup, and ignoring Silverdale, for which a separate number is not available). That's just under 13 percent of the actual 307,000 regional population gain in the seven-year period -- nowhere near the 21 percent envisioned in Vision 2040.
Where are the actual destinations for much of the local population growth?
Those are outlying cities, generally, whose populations push against rural and natural resource areas, which stretch out our everyday transportation requirements, and which represent the press of growth in the four county region against its edges. As all observers can witness with their own eyes, this is the surge of new development to the north, south, east and west beyond the boundaries of the four-county area.
Thus, even if the Sierra Club and related fanatics got to work implementing every zoning restriction and "sustainable housing" policy they would like, starting tomorrow, the reality stands that buses, trains, and pedestrian friendly communities are not the only answers to the region's gross transportation problems.
I say this as a voter who generally supports transit, loves compact urban neighborhoods, and will no doubt end up living in one after the kids fly the coup (even now I live in a budding "urban village" in the middle of suburbia, just a few minutes walk from a bustling park & ride). Yet, just because I like the choice doesn't mean great swaths of other people will ever choose the lifestyle the Sierra Clubbers are insisting upon.
Thus, by insisting on such solutions the Sierra Club is in fact insisting on not being taken seriously. Their understanding of life seems to stop outside the boundaries of Seattle proper. It wouldn't be a bad thing if their political influence did likewise.
UPDATE: MacDonald's name fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 30, 2008 08:26 PM | Email ThisThanks for the post Eric.
My interest is in uniting conservatives and the Sierra Club and their fellow travelers in the same shot-gun marriage that successfully killed Prop. 1.
Nothing I'm suggesting would require SPers to refrain from such epithets as "idealistic fools," at all.
Every transportation bureaucracy in the country (I'm leaving the boss of our state DoT, Paula Hammond, out of any and all criticisms or disparaging statements, everything I've seen from her is good) is singing the same song, which is "We need a better, different revenue source or sources than the gas tax."
This should concern conservatives greatly.
Tolls and congestion pricing both have severe collection inefficiencies--they involve an intricate new money-raising system and for all practical purposes, a whole new expensive bureaucracy just to collect the money.
They can never be fair. There is always a passenger going from A to B that will be tolled while a driver going from B to C won't be, and it won't really make sense why.
Then there is the constant danger of the raid on the general fund to pay for roads, ala Rossi. When roads are paid by non-user fees, the price signal is muffled and distorted, essentially subsidizing congestion, pollution and sprawl by socializing the cost of roads.
I march under this flag: If the public doesn't want the gas tax raised, then the public doesn't want more roads.
Thanks all, New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: New Left Conservative #1 on April 30, 2008 09:04 PMThat's why Snohomish County Commissioner Reardon needs to start paying more attention to how his constituents are getting hosed. Tomorrow Reardon will be chairing the Sound Transit Finance Committee. He'll be handed a new contract to sign, with the Seattle Tunnel Project, LLC on the other side getting the open-ended contract.
What, you never heard of Seattle Tunnel Project, LLC? It is new. That contract Reardon is going to approve is for a minimum of sixty million dollars, and there's nothing in place now to prevent future Snohomish County taxes from having to cover all of that.
That money would go to construction consultants, for a really short stretch of deep light rail tunneling. The smart growth Snohomish County residents want is not helped by these Sound Transit plans for King County, in any way. From Snohomish County's perspective, light rail is nothing but an insanely expensive Seattle vanity project from its downtown to the UW football stadium.
In my opinion, Reardon shouldn't approve that contract. There is too much that's open-ended for his county's people about that King County light rail extension project. His constituents could end up paying really dearly for nothing, and just a few Seattle property developers are the ones who'd benefit.
When we cut spending to the teachers unions I'll be all for diverting that money to building roads. But I guess not, since the WTU is a sacred cow more important then building roads for everyone.
Posted by: FreedomLover on May 1, 2008 12:57 AMThe reason people do not want higher gas taxes is two fold.
First the price of gas is on the rise and probable will be for sometime.
Second the revenue from the gas tax is not spent wisely. Can you tell me any projects that have been fully funded by the 9.5 cent gas tax? Not to mention the fact that the gas tax is being skimmed into the general fund as it stands now by charging sales tax on the construction material paid for by the gas tax.
Why are we still inisisting on rail? The first rail proposal was shot down, the second barely passed (only at the last minute was money promised to Snohomish County/Everett) and the last failed miserably. Buses are more mobile.
All these environmental groups. First there was the Sierra Club; then the WEC (Washington Environmental Council); then the Audubon; then the list goes on and on and now we are back to the Sierra Club. Same players, BTW, different names.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2008 07:27 AMOK, you are still not convinced that the News Buffoon is nothing but a "house organist" who plays only the tunes that Tacoma/Pierce government calls (until another scandal erupts and then they "were not aware").
The Pierce County annex is located on S 35th Street and handicapped do not have access to the building from the bus stop accross the street. This is the building one visits to pay one's taxes, get a mariage lisence, secure a building permit (like for if you need to add a wheelchair ramp to your house), etc.
The County under John Ladenburg (who rec'd email corespondence from me diurring the time construction was happening) developed the parcel adjacent to the PC annex and City cevelopment regulations specify that "frontage improvements" be done concurrent with property development unless the developer (in this case the County under John Ladenburg) applies to the City (who I emailed durring the time this development was taking place) and requests and is granted a waiver of deferral. Deferral's or waivers are supposed to be granted only in exceptional circumstances (in other words they are to be the exception rather than the rule) and granted only when it has been shown that the waiver or deferral will not impact the public in a significant way.
By the way I have in my possession email corespondence to the News Buffoon suggesting that as the local paper of record (yea right, what they are is the defacto local Democrat campaign headquarters) they might want to consider looking into this.
So there you have it folks, DEMOCRAT Ladenburg and the DEMOCRAT Tacoma City Council actively denying people with handicaps that effect their mobility teh opportunity to access to essential govennment services by denying access to an identified population.
And that my friends is Tacom/Pierce County Government in a nut shell and the News Buffoon is part of the equation tha tperpetuates this.
Posted by: JDH on May 1, 2008 07:39 AMAnd what about Southcenter mall? That is more of a "city" than many sleepy neighborhoods even close to Seattle's down town.
Try and free your mind -- you can see urbanity in many nooks and crannies of exurbia!
Posted by: John Bailo on May 1, 2008 08:28 AMLittle Boxes
by Malvina Reynolds
Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses all went to the university
Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and there's lawyers, and business executives
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.
And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
But no one is trying to dictate where people live and where they spend their money. So get over the Liberals trying to run your lives mantra.
Gas tax monies only go to roads. Period. It's in the state constitution, actually.
You want to move out to rural areas to build your cheap McMansions, etc. Fine with me. Just don't ask me to pay for it, then. Your CHOICE to move further outside the City comes with having to pay for your own extensions to roads, sewers, electrical lines, etc. You want to drive more on the roads, then pay more in gas tax or create a tax based on miles driven, or pay expensive tolls.
But stop telling transit supporters we're raising your taxes and stealing your money to fund transit, when we've been subsidizing your gas-guzzling culture for years by building and maintaining your roads and keeping your gas prices subsidized.
It's not a commie plot. And it's got nothing to do with whether or not global warming is caused by mankind or not. It's simple economics. Some of us transit advocates are simply asking drivers to pick up a more equitable percentage of the real costs to society of our auto-focused culture.
Posted by: Mickymse on May 1, 2008 10:05 AMLater we read this, "we've been subsidizing your gas-guzzling culture for years"
If you liberals want to pretend you're open minded and reasonable you've either got to become better actors, or better writers.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 10:24 AMPer RCW, State gas tax used in road vehicles must be used for road purposes. The State fudges on this all the time and every decade or so the Supreme Court has to spank them. Gas tax paid for use in farm vehicles and boats gets refunded. Gas tax paid for use in offroad vehicles is for the most part stolen by the state and directed to non-motorized recreation funding thanks to the Sierra Club's legal and lobbying efforts.
Posted by: Tod on May 1, 2008 10:35 AMBut no one is trying to dictate where people live and where they spend their money. So get over the Liberals trying to run your lives mantra.
Oh REALLY? What do you call this then?
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/18389174.html
Little old lady just trying to live out her life in her home of 50 years. Along comes the county beaureaucrats to slap her with a $7000 tax bill. Even when taxpayers vote for an Initiative to stop this kind of state sanctioned theft, some liberal judge comes along and declares it "unconstitutional".
Liberals are responsible for this, but so are spineless Republicans for not at least putting up a fight. Liberal judges and liberal politicians are forcing people out of their homes and "mandating by tax assessment" that land has to be leveled out and condos built on any free space that isn't part of the "protected" county land which prohibits home owners from using their own land. There's not enough room for the ducks you know...
So this little old lady is going to have to sell or have her land confiscated by the county. Some developer will swoop in and buy it for the amount of taxes owed, and the county will have successfully stolen this lady's land. They can't even leave her alone long enough to die happy and THEN steal the land from her family.
This is our world. The Sierra Club would be proud.
Good little Socialists take over the local governments, then tax the "rich" (anyone with a house) and divert thoses taxes "fairly" to the losers who make bad decisions in life and then resent those who make good decisions and aren't on the government dole in some way.
Mickymse, do you know that per capita, Puget Sounders are using less gasoline for transportation since 1966?
How are the workers out there in suburbia who can only afford a house in Bonney Lake or Arlington but can only find a job Downtown supposed to support your Socialist decisions? Remember, if the masses don't do the work, your good little Socialist agenda can't be fulfilled.
Posted by: zDawg on May 1, 2008 10:43 AMLiberals do massive amounts of damage when they take over places like Seattle, San Francisco, and Detroit. Or Russia. But I digress.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 10:58 AMBaloney.
Three tenths of one percent of the sales tax rate goes directly to transit systems in any area that is part of a "Public Transportation Benefit Area." That's why you see mostly empty buses running way out to the sticks. Extending routes out there extends the PTBA and increases the revenue.
So, Mickymse, you might drop the conceit.
Posted by: David Onkels on May 1, 2008 11:04 AMI recently traded my Honda Odyssey in for a Civic Hybrid. While, I did double my mileage (20 mpg to 40mpg average now), and it is a lot nicer vehicle than the Sprint ever was, it still averages lower mpg. I can get close to fifty on commute drive from GH to Seattle, it is the city driving in GH with all the hills that kill the mpg. It is nice, however given where gas prices are today, to get 400-420 miles on a tank and only put in 10 gallons. The Odyssey, which was the best performing mini-van with its Variable Cylinder Management engine, would take 16-18 gallons to only go 325-350 mile range. On long trips, the Odyssey would get 23-24 mpg. Still also owning a four-cylinder Accord, which averages 30 mpg, the hybrids don't necessarily provide that much more performance.
Posted by: tc on May 1, 2008 11:06 AMMickey Mouse, the troll of the day, doesn't realize that the more I drive, the more gas tax I pay. If you are in the burbs (like I am) our traffic is not as heavy and we don't beat up our roads like you city folks. So, yes, we are indeed subsidizing you for the roads and the full buses disguised as empty seats on the buses.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2008 11:20 AMMy god. Is it possible to read this statement more than twice and not get a headache? Perhaps eric isn't a government bureaucrat, but he certainly writes like one.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 11:23 AMActually compare the rise in what you pay for government, including the cost of groceries (that is a tax you pay when government decides to put food in the tank of your car) to motor vehicle fuel and gas is cheap by comparison.
By the way, I had a '92 Geo Metro from '91 to '95 and put 130,000 miles on it. A solid 52mpg on the hwy, 40+ around town. $6,229 out the door w/tax and license. I used to go to Montana for the weekend if I didn't have anything else to do. Filled up before leaving home and again in Missoula on my way east. We have Prius' at work and they are not all that much different than the metro. I would buy a low milage Metro if I came accross one, but we have a GTI.
Posted by: JDH on May 1, 2008 11:40 AMThe incompetence of the so called leaders in this part of the country is glaring in how they choose 'light rail'. If these fools (I'm trying to be kind) had any brains they would have brought us mag-lev trains, you know state of the art with some 21st century technology in it. They could use the eminent domain laws that our supreme court recently foisted on us to confiscate the land required to do this. These trains would run from Edmonds to Olympia using the I-5 Corridor with stops all along the way to pick up happy passengers who wouldn't have to drive to work. Also it would have intersecting train stations for trains running between Bremerton to Redmond. This one would go through Bonney Lake, Enumclaw, Maple Valley and Bellevue.
The existing bus services would all be rerouted to meet at the large parking areas at each of the terminals along the way. Tacoma would have a major terminal at the intersection at I-5 that would allow passengers to switch to the train going in the direction they wish to go. The trains would come every 15 minutes during hours between 4 AM and 8 PM. They would slow to every half hour until 11 PM then run every hour till 4 AM. A real leader with guts would stop all current transit boondoggles and rerout the funds to this plan. He would have the person who came to him and suggested a Blue Ribbon Commission to study this arrested.
Just think, they could create tons of jobs just building the damn thing and then they would have to have government employees to run and maintain the thing. Why, the jobs they could create, all beholden to the government they saw as their benefactor (democrats), would be huge.
But as I said they are incompetents. Any lib reading this ought to be enraged at their favorite politician for not championing something like this.
Posted by: REBEL on May 1, 2008 11:59 AMLet the crying begin.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 1, 2008 12:03 PMNow, I'm all for better distribution of bus lines and wider coverage, but this seems like a plot by pro-roads folks to set up the scenario y'all are decrying, don't you think?
I also might point out that many of those empty buses are empty at the ends of their routes into the suburbs, and are not that way during all times of their use.
Posted by: Mickymse on May 1, 2008 12:05 PMAs for my "good little Socialist" choices... Yes, I have to hear people call me an elitist rich person for living in the City.
The fact, however, is my husband and I chose to live in a condo rather than a townhouse so we could afford to live closer in. We have only one car, lower insurance, less gas and repairs costs, etc. in order to support that choice. And we looked for places that were close to good bus routes so that I could get to work and other activities.
Those are the choices we made in order to live where we do. Sure, I would have loved a bigger house, but if it required us buying a second car and my time wasted commuting back and forth on the freeway, would we really have saved any money at all?
Posted by: Mickymse on May 1, 2008 12:12 PMAs for Ladenburg, I'll take your word for it on his politics, however he scores big points with me for getting that course built. I've played and enjoyed watching golf since I was a kid, and building that course and getting a US Open here was very welcome news to me. For a $21 million investment (that alot of people opposed), that course is going to bring well over $100 million in economic activity to that area in 2015. Not to mention the US Amateur a few years prior. My family and I will be attending both events. I can't wait.
Posted by: Palouse on May 1, 2008 12:20 PM..why you assume 'he', grasshopper..
Posted by: Duffman on May 1, 2008 12:25 PMJust don't believe there are ax wielding female vandals. Could be wrong on that, but I doubt it.
Posted by: Palouse on May 1, 2008 12:32 PMI recall a debate I once had with my very liberal sister during which she lectured me that we all "need" public transit. When I asked her how often she and her young daughter used public transit she flew into a fit. She, of course, had a far too busy lifestyle to utilize public transit. Which, unfortunately for liberals brings up the point that in the world they've created where every mom has to work public transit is only convenient for young single urban dwellers. Or perhaps liberals can explain how easy it is to take their kids to soccer practice on the bus.
It's always thus, whether it's Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Barack Obama. You little people need to do what we say...and don't ever pay attention to what we actually do.
Can it not be more obvious? Liberals are like untrained puppies, creating messes their adult owners eventually have to clean up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 12:34 PMReally? You might want to familiarize yourself with the Growth Management Act. For it, indeed, does dictate where people can live and at what cost.
Posted by: jimg on May 1, 2008 12:35 PMYeah she hates it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mick.
Are you kidding the city I live end we have flex buses and they are never full.(not even half) I'm on the street all the time and see these huge waste of taxpayers money.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 1, 2008 01:00 PMSorry, also, Mouse, but where I sit, the buses are empty pretty much all day. Yes, you get them filled during rush hour but they still have to run on off-peak hours and contrary to your opinion, my eyeballs see through the disguise.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2008 01:00 PMIt's always thus, whether it's Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Barack Obama. You little people need to do what we say...and don't ever pay attention to what we actually do.
Can it not be more obvious? Liberals are like untrained puppies, creating messes their adult owners eventually have to clean up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 12:34 PM
Just love it how libs fly into fits anytime someone challenges them. It's like automatic!
Posted by: FreedomLover on May 1, 2008 01:08 PMYou'd think leftists would take this day to reflect on their vast record of accomplishment. Could they even come up with one?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 01:18 PMDon't get me wrong, I am all for energy conservation, cleaner environment and alternative fuels (not biofuels though - because they don't cost less and increase the cost of food). At this time, no presidential candidate has spoken out about this, which is a sad state of affairs.
Posted by: KS on May 1, 2008 01:19 PMOne 'small' one (right off the top) - they've distroyed or reduced to ineffectiveness the Republican Party in the State of Washington! :)
Posted by: Duffman on May 1, 2008 01:25 PMAnd using children as an excuse is setting up a false comparison. People all over the world, and here in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, regularly raise children in the City. The trade-off of a huge room or backyard for smaller homes or apartments is being walkable to schools, stores, museums, etc. and utilizing parks and beaches and community centers for parties and recreation.
Once again, I'm fine with those who choose the suburban lifestyle for their families. I'm just saying that there are costs as well as benefits to doing that for your family -- both monetary and emotional/physical. We don't talk enough about that. And we seem to pretend that millions of people around the world don't raise perfectly normal, healthy children inside cities.
Posted by: Mickymse on May 1, 2008 03:21 PMWho are liberal "progressives" really? They are control freak nazis. Or to put it another way they love doing what commies always love to do. Boss everyone else around. Indeed, liberalism is a mental disease.
As Duffman, (who fell right into the trap I set), admits, leftists can't point to a single accomplishment except keeping Republicans out of office.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 03:51 PMA bus with five passengers isn't very fuel-efficient, is it?
Posted by: David Onkels on May 1, 2008 04:00 PM"The metropolis does have a fairly high, and increasing share of singles, childless couples, empty nesters and educated professionals who are a good market for denser urban living, but they are NOT a majority, and do not have an ethical right to impose their preferences on everyone else. It is simply predictable, then, that the goals of vast population growth in Seattle and other core cities, or that the urban growth boundary will not need to be reevaluated before 2040, will not occur. Folks will rebel, many businesses will relocate, and a significant share of the assumed growth may be displaced to other counties and other states.
I would point out that those denser cities we want to emulate, like Boston or New York or San Francisco, in fact have vast and extensive suburban single family zones, and our more "perfect" neighbor rival[s], Portland and Vancouver BC, are in fact very much like us."
Posted by: David Onkels on May 1, 2008 04:57 PMOh yes, UW researchers have discovered that many living in Seattle neighborhoods have no access to grocery stores within a 30-minute bus ride.
Fitting in nicely with the P-I's usual story line is a lengthy sad narrative featuring guess what? A single mom. Only in the twisted world of liberalism would the very people who encourage single parenthood blubber about its inevitable consequences.
The poor woman has to trundle 30-pounds of groceries home on the bus a couple times a week. If her two 18-year old daughters ever provide any help it's not mentioned.
The best part of the article however was when the P-I whined that living in such remote city locations, "makes it hard to combat climate change and create a more liveable city".
You don't have to make this stuff up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 05:19 PMWorthy of being a fish guts wrapper, but not a fish wrapper !
Posted by: kS on May 1, 2008 05:40 PMSomewhere back in the 60s they started their campaign to close down the mountains to public access. I've been fighting against them for years in order to keep the few mountain roads open. I lost. Note "Wild Sky" got through Congress.
Now that the Sierra Club has closed down the mountains the only way for their lawsuit happy business to continue is to start suing the cities and city dwellers.
The local Sierra Club's wizard of Oz, Charlie Raines is now telling land owners in his sights which trees they can cut down on their own property. If you disagree he'll make you get an EIS before you cut that tree or dig a hole.
His associates are telling us how we should get from point A to point B on our highways.
What next? I'm worried about the possilbe "landmark" sequoia in my backyard. It keeps tilting toward my house.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on May 1, 2008 05:44 PMIt cracks me up how liberals constantly act as if the last piece of untamed land is about to be gobbled up by "developers". Give me 90-minutes and I can drive any of these knotheads to places where if they ran out of gas they would end up as skeletons.
That narrative goes away when someone disappears in a plane, or on a hike. Suddenly as if by magic, we have people "lost in the wilderness".
I am so sick of these people.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 1, 2008 06:04 PM1. It's the fuel that's the problem, not the cars
2. Doug MacDonald is and always will be an idiot and an a**hole
The problem lies with the local government folks at County level and city of Seattle. They all think that forcing people out of their cars is the answer. Did you know the Seattle City Council actually has a policy to try to discourage people from driving into town to shop? And they wonder why Bellevue is getting all the good jobs and retail!
And why exaclty are cars bad anyway? Because of pollution? Great! We are going to have new fuels. Already Hybrids are reducing emissions by 50% or so. When we have 'plug-in hybrids' --- hybrids that use electricity first and gas second --- you're talking 100MPG or so. Everybody wins.
But I know that won't be good enough. Just wait...the leftists will start talking about why cars aren't the answer even when the fuel is clean. I can't wait to hear the twisted logic...but I bet the word obesity comes in...or runoff Just watch.
The group who put the plan, VISION 2040 out, is the Puget Sound Regional Council. They are not the problem. I work with a lot of them. They are about the best follks out there in local gov't. In fact, MacDonald's piece was a load of BS when he attacked their work. Because he compared current state to desired future. Of course it isn't going to be the same! That's why you adopt plans --- to try to change status quo!
Death. Taxes. Doug MacDonald's an idiot and an a**hole. The sooner the entire region realizes these things, the better off we'll all be.
Posted by: GovtMole on May 1, 2008 08:49 PMThe best idea I've seen is van pools. Essentially small private buses run by the companies that fund them for their employees. Driven by an employee volunteer who gets free transportation as a benefit. Private, so they will be managed and not used on days when there is no justifiable ridership, unlike our empty buses.
The lefty fools believe in their Utopian Dense Urban vision and that the Earth needs saving, etc. They act on emotion and not reason. All those condos built with subsidy are going to have a nice bottoming out in a few years. Same in Portland. There are a lot fewer urban dwellers than the social planners would like to admit, but they'll cover that up and deny it when it comes to pass. Notice all of the radio ads for condo showings?
I've said many times before, the best way to guarantee the our mass transit dollars pay off, and to regulate future frivolous mass transit expenditures is to mandate that all bureaucrat employees must use mass transit to commute to and from work. If you are going to be a net drain on the economy, then you should not get any perks. Perks are for private citizens who generate the wealth that finances the government. Don't like to be a blight? Get a real job in the private sector.
They are all Al Gore Co2 Belching phony's.
Do as I say, not as I do!
To hell with all of them, I'll drive my car too!
Posted by: GS on May 2, 2008 02:09 AM#58 What we have here ('Bill') is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE! Haha....can we say 'spin control'; we could use you on the Clinton campaign. :)
Posted by: Duffman on May 2, 2008 05:13 AMhttp://wcbstv.com/seenon/car.lease.us.2.713776.html
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 2, 2008 06:25 AMDid you catch Rev Wrights' mansion (that he's about to move into) and the two Rolls Royces that he has - on the news last night? - suppose his parishioners can come live with him?
Posted by: Duffman on May 2, 2008 06:49 AMThe difference between my idea and the status quo is that the transportation groups should be more proactive in getting people matched up.
Posted by: swatter on May 2, 2008 06:53 AMThey hate good ideas. So back to your corner. (-:
Duffie.... No I didn't see it and really don't care. If his people wish to give him that.. Be my guess, it's not coming out of my pocket. But I'll tell you, if my Church ever asked me to give my Rev something like that. I would leave a path of *^&^#$#@ words as I left that church forever.