I thought they were completely insane but losing their parking because of poor planning is a good reason to be mad.
The city planners created a town that wasn’t walkable and then took away parking from a few people knowing that a minority of complainers can’t fight back.
If the council wants to take away a few citizens’ parking, how about they bulldoze the council members yards for parking lots. Even better is eminent domain the council members homes to turn it mixed use urban design to make the town walkable. Then they can have more bike lanes and everyone is happy.
It’s not their parking, it’s street parking on public land. If the public decides through a council that the safety of the citizens is more valuable then a couple peoples parking spaces they can choose to reallocate that land. These people still have private driveways and garages to park there car whereas bike lanes can only go in certain places.
The city planners who made the decision to make the neighborhood car dependent are long dead or retired. These council members are trying to make it less car dependent and you want to bulldoze there houses for trying?
If we want to move away from car dependence we’ll never get anywhere if we have to stop and consider every minor inconvenience that motorists may suffer and conive someway to put that cost on the people trying to change things.
Logistically yes, again there’s only a certain amount of places a bike lane can be and still be effective. If we put it only in front of council members houses it wouldn’t be a good bike lane. Same if we bulldozed their houses and put up a parking lot, the people who lost parking would probably not be close enough to even park in those lots.
We as a society recognize that to complete certain projects some people may loose out on previous privileges. If we don’t we descend into nimbyism and nothing ever gets done.
This is a bit of a reach but bike lanes are most effective when they connect directly. That means they are built on major roads, not cul-de-sacs that go nowhere.
Who buys roads in front of major roads: the poor. Because the expensive homes are in cul-de-sacs far from the heavy road noise.
So the law is equally just to rich and poor in the same way it is equally just to rich and poor by making sleeping under a bridge illegal.
Everyone benefits from the bike lanes, but only the poorer homeowners are inconvenienced.
Bike lanes can totally be helpful if you have a single street that serves as the entrance for several groups of houses. If you have bike lanes all the way from the houses to the street, you will significantly lower the amount of people who drive
The reason they complained wasn’t specifically the bike lanes but the loss of parking which affects them and causes a ripple effect on their neighbors. Adding parking fixes the overcrowding that the bike lanes caused.
Your populist “solution” was to demolish councilor property. How many councillors are there? How many parking spots did you create? 20? 30? Wooptie doo. Venting is not public policy.
I thought they were completely insane but losing their parking because of poor planning is a good reason to be mad.
The city planners created a town that wasn’t walkable and then took away parking from a few people knowing that a minority of complainers can’t fight back.
If the council wants to take away a few citizens’ parking, how about they bulldoze the council members yards for parking lots. Even better is eminent domain the council members homes to turn it mixed use urban design to make the town walkable. Then they can have more bike lanes and everyone is happy.
It’s not their parking, it’s street parking on public land. If the public decides through a council that the safety of the citizens is more valuable then a couple peoples parking spaces they can choose to reallocate that land. These people still have private driveways and garages to park there car whereas bike lanes can only go in certain places.
The city planners who made the decision to make the neighborhood car dependent are long dead or retired. These council members are trying to make it less car dependent and you want to bulldoze there houses for trying?
If we want to move away from car dependence we’ll never get anywhere if we have to stop and consider every minor inconvenience that motorists may suffer and conive someway to put that cost on the people trying to change things.
It’s always someone else that must make the sacrifice, not those making the decisions.
Logistically yes, again there’s only a certain amount of places a bike lane can be and still be effective. If we put it only in front of council members houses it wouldn’t be a good bike lane. Same if we bulldozed their houses and put up a parking lot, the people who lost parking would probably not be close enough to even park in those lots.
We as a society recognize that to complete certain projects some people may loose out on previous privileges. If we don’t we descend into nimbyism and nothing ever gets done.
This is a bit of a reach but bike lanes are most effective when they connect directly. That means they are built on major roads, not cul-de-sacs that go nowhere.
Who buys roads in front of major roads: the poor. Because the expensive homes are in cul-de-sacs far from the heavy road noise.
So the law is equally just to rich and poor in the same way it is equally just to rich and poor by making sleeping under a bridge illegal.
Everyone benefits from the bike lanes, but only the poorer homeowners are inconvenienced.
Bike lanes can totally be helpful if you have a single street that serves as the entrance for several groups of houses. If you have bike lanes all the way from the houses to the street, you will significantly lower the amount of people who drive
Yay, you just created 20 parking spots and “punished” some people. Happy now? You still have the same fucking problem…
The reason they complained wasn’t specifically the bike lanes but the loss of parking which affects them and causes a ripple effect on their neighbors. Adding parking fixes the overcrowding that the bike lanes caused.
Your populist “solution” was to demolish councilor property. How many councillors are there? How many parking spots did you create? 20? 30? Wooptie doo. Venting is not public policy.
Street parking isn’t “their” parking. It’s not even parking really.