 |
More
Author: The Exchequer
Date: 04-19-2015 - 19:52
The spotter of the Indoctrinated Wrote:
>
> So ... you're using variations of the Greenie
> Handbook (aka The Power Broker you cited) to
> support your claims .... not at all surprised.
> What did you think was meant by my reference to
> the Greenie Handbook? Did you think it was an
> actual publication and not a metaphor for all
> greenie propoganda? LOL!!
I didn't know what you meant by "Greenie Handbook." The only thing I can think of that comes close is the "whole Earth Catalog."
The Power Broker is a narrative of how one man amassed a huge amount of power to control roads and urban development in New York City and surrounding areas. It is a biography and political study and an important reference on how the New York Region developed in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Dismissing The Power Broker as a "Greenie Handbooks" doesn't suggest that you know much or care much about Twentieth Century American urban history.
>
> Hint: You're using your so-called sources as
> absolutes to support your point. Do all highways
> plow through urban neighborhoods? Of course not.
I never claimed that ALL highways plow through urban neighborhoods. I only cited the impacts of highway construction in urban neighborhoods as one of the costs which are not born by motorists.
> Are all transit proposals absent of such
> possibilities? Again, no.
That's why all federally-funded transit projects must go through an environmental process. However, compared to highways, transit projects tend to be more benign because they require fare less right-of-way and because they are often placed in abandoned railroad corridors or adjacent to active railroad lines.
Your Pittsburg example
> is just silly - did the number of available homes
> just shrink due to that highway project, or were
> new homes simply built elsewhere to make up for
> the loss? Didn't the county as a whole gain a new
> tax base with the improved commute?
I can't comment on the total number of homes in the entire County - only the fact that there was a significant tax revenue loss to City of Pittsburgh with the displacement of 2,000 homes and businesses.
>
> The main problem with most big cities losing tax
> base is that the policies of the (usually)
> leftist/Democrat politicians that run such cities
> are lacking in fiduciary qualities, and people
> tend to leave for less oppressive pastures in such
> cases.
It's overly reductionist to attribute all urban problems so-called "leftist/Democrat" politicians. Cities do not exist in vacuums and are affected by federal, state and county policies as well as decisions by regional planning agencies, non-governmental organizations and the private sector.
Over the years, people have left cities for many reasons. However, it is a fact that during the 1950s and 1960, Federal transportation and housing policies catalyzed suburban growth at the expense of cities.
In more recent years, public attitudes towards urban living have changed, especially among citizens in their 30s and 30s. In fact, in many American cities, there are conflicts over what is perceived to be gentrification.
The "get out of the city" mindset of the 1950s and 1960s versus move back into the city trend of the 2000s is explored in the Clybourne Park.
Spokane is likely to lose population to
> the surrounding county areas if they keep pushing
> such idiotic costly notions.
>
>
> Monetizing environmental costs is also a very
> subjective excercise.
Yes, it is subjective, but that does not mean it shouldn't be done or considered.
> I notice you didn't comment on my observation of
> the greenies demanding the removal of the UP and
> GN grade/viaduct over and alongside the Spokane
> River back in the 70's, and then complaining today
> of the lack of bike-friendly crossings over the
> river and through to the core of the city. It's
> humorous (at least to me) of how environmentalists
> can end up being their own worst enemy.
My comments were meant to be general. I didn't live in Spokane in the 1970s and don't live in Spokane now. The only times I've been to Spokane was on an Amtrak train. Therefore, I cannot comment knowledgeably on railroad viaducts in Spokane.
I do know a little more about elevated railroad viaducts in Center City Philadelphia. Tracks leading to the Pennsylvania Railroad's Broad Street Station were placed on a viaduct known as the "Chinese Wall" which many (not just aesthetic-minded citizens) considered to be a blight in the city. After the Broad Street Station closed in 1952, much of this structure was demolished.
The Reading Railroad also had a couple of viaducts entering Center City. When commuter train service to the Reading Terminal was shifted to the Market East Station in 1984 and freight operations ceased, these structures stood unused. Inspired by the New York City's High Line, now their are proposals to reuse one of the viaducts (and an associated tunnel) for a bike/pedestrian facility, representing a mind-shift in attitudes about railroad viaducts in Philadelphia.
>
> So ... you're using variations of the Greenie
> Handbook (aka The Power Broker you cited) to
> support your claims .... not at all surprised.
> What did you think was meant by my reference to
> the Greenie Handbook? Did you think it was an
> actual publication and not a metaphor for all
> greenie propoganda? LOL!!
I didn't know what you meant by "Greenie Handbook." The only thing I can think of that comes close is the "whole Earth Catalog."
The Power Broker is a narrative of how one man amassed a huge amount of power to control roads and urban development in New York City and surrounding areas. It is a biography and political study and an important reference on how the New York Region developed in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Dismissing The Power Broker as a "Greenie Handbooks" doesn't suggest that you know much or care much about Twentieth Century American urban history.
>
> Hint: You're using your so-called sources as
> absolutes to support your point. Do all highways
> plow through urban neighborhoods? Of course not.
I never claimed that ALL highways plow through urban neighborhoods. I only cited the impacts of highway construction in urban neighborhoods as one of the costs which are not born by motorists.
> Are all transit proposals absent of such
> possibilities? Again, no.
That's why all federally-funded transit projects must go through an environmental process. However, compared to highways, transit projects tend to be more benign because they require fare less right-of-way and because they are often placed in abandoned railroad corridors or adjacent to active railroad lines.
Your Pittsburg example
> is just silly - did the number of available homes
> just shrink due to that highway project, or were
> new homes simply built elsewhere to make up for
> the loss? Didn't the county as a whole gain a new
> tax base with the improved commute?
I can't comment on the total number of homes in the entire County - only the fact that there was a significant tax revenue loss to City of Pittsburgh with the displacement of 2,000 homes and businesses.
>
> The main problem with most big cities losing tax
> base is that the policies of the (usually)
> leftist/Democrat politicians that run such cities
> are lacking in fiduciary qualities, and people
> tend to leave for less oppressive pastures in such
> cases.
It's overly reductionist to attribute all urban problems so-called "leftist/Democrat" politicians. Cities do not exist in vacuums and are affected by federal, state and county policies as well as decisions by regional planning agencies, non-governmental organizations and the private sector.
Over the years, people have left cities for many reasons. However, it is a fact that during the 1950s and 1960, Federal transportation and housing policies catalyzed suburban growth at the expense of cities.
In more recent years, public attitudes towards urban living have changed, especially among citizens in their 30s and 30s. In fact, in many American cities, there are conflicts over what is perceived to be gentrification.
The "get out of the city" mindset of the 1950s and 1960s versus move back into the city trend of the 2000s is explored in the Clybourne Park.
Spokane is likely to lose population to
> the surrounding county areas if they keep pushing
> such idiotic costly notions.
>
>
> Monetizing environmental costs is also a very
> subjective excercise.
Yes, it is subjective, but that does not mean it shouldn't be done or considered.
> I notice you didn't comment on my observation of
> the greenies demanding the removal of the UP and
> GN grade/viaduct over and alongside the Spokane
> River back in the 70's, and then complaining today
> of the lack of bike-friendly crossings over the
> river and through to the core of the city. It's
> humorous (at least to me) of how environmentalists
> can end up being their own worst enemy.
My comments were meant to be general. I didn't live in Spokane in the 1970s and don't live in Spokane now. The only times I've been to Spokane was on an Amtrak train. Therefore, I cannot comment knowledgeably on railroad viaducts in Spokane.
I do know a little more about elevated railroad viaducts in Center City Philadelphia. Tracks leading to the Pennsylvania Railroad's Broad Street Station were placed on a viaduct known as the "Chinese Wall" which many (not just aesthetic-minded citizens) considered to be a blight in the city. After the Broad Street Station closed in 1952, much of this structure was demolished.
The Reading Railroad also had a couple of viaducts entering Center City. When commuter train service to the Reading Terminal was shifted to the Market East Station in 1984 and freight operations ceased, these structures stood unused. Inspired by the New York City's High Line, now their are proposals to reuse one of the viaducts (and an associated tunnel) for a bike/pedestrian facility, representing a mind-shift in attitudes about railroad viaducts in Philadelphia.
