A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New bike path



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 14th 18, 02:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default New bike path

On 3/13/2018 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:


Let me know if you come up with a solution.* I sure don't have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more conservative. Work
requirements for welfare, less unconditional free stuff, and so on. The
difference in the rate of homelessness in liberal versus conservative
states is striking and Oregon looks worse than even California (which I
hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012


Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of hermits and
loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and the low amount of
regulations and little enforcement allows them to spend their days
baking in a dilapidated trailer out in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax
states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to drop
out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try getting
a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.


I've looked for data proving that conservative politics cures
homelessness. I haven't found it yet. Give me a link if you have one.

Regarding your little list of cities, I suspect the differences in rates
may be caused by other factors. Not that politics has negligible effect
- but how about weather? If I were a bum with no family connections, I
might easily decide that sleeping outside in California or Oregon beats
sleeping where the wind chill goes into negative Fahrenheit. (A song
from _Midnight Cowboy_ mentioned "Going where the weather suits my
clothes.")

And big cities are probably easier than tiny towns as sources for
shelter of all kinds, sources of temporary jobs, blending into crowds,
etc. If there's a homeless person in my little village of 3000 (which
one poster mocked as "Mayberry") I certainly don't know about him.

I get very skeptical of people who think their political ideology is the
answer to every problem. Except, as several others have pointed out, you
abandon your conservative principles when you whine for bike ghettos.
You suddenly lose your courage and individualism, and want to socially
engineer people's transportation choice by spending tax funds.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #32  
Old March 14th 18, 04:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,366
Default New bike path

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:


[...]



Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so along
the American River bike path. To the point where it isn't
always safe riding there anymore. It is largely a homemade
problem. The mayor they have now doesn't understand that with
all his throwing moeny and resources at this he is enticing
ever more homeless to move to Sacramento. Free stuff! When he
started this I could notice a substantial drop in the number of
homeless I see along the El Dorado Trail yet the guy does not
get it.

I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes camped
along our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see
its paying off -- that and the periodic "sweeps."
http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/3...ingwater-sweep



I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over on the 205
bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could barely
squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc., etc.
F****** incredible pigsty.

Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't have
one -- at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the
Old Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic
matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more conservative. Work
requirements for welfare, less unconditional free stuff, and so on.
The difference in the rate of homelessness in liberal versus
conservative states is striking and Oregon looks worse than even
California (which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012



Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of hermits and
loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and the low amount of
regulations and little enforcement allows them to spend their days
baking in a dilapidated trailer out in the desert.


This map gives Oregon better numbers:
https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1500&fn[]=2900&fn[]=6100&fn[]=10100&fn[]=14100&all_types=true&year=2017


It doesn't. Oregon has about 10% of inhabintants versus California so
its homeless rate is higher. But only slightly. California is quite bad
in that domain, as evidenced during most of my bike rides.



The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High
tax states make housing so expensive that too many people are
forced to drop out into the streets. California is a prime example
of that. Try getting a building permit out here, let alone pay for
it. Socialism does not work.


Hmmm. Referring to my map, how do you explain Texas and Florida --
or even Pennsylvania?


Simple: You need to look at the total population and then divide the
number of homeless by that. Texas has almost the number of inhabitants
as California but only a fraction of our number of homeless.

Same with Florida. Half the number of people as in California but less
than a quarter of our homeless.


Both states have cities with some of the highest homeless rates in the US -- notwithstanding regressive social policies.

"More than half of the homeless population in
the United States was in five states: CA (21%
or 115,738 people), NY (16% or 88,250 people),
FL (6% or 35,900 people), TX (4% or 23,678
people), and MA (4% or 21,135 people)"

https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/13...s-people-10300

States with high and low homeless rates are all over the country. The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per 100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.34cbc2a1b7a3

You're not going to "tough love" a bunch of schizophrenics or drug
addled or brain injured people into getting work. You just push them
further into criminality or they do nothing and die off due to
starvation or exposure.



We have to take a look at how states with a much lower homeless
percentage do it. They usually have a much less generous welfare system
and that is part of the reason. The other is smaller government, lower
taxes and thus more affordable housing. You can buy the same kind of
house for half in Texas versus California.

Not all homeless are druggies. The topper so far was a homeless man whom
I gave some money. It was in Washington D.C., he was well-mannered, a
bit dirty but wore an old suit, with tie!


I mean those are options.



Sure, but out-of-control welfare isn't. Neither is legalizing marijuana
which will backfire, big time.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ortland-oregon

But, for some reason, those options tend to turn people off. Bunch
of snowflakes! What we need is a longer snow season!


That's the problem, there are shelters but often homeless do not use
them. One thing shelters must do though is to also provide for their
animals. Nobody would go into a shelter and leave their dog to die
outside in a snow storm. I know you don't hold dogs in high regard but
other people do, just as I do.


How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question. Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether that accounts for increased homelessness in California. Track the changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you can determine what social policies make a difference. Personally, I see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and became economically displaced.

Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has dropped. The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after the first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there are some consequences to legalization, but there have been no catastrophes in Washington or Oregon.

As for dogs, if I were living on the edge, I would not own a pet, unless I were a woman and needed the protection.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #33  
Old March 14th 18, 03:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:


[...]


The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).
High tax states make housing so expensive that too many people
are forced to drop out into the streets. California is a prime
example of that. Try getting a building permit out here, let
alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.

Hmmm. Referring to my map, how do you explain Texas and Florida
-- or even Pennsylvania?


Simple: You need to look at the total population and then divide
the number of homeless by that. Texas has almost the number of
inhabitants as California but only a fraction of our number of
homeless.

Same with Florida. Half the number of people as in California but
less than a quarter of our homeless.


Both states have cities with some of the highest homeless rates in
the US -- notwithstanding regressive social policies.

"More than half of the homeless population in the United States was
in five states: CA (21% or 115,738 people), NY (16% or 88,250
people), FL (6% or 35,900 people), TX (4% or 23,678 people), and MA
(4% or 21,135 people)"


Again, the rate matters, not absolute numbers. "4% of the country" is
not a "rate". Journalism at its finest, I guess.


https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/13...s-people-10300

States with high and low homeless rates are all over the country.
The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per
100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.34cbc2a1b7a3



That depends on which sources one believes.

But it doesn't matter, in the end it confirms that the problem is more
prevalent in left-leaning states. Which is not a surprise at all.





You're not going to "tough love" a bunch of schizophrenics or drug
addled or brain injured people into getting work. You just push
them further into criminality or they do nothing and die off due
to starvation or exposure.



We have to take a look at how states with a much lower homeless
percentage do it. They usually have a much less generous welfare
system and that is part of the reason. The other is smaller
government, lower taxes and thus more affordable housing. You can
buy the same kind of house for half in Texas versus California.

Not all homeless are druggies. The topper so far was a homeless man
whom I gave some money. It was in Washington D.C., he was
well-mannered, a bit dirty but wore an old suit, with tie!


I mean those are options.



Sure, but out-of-control welfare isn't. Neither is legalizing
marijuana which will backfire, big time.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ortland-oregon



But, for some reason, those options tend to turn people off. Bunch
of snowflakes! What we need is a longer snow season!


That's the problem, there are shelters but often homeless do not
use them. One thing shelters must do though is to also provide for
their animals. Nobody would go into a shelter and leave their dog
to die outside in a snow storm. I know you don't hold dogs in high
regard but other people do, just as I do.


How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical
question. Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether
that accounts for increased homelessness in California. Track the
changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you
can determine what social policies make a difference. Personally, I
see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by
choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and
became economically displaced.


That has already been studied at nauseam and the conclusions are
generally always the same:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html

On purpose I have brought a link from a somewhat left-leaning paper.
Even they admit to what the root causes for the increase (and decrease
in other regions) in homelessness are.


Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has dropped.
The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after the
first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there are
some consequences to legalization, but there have been no
catastrophes in Washington or Oregon.


That is not what I read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2ff35e19e705

There is more. I lived in NL where the stuff became legal decades ago.
That was one sad story and in sharp contrast to Germany where I alsio
live and later commuted into daily. In our small village we had lots of
zombies running around. People with hardcore brain damage from drugs.
The story was nearly always the same. First "harmless' drugs, then peer
pressure to try some of the "real stuff". The stuff that the shady guy
in the long coat at the bar over there was pushing. The young son of my
landlady who otherwise had everything going for him (good education,
very pretty girlfriend, etc.) died from an overdose. The police found
his body in a canal. Legalized pot? No thanks. I am squarely against it
and will ever be.


As for dogs, if I were living on the edge, I would not own a pet,
unless I were a woman and needed the protection.


They sometimes do. But yeah, I wouldn't have a pet either no matter how
much I like dogs. Once you have one though you are fully responsible for
it. Sometimes they are inherited because someone died and begged a
friend to take care of Fido who would otherwise likely die or be killed
in the shelter.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #34  
Old March 14th 18, 03:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-13 19:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/13/2018 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:


Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more conservative. Work
requirements for welfare, less unconditional free stuff, and so on.
The difference in the rate of homelessness in liberal versus
conservative states is striking and Oregon looks worse than even
California (which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012


Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of hermits and
loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and the low amount of
regulations and little enforcement allows them to spend their days
baking in a dilapidated trailer out in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax
states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to
drop out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try
getting a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism
does not work.


I've looked for data proving that conservative politics cures
homelessness. I haven't found it yet. Give me a link if you have one.


I just did in my answer to Jay.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html

It is less about conservative principles reducing homelessness (although
some do, as pointed out) but more about how liberal priniciples such as
free spending foster homelessness. Because they do.


Regarding your little list of cities, I suspect the differences in rates
may be caused by other factors. Not that politics has negligible effect
- but how about weather? If I were a bum with no family connections, I
might easily decide that sleeping outside in California or Oregon beats
sleeping where the wind chill goes into negative Fahrenheit. (A song
from _Midnight Cowboy_ mentioned "Going where the weather suits my
clothes.")

And big cities are probably easier than tiny towns as sources for
shelter of all kinds, sources of temporary jobs, blending into crowds,
etc. If there's a homeless person in my little village of 3000 (which
one poster mocked as "Mayberry") I certainly don't know about him.

I get very skeptical of people who think their political ideology is the
answer to every problem. Except, as several others have pointed out, you
abandon your conservative principles when you whine for bike ghettos.
You suddenly lose your courage and individualism, and want to socially
engineer people's transportation choice by spending tax funds.



Nonsense. I want tax Dollars to be spent wisely. For example, building a
bullet train from nowhere to nowhere at totally out-of-control costs
like California does right now is not wise. Building bike path for a
small fraction of that money is wise.

Also, if the cyclists' (or any others') right of way is curtailed such
it is here by prohibiting bicycle use on Highway 50 these constituents
must be commensurately compensated by providing another path. Which we
finally have at least to the east (though you need a mountain bike).
That is a rather conservative view.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #35  
Old March 14th 18, 03:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:26:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 13:21, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/13/2018 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:


[...]


Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so
along the
American River bike path. To the point where it isn't
always safe
riding there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem.
The mayor
they have now doesn't understand that with all his
throwing moeny
and resources at this he is enticing ever more homeless
to move to
Sacramento. Free stuff! When he started this I could
notice a
substantial drop in the number of homeless I see along
the El
Dorado Trail yet the guy does not get it.

I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes
camped along
our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see
its paying
off -- that and the periodic "sweeps."
http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/3...ingwater-sweep



I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over
on the 205
bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could
barely
squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc.,
etc.
F****** incredible pigsty.

Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't
have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic
matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more
conservative. Work requirements for welfare, less
unconditional free stuff, and so on. The difference in the
rate of homelessness in liberal versus conservative states
is striking and Oregon looks worse than even California
(which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012



Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of
hermits and loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and
the low amount of regulations and little enforcement allows
them to spend their days baking in a dilapidated trailer out
in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).
High tax states make housing so expensive that too many
people are forced to drop out into the streets. California
is a prime example of that. Try getting a building permit
out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.



Who are you and what have you done with The Real Joerg, who likes high
taxes for expensive elaborate kiddy paths paid for by the long suffering
working man?


I never liked high taxes. All I want is that taxes are invested wisely.
Investment in bikes paths and bike lanes is wise, investment in a bullet
train to nowhere is not.


I see, you feel that building expensive bike paths for an almost
infinitesimal portion of the road users is wise investment?


It is, because

1. They are not expensive. The bullet train just went to $68B and I am
sure when t's all said and done it will be north of $150B or a whole
year's state budget.

2. The number is not infinitesimal. If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfuxptI2uU


After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents and
studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up about 1% of
the total traffic.

Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group that
comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?


So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #36  
Old March 14th 18, 03:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,071
Default New bike path

jbeattie writes:

[...]

How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical
question. Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether
that accounts for increased homelessness in California. Track the
changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you
can determine what social policies make a difference. Personally, I
see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by
choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and
became economically displaced.

Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has
dropped. The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after
the first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there
are some consequences to legalization, but there have been no
catastrophes in Washington or Oregon.

As for dogs, if I were living on the edge, I would not own a pet,
unless I were a woman and needed the protection.


Men are immune from assault and theft? News to me. One of the big
problems of being homeless is that there is no secure place to put your
stuff, so it gets stolen by other homeless people, or destroyed by
police. Another problem is that if you are assaulted it's very unlikely
that anyone in authority will care.

Dogs are a rational response to both problems, but they make it a lot
harder to get any kind of normal housing. There is enough free or low
cost food in the US that feeding a dog is possible for almost anyone, if
the highest standards in dog chow are not insisted upon.

--
  #37  
Old March 14th 18, 03:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default New bike path

On 3/14/2018 11:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:

How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical
question.* Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether
that accounts for increased homelessness in California.* Track the
changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you
can determine what social policies make a difference.* Personally, I
see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by
choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and
became economically displaced.


That has already been studied at nauseam and the conclusions are
generally always the same:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html


On purpose I have brought a link from a somewhat left-leaning paper.
Even they admit to what the root causes for the increase (and decrease
in other regions) in homelessness are.


The discussion is about homelessness, Joerg. In your zeal to condemn
welfare policies you linked to an article about poverty written by a
"free market" evangelist. But poverty and homelessness are not the same.

I really am interested in data demonstrating a cause & effect
relationship between state politics and homelessness. You haven't
provided that. Please try again.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #38  
Old March 14th 18, 04:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default New bike path

On 3/14/2018 11:30 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 19:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/13/2018 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:


Let me know if you come up with a solution.* I sure don't have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more conservative. Work
requirements for welfare, less unconditional free stuff, and so on.
The difference in the rate of homelessness in liberal versus
conservative states is striking and Oregon looks worse than even
California (which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012



Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of hermits and
loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and the low amount of
regulations and little enforcement allows them to spend their days
baking in a dilapidated trailer out in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax
states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to
drop out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try
getting a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism
does not work.


I've looked for data proving that conservative politics cures
homelessness. I haven't found it yet. Give me a link if you have one.


I just did in my answer to Jay.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html


It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with a person who doesn't
understand what "data" is.

One clue, Joerg: If it's published under the heading "opinion" it
probably doesn't contain much scientific data. Quoting a few percentages
isn't enough.



--
- Frank Krygowski
  #39  
Old March 14th 18, 04:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default New bike path

On 3/14/2018 11:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:26:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 13:21, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/13/2018 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

[...]


Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so
along the
American River bike path. To the point where it isn't
always safe
riding there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem.
The mayor
they have now doesn't understand that with all his
throwing moeny
and resources at this he is enticing ever more homeless
to move to
Sacramento. Free stuff! When he started this I could
notice a
substantial drop in the number of homeless I see along
the El
Dorado Trail yet the guy does not get it.

I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes
camped along
our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see
its paying
off -- that and the periodic "sweeps."
http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/3...ingwater-sweep




* I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over
on the 205
bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could
barely
squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc.,
etc.
F****** incredible pigsty.

Let me know if you come up with a solution.* I sure don't
have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic
matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more
conservative. Work requirements for welfare, less
unconditional free stuff, and so on. The difference in the
rate of homelessness in liberal versus conservative states
is striking and Oregon looks worse than even California
(which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012




Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of
hermits and loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and
the low amount of regulations and little enforcement allows
them to spend their days baking in a dilapidated trailer out
in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).
High tax states make housing so expensive that too many
people are forced to drop out into the streets. California
is a prime example of that. Try getting a building permit
out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.



Who are you and what have you done with The Real Joerg, who likes high
taxes for expensive elaborate kiddy paths paid for by the long
suffering
working man?


I never liked high taxes. All I want is that taxes are invested wisely.
Investment in bikes paths and bike lanes is wise, investment in a bullet
train to nowhere is not.


I see, you feel that building expensive bike paths for an almost
infinitesimal portion of the road users is wise investment?


It is, because

1. They are not expensive. The bullet train just went to $68B and I am
sure when t's all said and done it will be north of $150B or a whole
year's state budget.

2. The number is not infinitesimal. If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfuxptI2uU


That's not what the video shows. Instead, it shows if you greatly
restrict the use of motor vehicles, the bicycles will come.

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)

Oh, and here's a thorough article on a place that built it, yet they
didn't come:
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/

And that's written by a VERY pro-bicycle author.

Why didn't they come? Because they didn't discourage the use of cars.
Deal with it.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #40  
Old March 14th 18, 05:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,507
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 11:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:26:50 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-03-13 13:21, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/13/2018 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

[...]


Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so
along the
American River bike path. To the point where it isn't
always safe
riding there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem.
The mayor
they have now doesn't understand that with all his
throwing moeny
and resources at this he is enticing ever more homeless
to move to
Sacramento. Free stuff! When he started this I could
notice a
substantial drop in the number of homeless I see along
the El
Dorado Trail yet the guy does not get it.

I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes
camped along
our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see
its paying
off -- that and the periodic "sweeps."
http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/3...ingwater-sweep




I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over
on the 205
bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could
barely
squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc.,
etc.
F****** incredible pigsty.

Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't
have one --
at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic
matter.


The solution would be our country becoming more
conservative. Work requirements for welfare, less
unconditional free stuff, and so on. The difference in the
rate of homelessness in liberal versus conservative states
is striking and Oregon looks worse than even California
(which I hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest...ess-state-2012




Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of
hermits and loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and
the low amount of regulations and little enforcement allows
them to spend their days baking in a dilapidated trailer out
in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).
High tax states make housing so expensive that too many
people are forced to drop out into the streets. California
is a prime example of that. Try getting a building permit
out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.



Who are you and what have you done with The Real Joerg, who likes high
taxes for expensive elaborate kiddy paths paid for by the long
suffering
working man?


I never liked high taxes. All I want is that taxes are invested wisely.
Investment in bikes paths and bike lanes is wise, investment in a
bullet
train to nowhere is not.

I see, you feel that building expensive bike paths for an almost
infinitesimal portion of the road users is wise investment?


It is, because

1. They are not expensive. The bullet train just went to $68B and I am
sure when t's all said and done it will be north of $150B or a whole
year's state budget.

2. The number is not infinitesimal. If you provide proper
infrastructure they will come:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfuxptI2uU


That's not what the video shows. Instead, it shows if you greatly
restrict the use of motor vehicles, the bicycles will come.

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)


Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the
slightest problem. They actually accommodate cars better than the city
of Sacramento.


Oh, and here's a thorough article on a place that built it, yet they
didn't come:
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/

And that's written by a VERY pro-bicycle author.

Why didn't they come? Because they didn't discourage the use of cars.
Deal with it.


Nonsense. We have discussed this ad nauseam and you wouldn't understand.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rockslide onto bike path Joerg[_2_] Techniques 0 January 24th 17 11:31 PM
Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles Light of Aria[_2_] UK 59 March 9th 09 06:17 PM
Saying Hi on the Bike Path Jorg Lueke General 54 November 3rd 08 10:13 PM
Southbank path connecting to Docklands path Jules[_2_] Australia 1 June 26th 08 01:03 PM
PER: bike path re-opens DeF Australia 4 March 18th 06 01:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.