[Vision2020] deluxe parking accommodations for some-paid for by others

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Feb 6 07:56:10 PST 2011 

Your arguments are a bit all over the map. My comment was a response to your
comment about the city needing to improve roads. Some of your points suggest
that the city should only improve things that are of benefit to ALL and
there is the suggestion that bikes only benefit SOME. By the criteria you
seem to be applying (where one is benefited by bike racks only if they ride
a bike), it is questionable whether non-drivers should pay for roads.

Below you broaden the argument for roads, suggesting that they are a benefit
to ALL. But by similar reasoning you could broaden the benefits of things
that accommodate and encourage bike riding, like better, more appropriate
places of locking up one's bike. For instance, for every person on a bike
that is one less person on the road driving. Thus, whatever benefits the
road has, encouragement of bike riding (as well as bus riding) will increase
those same benefits: ambulances can drive faster etc. The point is there is
SOME benefit to ALL not just bike riders. (Bill already discussed this issue
a bit.) Perhaps the benefits are small but it strikes me that the cost is
small too. I don't know. What is the cost of the "Cadillac" bike rack?

Lastly, some of your comments suggest that if the customer base is small,
there is no reason for an apartment or business to make accommodations for
that base; that the market will determine what kinds of accommodations
apartments and businesses should make. But then you should be TOTALLY
against any requirements that would accommodate the disabled. Yet I would
argue that apartments and business should accommodate the disabled, whether
or not it is in their best economic interests. If you agree, the bike rack
shouldn't be an issue.

Again, there are other kinds of considerations that your arguments seem to
miss yet which were likely discussed and noted by the council and the mayor
when making their decision. These decisions are difficult. All we can ask is
that they weigh the various issues and concerns and make the best decision
possible. That seems to be the case here.


On Feb 6, 2011, at 7:13 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

It is interesting that you don't mind the city paying for the paving of
roads given some of your arguments. Not everyone drives.

*I'm not sure what your point would be with this comment. The bike riders
use the street. The food that most folks eat is delivered by trucks that
utilize the pavement. The police, fire, and ambulance personnel that serve
most everyone drive. The water dept. uses the streets to keep the water that
most everyone drinks flowing. In one way or the other streets serve everyone
in the city. Bike racks most certainly do not. *
**
*Also we are not talking about the city paying for these racks (which I also
think would be a bad idea) We are talking about the city forcing private
property owners to provide an accommodation that will benefit a small number
of other individuals whether they need to or not.*
**
*g*

 *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 06, 2011 6:45 AM
*To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
*Cc:* Bill London <london at moscow.com> ; Robert Dickow <dickow at uidaho.edu> ; the
lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
vision2020 at moscow.com ; <dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>
dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us ; <tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us>tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us;
<wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us>wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us ; <sscott at ci.moscow.id.us>
sscott at ci.moscow.id.us ; <nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us>nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us ;
<wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us>wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us ; <tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us>
tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us
*Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] deluxe parking accommodations for some-paid for
by others

How much are we talking about here? How much is one of the "Cadillac" bike
racks? How does it compare to the price of a "minimum" bike rack?

It is interesting that you don't mind the city paying for the paving of
roads given some of your arguments. Not everyone drives.

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Gary Crabtree < <jampot at roadrunner.com>
jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

>  You are correct in that I do not want to eliminate all standards but, the
> standards should be the minimum required to maintain public safety. I would
> be slightly less vexed if the standards being altered WERE for the city and
> its amenities. The standards appear to be solely for private property and
> ITS amenities. As I have said before, if businesses and apartment owners are
> experiencing a problem or are losing revenue for the lack of posh bike
> parking they can deal with the problem in a manner that works for them and
> no government hand holding is required.
>
> As for your other points, if they are as laudable as you claim why not
> allow all the communities taxpayers to share the joy in making the world so
> much better a place to live?
> Why has the city not taken the initiative and upgraded the public racks to
> the new Cadillac standard? And last but far from least, why is the city
> micro managing private citizens expenditures when there are streets within
> blocks of many of the towns most major though fairs which aren't even paved
> yet? That’s hard on bike tires you know.
>
> g
>
>  *From:* Bill London <london at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 05, 2011 4:44 PM
> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> ; Robert Dickow<dickow at uidaho.edu>; 'the
> lockshop' <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Cc:* <wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us>wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us>tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us ; <wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us>
> wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us ; <sscott at ci.moscow.id.us>sscott at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us>nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us>tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] deluxe parking accommodations for
> some-payedforby others
>
>
> G-
> As I understand the ordinance now before the Council, bike racks will be
> required only on NEW OR EXPANDED apartment buildings or businesses.  In
> other words, the ordinance would alter the standards Moscow sets for changes
> to the city and its amenities.
> I doubt that you would like to eliminate all standards, so the question
> becomes: what standards are appropriate now and what criteria are
> appropriate now?
> Requiring bike racks encourages bike use, increased bike use is an
> excellent strategy to meet national (as well as city) goals in traffic
> control, obesity targets, lessening reliance on foreign oil, etc.  In sum, a
> more livable town.   That’s a reasonable standard.
> BL
>
>  *From:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 05, 2011 4:14 PM
> *To:* Robert Dickow <dickow at uidaho.edu> ; 'the lockshop'<lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>;
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Cc:* <wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us>wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us>tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us ; <wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us>
> wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us ; <sscott at ci.moscow.id.us>sscott at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us>nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us ;
> <tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us>tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] deluxe parking accommodations for some-paid
> for by others
>
>  That being the case, why not leave it up to the individual business to
> make the decision
> to woo you and your bulging wallet in by providing hermetically sealed, air
> conditioned, gem encrusted bike accommodations?
>
> Should the city, with its unerring eye for economic bounty, decide to dip
> into its coffers and build a bike rack on every corner of every block
> taxpayers would howl and rightly so.
> Even though such a scheme would have the ultimate beneficiaries paying at
> least a portion of the cost and result in a similar number or parking slots,
> voters would see it for the wasteful boondoggle that it is. Forcing the
> expense off onto private property owners doesn't make it any better.
>
> g
>
>
> g
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Robert Dickow" < <dickow at uidaho.edu>dickow at uidaho.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1:05 PM
> To: "'the lockshop'" < <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>;
> < <vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Cc: < <dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>; <<tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us>
> tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us>; < <wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us>
> wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us>; < <sscott at ci.moscow.id.us>sscott at ci.moscow.id.us>;
> < <nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us>nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us>; <<wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us>
> wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us>; < <tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us>tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us
> >
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] deluxe parking accommodations for some-paid for
> by others
>
> > Curiously, Instead of 'government intrusion into business' I thought it
> was
> > quite the opposite. I thought the bike parking issue was for the benefit
> of
> > the business, not the bikers. Heck, if I knew I could tie my bike up in
> such
> > a parking facility I would do 100% of my shopping downtown by bike.
> Usually
> > in the past I would tie my bike to a tree or post, lacking other handy
> > facilities, and discover that my lock chain didn't fit around the tree...
> > blah blah blah, so there was a disincentive. Businesses... think of the
> > growth of business in town!
> >
> > Bob Dickow, troublemaker
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: <vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>vision2020-bounces at moscow.com[mailto:<vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> > On Behalf Of the lockshop
> > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 9:39 AM
> > To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Cc: <wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us>wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us;
> <tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us>tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us;
> > <wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us>wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us;
> <sscott at ci.moscow.id.us>sscott at ci.moscow.id.us; <nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us>
> nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us;
> > <dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us;
> <tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us>tlamar at ci.moscow.id.us
> > Subject: [Vision2020] deluxe parking accommodations for some-paid for by
> > others
> >
> > Does anyone other then myself wonder why the city in its infinite wisdom
> > doesn't spend a little more time worrying about city property and assets
> and
> >
> > a little less time trying to dream up ways to inflict itself on private
> > property owners, developers, and businesses? I'm speaking of course about
>
> > the councils latest intrusion into the lives of its business community,
> the
> > proposed bike parking ordnance. <snip>...
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net
>
> >          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
> ------------------------------
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net
>
>           mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110206/076ae02e/attachment-0001.html

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list