[Vision2020] Moscow's Anti-Business Mean Green Committee Machine

Sun Feb 6 08:55:24 PST 2011

Why not just encourage private businesses to purchase bike racks rather than forcing them to incur additional expenses to operate in Moscow?

Can the new building owners charge for use of the bike racks because they are required to buy, repair, maintain and remove snow from them?  Can the city prevent businesses from charging for the use of bike racks? Does every type of business really need a bike rack? Wouldn't it be unsightly and anti-environmental to have cheap ugly bike racks all over Moscow that are not used?

Joe Campbell asks, " What is the cost of the 'Cadillac' bike rack?" . Is he offering to buy and maintain these cheap pieces of equipment or is he illustrating that it is a relatively minor expense as long as he is not the one purchasing all of them?

Donovan Arnold

--- On Sun, 2/6/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] deluxe parking accommodations for some-paid for by others
To: "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.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>, "<vision2020 at moscow.com>" <vision2020 at moscow.com>, "<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>
Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 7:56 AM

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 
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 6:45 AM
To: Gary Crabtree 
Cc: Bill London ; Robert Dickow ; the lockshop ; vision2020 at moscow.com ; dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us ; tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us ; wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us ; sscott at ci.moscow.id.us ; nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us ; wkrauss 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> 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 
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Gary Crabtree ; Robert Dickow ; 'the lockshop' ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
Cc: wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us ; tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us ; wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us ; sscott at ci.moscow.id.us ; nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us ; dcarscallen 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 
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 4:14 PM
To: Robert Dickow ; 'the lockshop' ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
Cc: wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us ; tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us ; wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us ; sscott at ci.moscow.id.us ; nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us ; dcarscallen 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>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1:05 PM
To: "'the lockshop'" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Cc: <dcarscallen at ci.moscow.id.us>; <tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us>; <wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us>; <sscott at ci.moscow.id.us>; <nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us>; <wkrauss 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 [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> On Behalf Of the lockshop
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 9:39 AM
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Cc: wkrauss at ci.moscow.id.us; tbrown at ci.moscow.id.us;
> wmsteed at ci.moscow.id.us; sscott at ci.moscow.id.us; nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us;
> dcarscallen 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                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110206/d3bb905d/attachment-0001.html 