Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't tell me about "turning the clock back 150 years". I live in the south burbs of a major metro area that is hampered by existing in a red state that refuses to recognize & offer solutions for the reality that it's largest metro is an area of 6 million people that is dying in gridlock & facing real quality of life decisions that are affecting it's ability to compete as effectively it once did on a national basis. The state government here is truly paralyzed & afraid to govern through LEADERSHIP.
In terms of urban planning & quality of life stats such as health or income etc., the Twin Cities have it all over metro K.C. while your vaunted Johnson County has excelled largely purely by virtue of it's location & prowess at stealing businesses & residents across the state line from out of Missouri.
As they say in real estate circles, it's "Location, location, location..."
Without Johnson County, Kansas would basically be flat or declining in population & falling further behind in education & income levels.
Now JoCo is stealing residents too? What do they do? Go go the plaza, shove them in a van, and brainwash them into buying a house in Kansas? Saying that Johnson County has to steal its residents makes no sense.
Now JoCo is stealing residents too? What do they do? Go go the plaza, shove them in a van, and brainwash them into buying a house in Kansas? Saying that Johnson County has to steal its residents makes no sense.
None whatsoever....until one remembers that everything is upside down in the progressive world.
They can't stand JoCo's success....because it happened in utter defiance of and independence from the PC progressive mandates and directives that so many today have blindly fallen into lock step with - out of fear of ridicule for doing otherwise.
None whatsoever....until one remembers that everything is upside down in the progressive world.
They can't stand JoCo's success....because it happened in utter defiance of and independence from the PC progressive mandates and directives that so many today have blindly fallen into lock step with - out of fear of ridicule for doing otherwise.
You know perfectly well that JOCO has a unique geographic circumstance in that no other metropolitan area the size of KC has as a state line that cuts directly across it. All of JOCO population growth occurred after World War II, primarily as a result of cheap land and housing, school desegregation in KCMO, and other related factors related to growth in office parks in suburbia, also related to availability of cheap land. The faster that JOCO gets built out the better, because it will expose all the inherent flaws of poor long-range planning and poor use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize private construction companies and businesses that should not occur. At the rate Kansas is currently "progressing" it will have sales taxes of 12-13% in JOCO within a matter of a few years to fund all of the items that business entities should mostly be paying themselves. Also, extensive cuts to basic amenities like the transportation fund (roads), and education are ongoing under the "great experiment" of the governor on the citizens. The fact of the matter is that the "regressive" Brownback has an overall approval rating in the state of Kansas at 18%. Facts don't lie. Unfortunately, the populace needs to figure out how to elect someone who isn't bought and paid for by his/her handlers.
You know perfectly well that JOCO has a unique geographic circumstance in that no other metropolitan area the size of KC has as a state line that cuts directly across it. All of JOCO population growth occurred after World War II, primarily as a result of cheap land and housing, school desegregation in KCMO, and other related factors related to growth in office parks in suburbia, also related to availability of cheap land.
So yeah. JoCo was going to happen eventually because unlike other Bi-state metros (like St. Louis) the river only really cuts off Leavenworth and Wyandotte Counties from the city proper and there are no geographical barriers between JoCo and KCMO. People in KCMO need to remember that their developers are the ones who allowed JoCo to happen by building communities like Fairway and Prairie Village as well as Metcalf South and Oak Park Mall.
The last thing - ok, maybe second to last thing - we need to do to improve life quality is to bow and kowtow to today's new breed of "cyclist". Those lawless attitudes on 2 wheels do their damnedest every day to turn our streets into war zones. Most people are utterly fed up with them.
Won't happen if we'd plan for and build bike lanes.
You are full of logical fallacies my man. If we're going to consider a bike a vehicle (and it indeed IS a vehicle) then they need somewhere to ride in the public sphere. If you don't support the acceptance, planning of, approval, and construction of bike lanes then....you have only yourself to blame for getting "fed up with them".
Quote:
Regional planning as in mass transit? Again, no thank you. The idea that mass transit does anything but attack and dissolve life quality over time is a "progressive" pipe dream
Mass transit would probably work in cities where most of the population is civilized. It's obviously a death trap for productive citizens in places Detroit or Baltimore, but hey, anything that gets cars off the road is a positive thing for drivers.
I'd also like to see more options for inter-city transit, not just intra-city transit. It's hard getting to small and medium sized cities by flying (and expensive), and greyhound and other bus services are often slow. Why not support a functional train network? I think having a functional network of trains would also support "main street" in our small-ish and medium sized cities, not to mention allowing for cheap, but quick travel between larger cities (I'm thinking the Bos-Wash corridor, and from Seattle to San Diego in particular)
Quote:
You, yourself, have stated here for years, countless times, your strong preference for rural environments and disdain for crowded living. And yet you keep trying to sell the new urban-ism.
I support rural areas: by making cities denser and better organized. I'm not a fan of suburban sprawl (grew up in it), especially not in the style of Oklahoma City or Houston (which now has 3 beltways, albeit with an incomplete outermost ring). Lets LIVE IN our cities and PLAY IN our countrysides.
Quote:
Seems part of you understands what and where the good life is....and another part has pledged life-long allegiance to the "progressive" gods who are hell-bent on undoing everything that long ago made US living the envy of the world.
I'm conservative. I'm not sure how supporting Bike Lanes or Mass Trans is a purely "progressive" thing.
There is also a selfish argument to be made: If bikers had their own bike lanes it gets them off the roads and you (or me, sometimes) won't have to get frustrated with bikers (though you clearly have some sort of rage toward them).
And the more people who take mass transit means there are fewer cars on the roads. Funding buses and light rails is overall cheaper than paying for road maintenance crews (to sip coffee, lean on a rather un-dirtied shovel, and collect overtime for example), so that ultimately SAVES on what people pay into state and local TAXES.
But keep going through life blind if you must.
Last edited by InchingWest; 11-15-2015 at 04:33 PM..
Won't happen if we'd plan for and build bike lanes.
You are full of logical fallacies my man. If we're going to consider a bike a vehicle (and it indeed IS a vehicle) then they need somewhere to ride in the public sphere. If you don't support the acceptance, planning of, approval, and construction of bike lanes then....you have only yourself to blame for getting "fed up with them".
Mass transit would probably work in cities where most of the population is civilized. It's obviously a death trap for productive citizens in places Detroit or Baltimore, but hey, anything that gets cars off the road is a positive thing for drivers.
I'd also like to see more options for inter-city transit, not just intra-city transit. It's hard getting to small and medium sized cities by flying (and expensive), and greyhound and other bus services are often slow. Why not support a functional train network? I think having a functional network of trains would also support "main street" in our small-ish and medium sized cities, not to mention allowing for cheap, but quick travel between larger cities (I'm thinking the Bos-Wash corridor, and from Seattle to San Diego in particular)
I support rural areas: by making cities denser and better organized. I'm not a fan of suburban sprawl (grew up in it), especially not in the style of Oklahoma City or Houston (which now has 3 beltways, albeit with an incomplete outermost ring). Lets LIVE IN our cities and PLAY IN our countrysides.
I'm conservative. I'm not sure how supporting Bike Lanes or Mass Trans is a purely "progressive" thing.
There is also a selfish argument to be made: If bikers had their own bike lanes it gets them off the roads and you (or me, sometimes) won't have to get frustrated with bikers (though you clearly have some sort of rage toward them).
And the more people who take mass transit means there are fewer cars on the roads. Funding buses and light rails is overall cheaper than paying for road maintenance crews (to sip coffee, lean on a rather un-dirtied shovel, and collect overtime for example), so that ultimately SAVES on what people pay into state and local TAXES.
But keep going through life blind if you must.
A Pity. I thought by now you'd at least have a pat on the back from GS.
Oh well. Keep inching west and you're bound to find someone who will listen.
A Pity. I thought by now you'd at least have a pat on the back from GS.
Oh well. Keep inching west and you're bound to find someone who will listen.
I agree with them actually, bikes lanes are a good thing. But then again, I commuted by bike for about 2 years when I lived in Lawrence and for a while in Topeka. The road I would have to travel on now is too dangerous for bikes, so I stopped. I wished I hadn't stopped though, I have gained a lot of weight.
I agree with them actually, bikes lanes are a good thing. But then again, I commuted by bike for about 2 years when I lived in Lawrence and for a while in Topeka. The road I would have to travel on now is too dangerous for bikes, so I stopped. I wished I hadn't stopped though, I have gained a lot of weight.
The problem with this aggressive push for bike lanes in the last few years is that it is being done for the wrong reasons. Most people have no issue with people (mostly kids) whose bike is their sole transportation. We have shared the road with them quite peacefully for over a century.
But most "cyclists" today are not commuters and their bikes are not transportation vehicles. No, most cyclists today are self-appointed social engineers/activists on a mission of war against the automobile - still the invention that dwarfs all others in the way it has improved our life quality over the last several centuries. And their bikes are not vehicles, but rather weapons of sociopolitical warfare. Most "cyclists" - I'm talking about the guys in the silly helmets and the spandex - are there to disrupt and to limit and to thwart and to generally ****-off drivers of cars any way they can. And these jerks outnumber the legitimate bicycle commuters at least 5 to 1 around most metros.
As I said, most people are fed up with them. For good reason.
The problem with this aggressive push for bike lanes in the last few years is that it is being done for the wrong reasons. Most people have no issue with people (mostly kids) whose bike is their sole transportation. We have shared the road with them quite peacefully for over a century.
But most "cyclists" today are not commuters and their bikes are not transportation vehicles. No, most cyclists today are self-appointed social engineers/activists on a mission of war against the automobile - still the invention that dwarfs all others in the way it has improved our life quality over the last several centuries. And their bikes are not vehicles, but rather weapons of sociopolitical warfare. Most "cyclists" - I'm talking about the guys in the silly helmets and the spandex - are there to disrupt and to limit and to thwart and to generally ****-off drivers of cars any way they can. And these jerks outnumber the legitimate bicycle commuters at least 5 to 1 around most metros.
As I said, most people are fed up with them. For good reason.
Again, I disagree. When I'm out riding for fun or for commuting I seldom see "kids" or "activists." If you mean cyclists who are tired of cars weaving at them or barely giving them an inch as "activists," then I suppose I would be an activist as well. Most cities are building bike lanes, for the purpose of getting bikes off the road. If you are tired of bikes on the road you should be all for bike lanes as well. Now, I don't think every road needs bike lanes, maybe every 5th or even 10th street needs bike lanes. There will always be the idiots who ride through traffic like they are a car, giving people the finger, but they are a minority. But they make people mad and leave a bad stereotype. Cyclists wear silly helmets and spandex for a reason, first is safety, we wear bright colors so we are easily visible, and the helmet is for the obvious reasons. We don't want loose clothing to get stuck in chains either. Those might seem like trivial matters to some, but I rode my bike 7 days a week, most days of the year when the weather was good enough. I love cycling and I won't stop just because it annoys people. Topeka is finally putting some bike lanes, and I think that's a great decision. A few years ago Topeka was the 7th most obese city in America, and while I think my city will remain an obese city, I do think promoting cycling and building bike lanes will help.
A agree though, people (car drivers and cyclists) are fed up with bikes being on roads annoying cars, so that's exactly why we should build more bike lanes.
Last edited by Mattks; 11-18-2015 at 01:10 PM..
Reason: didn't realize that word wasn't allowed
Again, I disagree. When I'm out riding for fun or for commuting I seldom see "kids" or "activists." If you mean cyclists who are tired of cars weaving at them or barely giving them an inch as "activists," then I suppose I would be an activist as well. Most cities are building bike lanes, for the purpose of getting bikes off the road. If you are tired of bikes on the road you should be all for bike lanes as well. Now, I don't think every road needs bike lanes, maybe every 5th or even 10th street needs bike lanes. There will always be the idiots who ride through traffic like they are a car, giving people the finger, but they are a minority. But they make people mad and leave a bad stereotype. Cyclists wear silly helmets and spandex for a reason, first is safety, we wear bright colors so we are easily visible, and the helmet is for the obvious reasons. We don't want loose clothing to get stuck in chains either. Those might seem like trivial matters to some, but I rode my bike 7 days a week, most days of the year when the weather was good enough. I love cycling and I won't stop just because it annoys people. Topeka is finally putting some bike lanes, and I think that's a great decision. A few years ago Topeka was the 7th most obese city in America, and while I think my city will remain an obese city, I do think promoting cycling and building bike lanes will help.
A agree though, people (car drivers and cyclists) are fed up with bikes being on roads annoying cars, so that's exactly why we should build more bike lanes.
I was peacefully sharing the road with cars on my bike in 1955 and continued to for another 10 years. There was no problem back then and there was no problem for many years thereafter - until all these attitudes showed up in the new breed of "cyclist" in recent years.
Disagreement is your prerogative. I've stated my case, will not compromise my stance, and will not argue it further. I don't have a problem with the bikes....I, like many millions of others, have a big problem with the attitudes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems part of you understands what and where the good life is....and another part has pledged life-long allegiance to the "progressive" gods who are hell-bent on undoing everything that long ago made US living the envy of the world.
