Friday, June 16, 2006

Supporting the Platform

Here's a little weekend reading for you if you ever wondered what kind of thinking underlies a progressive political platform. I'm telling you, there is a constituency for this stuff. Just hide and watch. Or better yet, don't hide and watch - sound the bell and share it with your neighbors.

Are our cities making us fat?
Fitness experts call for new urban design to fight America's obesity problem

7 comments:

edward parish said...

We need bike lanes and a network of bike paths throughout.

How does one approach the city to try and get something like that started? Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks......Ed

The New Albanian said...

Wonder what Erika the palsied poseur thinks about it?

Ann said...

Ed, you might want to talk to Valla Ann Bolovschak about this. She's been working on related stuff and might have some helpful info about finding funding for such a project. 981-8000.

G Coyle said...

ARe bike paths encluded in the area plans? I saw the Main St one last week and I don't remember seeing that. Given the relative lack of congestion downtown, now would be the time to set aside lanes for bikes. How 'bout bridal lanes? I used to ride my horse from floyd Knobs to Silver hills when I was a kid - through town. That was fun!

Debbie H. said...

Well, of course it's true that "virtually everything American society has done for the past 100 years has made it easier for us to be fatter." All of our technological advances in many areas of our lives have simply made life easier. We have eliminated a lot of things (and the "hard life" that used to kill us), and naturally new things have taken their place. But overall, anyone would have to admit that we are all way better off than we were 100 years ago.

And what is the answer from the guy quoted above? Taxes and federal funding. Yawn. I get so tired of this lazy thinking. Are all progressive's brains just too fat to walk through alternative voluntary solutions? :)

Take your money and invest in walkable communities if you want them and believe the are a marketable idea. I happen to live in one of the outlying subdivision areas that I know some of you despise. But I can walk to a Walgreens which has a lot more of what I might want and need than I ever thought. And I can easily bike to a grocery store, cleaners, florist, dentist, doctor, well heck you name it. I do not necessarily do that though. But I do take responsibility for attempting to maintain a healthy weight by bike riding. Bike lanes are okay, but there are controversies as to their effectiveness in helping biker safety because they give driver's the attitude that bikes do not have the right to be on the road unless there is a specific bike path. Everything is just not easily cut and dried and there will always be challenges and concerns. The issue is, will you work on those challenges from a respectful freedom standpoint, or will you try to force your ideas upon others through the use of government?

Debbie

All4Word said...

Debbie, assuming for the moment that bike lanes are inherently desirable, how would you propose that voluntary efforts would work to create a bike lane program? You're not suggesting eminent domain for private interests, are you?

Still not much for that "common good" thing, are you?

Debbie H. said...

Randy, the roads are already government roads. Not much you can do there so I suppose if you do want a bike path on a government road, you are going to have to work with government force. That's the problem, once government gets involved it's pretty much impossible to get it back out again. I added the comments about bike paths because the comments took that direction. But the article you linked to wasn't really about that.

The problem with the "common good" idea is that everyone does not agree on what a specific goal should be and/or how to achieve the goal. As individuals we all have so many different, sometimes directly opposing goals. When individuals do agree, I fully support the idea of forming voluntary groups to achieve their common goal. Without the use of government force, of course.

But back to the article: do you really agree with the guy who says we should tax industries who "support sedentary lifestyles?"