s/o Those of you that think gas prices should equal Europe's

[SKL]

Huh ? So you don't want artificially low gas prices ? You are happy for govt to step out and allow you to pay the true cost ?

 

Makes more sense than having a massive tax placed on it at the pump, which is what people are discussing here.

 

Oh, and who do you think is bankrolling all these government subsidies you keep thinking I want?  ME!  Why would you think I want that?

 

[LibraryLover]

Yeah, but I mean on planet Earth.  Not planet San Fran.  LOL

 

lol It is it's own speshul place,  I grant you.

 

As is Planet Manhattan:

 

http://www.getyourguide.com/new-york-l59/1-hour-bicycle-rickshaw-tour-of-central-park-t18793/

[LibraryLover]

Or how about something like this:

http://www.humananews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Tampa-Theatre-2.jpg

 

Those are great.  Let's commence discussion on how to secure a rear-facing 5 pt car seat in one.

 

PS I love the marque.

[Mrs Mungo]

Completely off topic... But this phrase has always bugged me. Why the heck would anyone have a cake and NOT expect to get to eat it? What is the purpose of uneaten cake?

 

I don't even like cake and I still don't get it.

You can't eat your cake *and* keep it to admire.

 

Downtown OKC is not downtown ___. ;) I wish they were! For one, it's closer to the hub of activity in OKC, not way off to the side far from where the majority of the population already exists. For another, when OKC folks said they'd do it, they got their ducks in order and it happened. Unlike a certain city that seems to specialize in useless mayors and city councils and notorious fiscal mismanagement.

 

I'm not against any town doing a downtown revitalization. But when the downtown is not longer the central hub and hasn't been for decades, one has to wonder if it wouldn't be wiser/cheaper to make wherever is the central hub the focal point for building centralizing city planning from.

Got it. :) I think the revitalization of downtown OKC has come a long, long way. It wasn't safe to go down there and hang out when I was in high school.

[SKL]

I agree. My aunt is accountant. The tax breaks apply to all vehicles over a certain weight and to all businesses. So, you regularly see lawyers buying a new Escalade every year for the same tax break that farmers or construction workers receive on their farm pick-ups. It's just wrong, IMO.

 

I've been out of the individual tax area for a while, except for doing some people's small business stuff.  But ALL automotive vehicles qualify for tax breaks if you use them in your business.  And at least when I was doing tax returns for pay, luxury vehicles (those costing over $x) were excluded or partly excluded from the tax benefit.  Not sure if the latter rule still exists.

 

Why would anyone pay an extra $15,000 cash to get an extra $5,000 tax benefit?  That just doesn't make sense.  They had to have some other reason to buy such a car.

[ocelotmom]

Or we could use rickshaws. Would create jobs too.

We could hook up the roos to the rickshaw, and make them earn their keep.

[Mrs Mungo]

Makes more sense than having a massive tax placed on it at the pump, which is what people are discussing here.

No, that is NOT what most people are discussing here. People are discussing slowing raising gas prices by cutting off government subsidies of gas prices and funneling that money toward alternatives. Those subsidies AREa large part of the reason that gas prices are so low here in the US. Raising gas prices doesn't automatically mean more taxes.

[Rosie_0801]

Just look at Los Angeles, CA. You would think that a dense city like that would have enough infrastructure to support mass public transportation. Guess what? They have NO mass subway system. The tunnels were there and running at one point, but the AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY bought up the tunnels and shut them down. Why would it be fair to the public to tax the bageezus out of gas, when the automotive industry was the driving force behind fuel consumption over economy?

 

 

WTH? *jaw dropping frownie*

[SKL]

You want it because you just said it made sense ?

 

 You asked if I thought they should STOP the subsidies.  I said it makes sense.  Meaning, stopping the subsidies makes sense.  More sense than taxing people more heavily at the pump.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2013 by Moderator
Edited to remove snark. Knock it off.

[SKL]

No, that is NOT what most people are discussing here. People are discussing slowing raising gas prices by cutting off government subsidies of gas prices and funneling that money toward alternatives. Those subsidies AREa large part of the reason that gas prices are so low here in the US. Raising gas prices doesn't automatically mean more taxes.

 

The OP was asking about people who think we should pay as much as Europe.  The reason European people pay so much at the pump is that their governments place massive taxes on gas, which would otherwise be priced similarly to ours.  A chart showing that has been posted a couple of times above.

[Murphy101]

Also there is a major problem with revitalizing our particular downtown. It's overrun by extreme poverty. Many of the people who do live there feel very strongly, rightly so, that they are being price gauged out of their property by the city. The city condemns, sells property to big corp with heaps of promises to give tax breaks and such if they build "affordable" homes to entice new people to move there. But the new condos and such are never affordable. They are even billed as luxury apartments. So now there are these half empty luxury apartments down there with homeless people and worse hanging out on the front steps or waiting in line around the corner to be paid for donating blood or for soup kitchens. I suppose eventually one hopes the financially better off will overtake the poor folks, but no one talks about where those poor folks will be going.

[Rosie_0801]

  

 

Completely off topic... But this phrase has always bugged me. Why the heck would anyone have a cake and NOT expect to get to eat it? What is the purpose of uneaten cake?

 

I don't even like cake and I still don't get it.

 

Back to scheduled debate...

 

 

Nice cake owners share?

 

How do you feel about puddings? https://librivox.org/the-magic-pudding-by-norman-lindsay/ This is a cautionary tale about having pudding and eating it too.

[Catwoman]

Why would anyone pay an extra $15,000 cash to get an extra $5,000 tax benefit? That just doesn't make sense. They had to have some other reason to buy such a car.

Yeah, they probably just want a particular vehicle and are willing to pay a premium for it. It's quite likely that they would buy the exact same car or SUV without any tax breaks.

 

I'm a big fan of luxury vehicles, so that makes perfect sense to me. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Also there is a major problem with revitalizing our particular downtown. It's overrun by extreme poverty. Many of the people who do live there feel very strongly, rightly so, that they are being price gauged out of their property by the city. The city condemns, sells property to big corp with heaps of promises to give tax breaks and such if they build "affordable" homes to entice new people to move there. But the new condos and such are never affordable. They are even billed as luxury apartments. So now there are these half empty luxury apartments down there with homeless people and worse hanging out on the front steps or waiting in line around the corner to be paid for donating blood or for soup kitchens. I suppose eventually one hopes the financially better off will overtake the poor folks, but no one talks about where those poor folks will be going.

This is a problem in neighborhoods in parts of OKC as well. We plan to retire in OK or TX, so dh is always looking at homes for sale online. For a few years he has thought we might go ahead and buy a house in OKC and let my sister or one of my cousins pay some rent to live in it. Every time we found an older home with some character that had been updated and was in our price range, it backed up to a homeless shelter. Which…means we're snobbier than I would like to think we are, but I can't imagine trying to sell that home down the road, kwim?

[Χά�ων]

Reality? Farmers are paid crap and not everyone likes big cities. Big cities are often not sustainable. Many in rural areas farm, garden, and live pretty darn sustainably. But when food prices drop, crops fail, and big companies buy up land, people are forced out. I'm pretty sure people in rural areas already know about the consequences and positives of living rurally. What about the trade offs for the cities? When only the rich can live in the rural areas, or they're cut off and isolated because nobody can afford to travel, then how is that going to work? Why not work on more sustainable fuel supplies instead of ignoring the "outliers" for the country's long term planning? Really?

 

15% of the country lives in rural areas. It must be all our fault. :huh: What about the 51% in suburban areas? So only ~34% live in urban areas. They obviously are who we should make policies for instead of the ~66% that are outliers.

to build on that, if fuel prices jump food cost will jump to match.

 

On new phone. forgive grammar and spelling. mistakes.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I propose a new mode of transportation.  How about rolling?  Would suit my laziness.  I just lay down and roll to my destination.  We could have padded rolling lanes.  Maybe the lanes could be more more like conveyor belts.  Oh..like the Jetsons!

 

Works for this guy:

 

[Murphy101]

You can't eat your cake *and* keep it to admire. Got it. :) I think the revitalization of downtown OKC has come a long, long way. It wasn't safe to go down there and hang out when I was in high school.

 

 

Ahhh. I guess that makes sense. But then again, I don't understand making food to play with or just admire either. I've never understood those "turn dried fruit into Christmas ornaments" or macaroni pictures type things. What a waste of food.

 

 

I give up. It's like Wonderland down here.

Martha, I still have a few pages of post to scan through to see what I missed in yours.

Ha!

 

Some points I suggested for gradual change:

 

1 Mandate that all new roads must include a bike lane and pedestrian walk and at least one bus pull over every 3 miles.

 

2 Remove obstacles to living greener in cities and burbs. There are a lot of impediments to grassroots innovation and community sharing. For example, I think it'd be nice if for every 20 houses built, one lot is left empty for community gardening. I'm not sure exactly how that would work bc I'm sure some old biddy will somehow declare herself queen of the lot and try to dictate to everyone until no one but her is willing to use it. But the general principle is still good I think. (What's those random garden people do? Yk, the ones that go into city parks and plant watermelon at night and such? I think that's fabulous.)

 

3 We need to focus more on reduce and reuse than recycle. Recycle is listed LAST for a reason. It's a last resort option. Rather than building and only giving tax incentive for NEW "energy efficient" homes and cars, I'd like to see MORE incentives given for making what we already have more efficient. We don't need millions MORE new cars in the road. We need what we have to work better. Putting new stuff out should be a last resort subsidy. (I think cash for clunkers was just about the stupidest most ungreen friendly thing ever. It did nothing but artificially boost the auto makers and dealers.)

 

I think I mentioned some other stuff, but I forget at the moment.

[La Condessa]

Who said they wanted the government to subsidize gas?

 

Huh ? So you don't want artificially low gas prices ? You are happy for govt to step out and allow you to pay the true cost ?

Makes more sense than having a massive tax placed on it at the pump, which is what people are discussing here.

 

Oh, and who do you think is bankrolling all these government subsidies you keep thinking I want? ME! Why would you think I want that?

 

Okay, I think this is the same confusion that I have been having. People keep saying that the gov subsidizes our gas and that is why our prices are artificially low, but when I asked earlier, no one offered any further information or sources on this. The sources provided by ThatHomeschoolDad, however, indicate that our base gasoline prices are about the same as other countries, and the price difference is caused by the massive taxes that other countries have on top of the natural price of gas. (I would still love more info on this, if anyone can point me in the right direction).

 

So some people here seem to be arguing from the perspective of "the gov is subsidizing gas, and therefore choices are 1) keep subsidizing, or 2) stop the subsidies, let prices rise to where they should be, and use that funding for something else (potentially public transit)". While others seem to be arguing back from the perspective of "this is the price of gas without tons of extra taxes added on, and therefore the choices are 1) let gas continue at about its own natural market value, or 2) make it artificially dramatically more expensive with taxes that will provide revenue for the government to spend on ______(again, potentially public transportation)". Though the end results might wind up similar, these are rather different things.

 

 

Edited to finish my thought; accidentally posted before I was through.

[Mrs Mungo]

1 Mandate that all new roads must include a bike lane and pedestrian walk and at least one bus pull over every 3 miles.

 

2 Remove obstacles to living greener in cities and burbs. There are a lot of impediments to grassroots innovation and community sharing. For example, I think it'd be nice if for every 20 houses built, one lot is left empty for community gardening. I'm not sure exactly how that would work bc I'm sure some old biddy will somehow declare herself queen of the lot and try to dictate to everyone until no one but her is willing to use it. But the general principle is still good I think. (What's those random garden people do? Yk, the ones that go into city parks and plant watermelon at night and such? I think that's fabulous.)

 

3 We need to focus more on reduce and reuse than recycle. Recycle is listed LAST for a reason. It's a last resort option. Rather than building and only giving tax incentive for NEW "energy efficient" homes and cars, I'd like to see MORE incentives given for making what we already have more efficient. We don't need millions MORE new cars in the road. We need what we have to work better. Putting new stuff out should be a last resort subsidy. (I think cash for clunkers was just about the stupidest most ungreen friendly thing ever. It did nothing but artificially boost the auto makers and dealers.)

 

I think I mentioned some other stuff, but I forget at the moment.

I agree with all of those things. Refitting cars to run biodiesel makes more sense than churning out new cars.

 

The thing I think is really dumb here? They keep building more and more homes out near where I live, even though there are TONS of *empty homes* that people can't afford to sell due to the housing crash. Traffic, water lines and such are already major issues, why would you encourage MORE development? It seems crazy.

[Crimson Wife]

I've been out of the individual tax area for a while, except for doing some people's small business stuff.  But ALL automotive vehicles qualify for tax breaks if you use them in your business.  And at least when I was doing tax returns for pay, luxury vehicles (those costing over $x) were excluded or partly excluded from the tax benefit.  Not sure if the latter rule still exists.

 

Why would anyone pay an extra $15,000 cash to get an extra $5,000 tax benefit?  That just doesn't make sense.  They had to have some other reason to buy such a car.

I think the idea being that the lawyer wants to drive an Escalade and is claiming it as a "business" expense to get the deduction. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htm

[Mrs Mungo]

Okay, I think this is the same confusion that I have been having. People keep saying that the gov subsidizes our gas and that is why our prices are artificially low, but when I asked earlier, no one offered any further information or sources on this. The sources provided by ThatHomeschoolDad, however, indicate that our base gasoline prices are about the same as other countries, and the price difference is caused by the massive taxes that other countries have on top of the natural price of gas. (I would still love more info on this, if anyone can point me in the right direction). So some people here seem to be arguing from the perspective of "the gov is subsidizing gas, and therefore choices are 1)

In theory, subsidies should be helping keep prices low, subsidies are paid directly to oil companies, it isn't figured into the "price" of gas.

 

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

 

The current price of gas in the US is higher than it should be due to commodities trading.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/do-oil-subsidies-reduce-the-price-of-gasoline

 

Not allowing oil to be traded as a commodity would cause prices to fall, ending subsidies would cause prices to rise, but the money could be diverted into other programs.

[Murphy101]

I agree with all of those things. Refitting cars to run biodiesel makes more sense than churning out new cars.

 

The thing I think is really dumb here? They keep building more and more homes out near where I live, even though there are TONS of *empty homes* that people can't afford to sell due to the housing crash. Traffic, water lines and such are already major issues, why would you encourage MORE development? It seems crazy.

This is a problem in neighborhoods in parts of OKC as well. We plan to retire in OK or TX, so dh is always looking at homes for sale online. For a few years he has thought we might go ahead and buy a house in OKC and let my sister or one of my cousins pay some rent to live in it. Every time we found an older home with some character that had been updated and was in our price range, it backed up to a homeless shelter. Which…means we're snobbier than I would like to think we are, but I can't imagine trying to sell that home down the road, kwim?

I don't think it's snobby to want to feel safe in your home or to want it to retain its value. *shrug*

 

Works for this guy:

 

 

How does the guy keep his hair clean?!? Seriously, one roll in and I'd look half homeless. He is rolling on the dirt road and stuff, his shirt is all dried dirt and yuck, but his hair is all pretty shiny blackness?!

[SKL]

I think the idea being that the lawyer wants to drive an Escalade and is claiming it as a "business" expense to get the deduction. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htm

 

Well, I don't know how often that works, considering phaseouts and NOL limits and all that - but on the other hand, if he's a rich lawyer, he isn't getting what others are getting, like the child tax credit, standard deduction, personal exemptions, etc.  Which is basically other people deciding they want children and claiming a tax benefit.  Similar concept.  ;)

 

My 2003 Saturn Ion unfortunately doesn't qualify for the kid credit nor the car credit.  Bummer.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the idea being that the lawyer wants to drive an Escalade and is claiming it as a "business" expense to get the deduction. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-18-suv-tax-break_x.htm

Right.

http://newsok.com/humming-along-sport-utility-vehicles-earn-tax-deductionbrbusinesses-take-advantage-of-break/article/1954258

 

The tax bill passed by Congress earlier this year increased the equipment deduction to $100,000 from $25,000. Supporters said that would stimulate business spending, which had been weak in the recovering economy.

 

Just an excuse? However, critics said it just gave small-business owners an excuse to buy nicer vehicles and write off the cost. New passenger cars bought for business uses have a much smaller deduction just $7,660.

Also, in big farming states, it's usually cheaper to register vehicles over a certain weight and they pay less state taxes on them.

[Crimson Wife]

Yeah, they probably just want a particular vehicle and are willing to pay a premium for it. It's quite likely that they would buy the exact same car or SUV without any tax breaks.

 

I'm a big fan of luxury vehicles, so that makes perfect sense to me. :)

Most people who want to drive a luxury SUV or pickup will continue to do so, with or without tax beaks and with or without a special gas-guzzler tax to fund hybrid credits. What's an extra few grand when you're already dropping $60+k for an Escalade?

[Murphy101]

I agree with all of those things. Refitting cars to run biodiesel makes more sense than churning out new cars.The thing I think is really dumb here? They keep building more and more homes out near where I live, even though there are TONS of *empty homes* that people can't afford to sell due to the housing crash. Traffic, water lines and such are already major issues, why would you encourage MORE development? It seems crazy.

I completely agree. I see it here too. There are some really beautiful and actually spacious homes built back in the 40s, 70s and 80s here. It wouldn't take much to make them more energy efficient or clean up their neighborhoods. Frankly, I think nearly all of them are actually much nicer floor plans and spacious lots than most new. But truth is, people don't want to move into those poorer neighborhoods. Which I don't necessarily blame them, notice I make no claim to desire to move there either, but it's frustrating to see taxes and zoning incentives to developers and the only thing those with less money get is a $50 rebate that goes to the gas company that checks their fur acne for $150. Almost no one even uses it bc they don't have the $150 to begin with. There are plenty of very hard working people in those homes who would love to be able to add foam insulation to the walls or buy led light fixtures or add a blower to their fireplace, but they can't afford to do any of that and the "incentives" are a joke at best.

[Murphy101]

I would not presume being a lawyer means he doesn't farm.

 

I know many "professionals" who also own ranches and such. It isn't always either or.

 

Then there is my fil who technically is a CEO and drafter for his own company. Guess how he gets those big machines he drafts and assembles transported? Trucks.

[Murphy101]

I want a Nissan NV passenger van. I want it more than chocolate once a month kind of want. But alas I cannot afford it and likely never will. So instead I continue to drive my fueled on a prayer express van. But if we ever hit the jackpot without wasting money on a ticket? I'm buying that Nissan taxes be danged. And it gets better mileage than my current van, so I won't feel guilty about it at all. :)

[Catwoman]

Definitely!

 

Escalades are ugly.  I'd make a really lame rich person.

I don't like Escalades, either. I like Mercedes SUVs and the Porsche Cayenne Turbo.

[Mrs Mungo]

I would not presume being a lawyer means he doesn't farm.

 

I know many "professionals" who also own ranches and such. It isn't always either or.

 

Then there is my fil who technically is a CEO and drafter for his own company. Guess how he gets those big machines he drafts and assembles transported? Trucks.

I'm not presuming anything. I'm talking about people I know and/or know their situation. My aunt is an accountant for many of these people, and my dad sells cars. I know a lot about what people are doing in this regard.

[Catwoman]

I just want a car that works and doesn't currently leave me wondering.

Did you get your car back yet?

[Catwoman]

Yes about 20 minutes ago.

FINALLY!!!!!

[Catwoman]

yeah...except he said he thinks possibly I need a new master cylinder. He "isn't sure".

 

If that is the case, I want a new car.

 

:cursing:

He sounds like an idiot.

[ocelotmom]

2 Remove obstacles to living greener in cities and burbs. There are a lot of impediments to grassroots innovation and community sharing. For example, I think it'd be nice if for every 20 houses built, one lot is left empty for community gardening. I'm not sure exactly how that would work bc I'm sure some old biddy will somehow declare herself queen of the lot and try to dictate to everyone until no one but her is willing to use it. But the general principle is still good I think. (What's those random garden people do? Yk, the ones that go into city parks and plant watermelon at night and such? I think that's fabulous.)

 

 

I think that's where a properly-minded HOA can be a force of good instead of evil :)

 

We used to live near http://www.villagehomesdavis.org/. It's awesome. It de-emphasizes cars without eliminating them by having the primary entrance to the houses opens onto the walking/bike path, not the street. Streets are as narrow as allowed by fire regulations (with a covered parking area at each house for residents and separate-but-accessible visitor parking). This also helps keep it cooler. They have community gardens. There's a lot of active and passive solar usage and other ecological . There's a grocery store within easy walking distance, and the whole city has bike paths and bike lanes throughout. It's wonderful, I'd absolutely love to live in such a place, and I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't (at least anyone currently living in a subdevelopment with HOA, of which this is a benevolent example). I mean, excepting people who actually enjoy the sterile cookie-cutter look of typical subdevelopments.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think that's where a properly-minded HOA can be a force of good instead of evil :)

 

We used to live near http://www.villagehomesdavis.org/. It's awesome. It de-emphasizes cars without eliminating them by having the primary entrance to the houses opens onto the walking/bike path, not the street. Streets are as narrow as allowed by fire regulations (with a covered parking area at each house for residents and separate-but-accessible visitor parking). This also helps keep it cooler. They have community gardens. There's a lot of active and passive solar usage and other ecological . There's a grocery store within easy walking distance, and the whole city has bike paths and bike lanes throughout. It's wonderful, I'd absolutely love to live in such a place, and I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't (at least anyone currently living in a subdevelopment with HOA, of which this is a benevolent example). I mean, excepting people who actually enjoy the sterile cookie-cutter look of typical subdevelopments.

Oooh, this gives me some great ideas for when I win the lottery and build my family a compound to live on. Of course…I'd have to buy lottery tickets for that plan to work. ;)

[Jane in NC]

Before some of our gentle readers get their cashmere knickers in a twist, let me note that I am not suggesting that you or your dear ones bike in winter.  I am only letting you know that there are some wackadoodles out there who do.  Mr. Money Mustache recently had a blog entry on winter biking.  He lives in Colorado.  Admittedly winter biking is a lot easier here in coastal Carolina...

[HSmomof2]

I also didn't vote and am not in favor. We live in a suburban area where most people commute 20-40 miles each way for work. We have no public transportation in our area, so it's not even an option.

[mommymilkies]

The point is, the costs will rise anyway. Now means gradual and somewhat managed. Later means sudden and chaotic.

 

Either we take some of the pain now or we leave it to later generations. Personally, I think leaving it to unborn generations sucks.

 

I'm not rich. Hikes in food priced will have a strongly negative impact on me.

 

What is the alternative ?

 

People keep saying 'the market' - what do you believe the market is capable of achieving to replace a finite resource and maintain/ extend/improve our current standard of living ?

So long as gradual means preemptive means-more public transport and the things Martha listed.  But gradually as in increasing fuel costs just to punish rural people? That's ridiculous.  (I'm not saying you said that, Sadie)

 

I'm all about "green living" which I think is hilariously and sadly materialistic nowadays.  We cloth diaper, ride our bikes everywhere (I usually trek 3 kids on my bike alone), walk everywhere we can (difficult in a rural town), breastfeed, live as minimallly as I can, recycle the heck out of everything, buy used, grow a garden, I would love to have livestock or chickens, but zoning is funny here, even in the country, and I don't have the space for them until we move next summer. But raising prices just to push these changes is NOT going to happen.  It's just not.  It's going to just end up with a lot more poor folks who can't afford to live. 

 

I am not in favor of raising gas prices without there being things in place to help our already struggling economy.  Making it harder for people to get to work/school/whatever is not the answer.  More bike paths, more laws protecting bikers (every year in my county at least 1 person is hit and killed by a driver during daylight hours-it's just not safe unless you are super slow and ride on the sidewalk because people don't care), more public transportation, etc. would be awesome.  I hate driving.  HATE it.  It terrifies me.  I would love there to be more around.  

[Melissa in Australia]

 

 

The thing that I cannot understand is why creating mass transit systems is viewed as socialist clap trap but subsidizing oil companies (hence the price of fuel) is viewed as a positive free market incentive. 

:iagree:  :iagree:

[mommymilkies]

Before some of our gentle readers get their cashmere knickers in a twist, let me note that I am not suggesting that you or your dear ones bike in winter.  I am only letting you know that there are some wackadoodles out there who do.  Mr. Money Mustache recently had a blog entry on winter biking.  He lives in Colorado.  Admittedly winter biking is a lot easier here in coastal Carolina...

I do bike in the winter IF there's no ice or standing snow where I bike.  It's just too dangerous.  We don't have bike lanes, the roads are minimally cleared, and it's not worth another knee injury for me to bike in it.  

 

3 We need to focus more on reduce and reuse than recycle. Recycle is listed LAST for a reason. It's a last resort option. Rather than building and only giving tax incentive for NEW "energy efficient" homes and cars, I'd like to see MORE incentives given for making what we already have more efficient. We don't need millions MORE new cars in the road. We need what we have to work better. Putting new stuff out should be a last resort subsidy. (I think cash for clunkers was just about the stupidest most ungreen friendly thing ever. It did nothing but artificially boost the auto makers and dealers.)

 

I think I mentioned some other stuff, but I forget at the moment.

A big YES to everything you said, but also about this point, I'd like to see this in particular.  Three houses within 1.5 blocks of me were torn down in the past 6 weeks.  Nothing wrong with them a little TLC couldn't fix.  But one place wanted a bigger yard, so they bought the house and dozed it.  Another was just abandoned, so the city dozed it, and another was bought just to own the land and also bulldozed.  Yet there are new builds ALL the freaking time here...with a falling population!  WHY? I get that my house isn't in a subdivision, but there's nothing wrong with older homes!!  

[Dory]

This lady is someone that I envy a little. I've been eyeing up those bikes since I first read this story ages ago. I couldn't do it all the time here. It has been sitting around -30 for the past two weeks and blizzarding off and on. A bike right now would be ridiculous. But during the summer and fall, it would be great. Used to bike all the time, I really need to get back to it.

 

http://bikeportland.org/2012/06/28/with-six-kids-and-no-car-this-mom-does-it-all-by-bike-73731

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

What Jane and Melissa said up thread, but I've given up on anyone answering :(

 

It's a shame, I'd like to understand the reasoning.

I'll take a stab at it. It would seem that a deep part of our political divide has to do with the self vs the community, and the polarization has progressed that to an extreme. With a scant couple centuries under our belt, we are still not far removed from that uber-individualistic pioneer (or cowboy) ethos that keeps distrust of authority alive and kicking, even in the face of contrary evidence (e.g, socialized medicine is bad, unless it's my medicare or VA).

 

It could very well be that a robust mass transit system would fail to launch here, in part, because, dad gummit, if I want to get to my destination, I'm sute not going to wait until we make all of your stops first.

 

That might not be the whole answer, but I bet it's a part.

[Murphy101]

Idk. I am very pro rugged individualism. But the most rugged of pioneers still knew they needed a wagon train to significantly raise their chances to make it across the prairie.

 

I don't associate mass transit vs individualism UNLESS it is posed as an us vs them situation. Then I do think it will fail. No... I think it should fail then.

 

Having mass transit should not be about making everyone feel like crap for owning a car or punishing them for doing so by burning them in taxes.

 

Want to own a car and all the maintenance and fuel that entails? Fine.

Want to use cheaper just as quick and easy mass transit? Fine.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Idk. I am very pro rugged individualism. But the most rugged of pioneers still knew they needed a wagon train to significantly raise their chances to make it across the prairie.

True, but to continue that theme, the wagon trains were comparatively small, independent units, so maybe the modern equivalent is what we are seeing when a city, or at most a state invests in transit rather than waiting for larger federal programs that never launch.

[Murphy101]

True, but to continue that theme, the wagon trains were comparatively small, independent units, so maybe the modern equivalent is what we are seeing when a city, or at most a state invests in transit rather than waiting for larger federal programs that never launch.

And I'm okay with that. I'd much rather have an local mass transit that maybe eventually connects with a nearby city transit and so forth than have the fed or the state come in and dictate what they want our local citizens to do for them. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

And I'm okay with that. I'd much rather have an local mass transit that maybe eventually connects with a nearby city transit and so forth than have the fed or the state come in and dictate what they want our local citizens to do for them. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

I suspect that's the only way anything will take root, although it will also continue the split between states/regions.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

So cheap gas from the govt is OK because it supports individuals, but taxes paying for mass transit is bad because it supports communities including underclasses with whom one must ride ?

 

Thank you Tom for taking a stab at it. I though maybe there was an actual, factual, logical and ethical reason I was missing, but it seems not. Idk. Maybe you just have to live there to get it.

Whoa there. Logic? I'm sorry, I sense a deep misunderstanding of our political atmosphere. Someone needs another leaflet airdrop. Our roads are paved with gold, tho. Shiny, shiny roads.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

You're right, though. Class can not be discounted as a factor.

[Murphy101]

I suspect that's the only way anything will take root, although it will also continue the split between states/regions.

*shrug*

 

I'm okay with that. I think the person way way up thread who described our nation as more a bunch of mini nations sorta floating along together was more accurate than people feel comfortable admitting.

[Murphy101]

Eta Just read other posts. Martha, I see your point.

I think only federal govt have the ability to go large and quickly on this. Not to say they will. I know they won't.

It's really painful to laugh still after my surgery, but I have yet to have ever seen our federal govt do much of anything large and quickly other than screw up. It's gotten really good the last 15 years at doing THAT on a large scale quickly. But I digress and don't really want to go there bc the topic at hand is actually interesting to me.

 

Yes, local communities are not going to create a national rail system. But if enough communities do, a trans-state system will be more and more possible. And have a lot more citizen support.