The majority of people like, even love, excitement and prestige, not to mention convenience, and also wealth. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not free. Neither is decay nor the dreaded "creeping blight."
The "not free" part is the crux of the matter. All decisions have opportunity costs, and many have direct costs. Our leadership would like us to believe we can have whatever they sell without actually having to pay for it (in taxes or otherwise).
I don't feel good about subsidizing other people's profit dreams to such a large extent these days.
Preach, sister, preach.
Business should mean competing and taking the risks (and reaping profits, if any). It should not be about crony deals, governmental PR blitzes, and fleecing the public tax cattle for all they can bear.
For the ones who do not want to use a vehicle or give up private transportation, I hope there is improved, viable travel options, like real bus service and rail and other things, that gets them where they need to go.
Bicycle-friendly would be cheap, and wouldn't hurt.
As you can tell, I am hopeful, but skeptical and I think I have very good reason to be.
I think this is the most productive stance. It would be nice if these ruby slippers worked as touted, but I'm not holding my breath.
If you haven't noticed, our taxes never go down...
Tex's position on this is: "the council can vote to reduce taxes at any time."
Wayne's position on that is: "Monkeys might fly out of my butt."
...the developers make the sale, set up to make the profit, spread it around to just the right person or people to convince and sell it to well-meaning and enlightened people to be completely for it and not to ask too many questions and not to give too many answers.
Well put. I worry that the HOA/NA leaders are pawns in the developer-COR complex (to paraphrase Eisenhower). The Complex shows a few people some slides and then crows about "support of the neighborhood." This is a real problem. I've got some ideas about it and may post some ideas on it later.
The crime doesn't go down when dense apartments move into an area. Traffic doesn't reduce in the area. Air pollution doesn't get better. Education levels do not go up and the dropout rate doesn't decrease. Local schools don't seem to get better because of dense apartments even though the schools get more money with increased head count (so far) ... Apartments are not any more dream-like than anything else.
Nothing to add. Just thought it was worth repeating.
Well managed apartments have a place in most communities ... Apartments are not evil. It is what comes with poorly thought out plans that could be called that.
True. There are even oases of tranquility and beauty in the much-maligned SV corridor barrio. I lived in one for a few years and ran into the manager at one of the SVC consultant-clicker fests; this manager was unamused by the broad painting of "blight" across the whole SVC. I agree, but that's a different topic altogether. Sorry. Back to Mags...
...the politicians even pretend to blame the developers who they say they have no control over to get them to do certain beneficial things, when that's just not true. But naive people believe it and repeat it, not holding them accountable and pointing fingers at only developers and commissions under the politicians. The anti's turn on each other and favor the smooth tongue politicians who won't level with them and the top politicians are free to move about the cabin.
Holy crap. If you are not reading MMUSA on a daily basis, this is the kind of writing you're missing.
No comments:
Post a Comment