Posted by rcrusso on 12/15/2010 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Back when the Republican Party was American Pres. Eisenhower created the interstate highway system. You think the right wing would allow that to happen today? Not likely!

True fact.  We've already got highways!  Keep you government hands off of my asphalt.

No one is more supportive of the American highway sytem than the Republican party.

Light rail isnt just government money, it is a waste. How many misguided and wasted light rail projects do we need in America before we stop funding them?

Light rail is a left wing panacea!

Posted by rlahann on 12/16/2010 1:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rcrusso on 12/15/2010 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Back when the Republican Party was American Pres. Eisenhower created the interstate highway system. You think the right wing would allow that to happen today? Not likely!

True fact.  We've already got highways!  Keep you government hands off of my asphalt.

Plus, Eisenhower was a known tool of the Communists.

Posted by antonsirius on 12/16/2010 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rlahann on 12/16/2010 1:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rcrusso on 12/15/2010 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Back when the Republican Party was American Pres. Eisenhower created the interstate highway system. You think the right wing would allow that to happen today? Not likely!

True fact.  We've already got highways!  Keep you government hands off of my asphalt.

Plus, Eisenhower was a known tool of the Communists.

This is classic. A lefty makes a snide comment and then another lefty acts like it was a factual piece and makes a snide comment about it.

This is like Stewart commenting about a Colbert piece!

No one is more supportive of the American highway sytem than the Republican party.

Correct!  Nobody is more supportive of one of the most subsidized government projects in existence than the Republican party.

Light rail isnt just government money, it is a waste. How many misguided and wasted light rail projects do we need in America before we stop funding them?

The topic was high speed rail, but anyway.......

The Legacy Highway in UT, Illiana highway in IL/IN, new I69 in IN, Western Transportation Corridor in VA, I405 in WA, I66 in KY, Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere in AK, etc, etc, etc, etc.   Wanna bet we can name way more wasteful highway projects than we can rail and transit?  Is it time to stop funding roads and bridges? (technically though, we've already started this and it will get much worse with the extension of the Bush tax cuts)  Yes there are wasteful projects.  That's what happens when corporate interests dig their claws into politicians.  But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  Waste must be handled on a case by case basis.  

If conservatives like Swamp, who tow the party line no matter what it is, would take a little time out of their day to actually seek out the truth in some of these topics, they may find that they don't really disagree as much as their talking heads tell them they do.  As I mentioned before, and Swamp chose to ignore, rail stations bring economic growth to their surrounding areas.  Portland, Denver, San Diego, Memphis, Miami, Charlotte, Austin, Little Rock have all seen economic growth in the areas with light and heavy rail stations.  A simple two mile streetcar system in Kenosha, WI has helped turned a formerly abandoned industrial complex into a a few hundred new residential units.  People like to live, work, play and shop near easy transit access.  When a rail station goes in, property values increase.  When a highway goes in, property values decrease.  Look up the suburbs west of Chicago on a Google map and find some Metra Stations.  Downer's Grove, Arlington Heights, Naperville....these are all conservative leaning towns and they all have Metra stations with spurred economic growth around them.

All of this gets overlooked when conservatives start arguing against mass transit.  The real cost of driving is ignored as well.  Forget the actual cost of building and maintaining roads (which, by the way, takes a much large percentage of it's funding from the feds vs. local and state than transit does), There's traffic management, environmental costs, highway runoff that is costly to treat, salts and chemicals in winter conditions, accidents need cleanup crews and are taxing to our healthcare system (auto accidents are one of the top causes of death and injury in the US).  All of this eventually costs the US taxpayer money.  Not to mention time wasted in traffic.  

Oh, and one more thing....oil.  Another thing that Republicans love to support that reaps in billions in subsidies and keeps us tied up in wars across the globe.  But if you're not moved by the hidden cost of oil when it comes to driving, you soon will be moved by the cost at the pump.  Bloomberg just announced that they expect 105/barrel prices by the second quarter and then a continued rise.  Say hello to five dollars a gallon.   Sure would be nice to have the option of taking a train to work.

But don't take my word for it, these same points are made by William Lind over at the American Conservative.  In fact, he teamed up with Paul Weyrich to write Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, something I would suggest that Cons like Swamp take a look at.

And before you come back with the bullshit hand of the free market drivel, remember that it was the railroads that were heavily taxed in order to create funds to build all the roads and bridges needed by the auto industry.  Remember that the suburbs are highly subsidized and special interest groups help create zoning laws that force the construction of single family dwellings separated from industry, business, retail and entertainment.  Also try to remember that these suburbs are creating a demand on our infrastructure system that I and other taxpayers who live nowhere near the 'burbs have to shoulder.

You make some valid points, others just seem like old rhetoric. So lets hit a few of the ones that bothered me.

1 The idea that the suburbs are subsidized is wrong. The spread of the suburbs was totally free market. Warren and Sterling heights are suburbs and we have heavy industry, light industry, business and retail. It was the oppressive politics of the left in Detroit that drove business to the suburbs.

2 Oil. Again this is a case of you getting it backwards. We are using oil because that is what people want. It may not be the best thing for us, and an argument could be made for government intervention to stop it, but it isnt being forced on us.

I realize that a rail system between Madison and Milwaukee would help in theory. It just will not help in practice. What will a person who took the train do when they arrive. There would have to be a mass transit net in place in each city for it to work. even a short cab ride would make the plan impractical.

And lind seems to be making the odd argument of supporting rail but attacking buses. Buses seem like the logical solution to most cities problems.

Bringing economic growth isnt relevant if the rail systems do not work. Lewis Black does a comedy bit about bringing economic growth to Alabama by building something. It  doesnt matter what it is as long as it is A big F-ing thing. And soon people will want to see it and there will be hotels and restaurants. The big F-ing thing could be a light rail system from Mobile to Birmigham. People will ohh and ahh but it will not solve any transit problems.

First, you're point on oil.  Pay attention, I was arguing the cost of oil, not the necessity or demand.  It is a hidden cost of driving that taxpayers have to pay for, whether in subsidies to oil companies or to our military budget for operations (a mild term) in oil rich countries.

Now, on free-market suburbs.  If you believe that suburbs were created by the invisible hand of the market, you are completely delusional.  I've already made two points which you chose not to address so I'll bring them up again.  

Subsidized highways, predating the Interstate System, facilitated suburban growth.  No private company saw a demand for suburban growth and decided to build a highway out there.  Our government, placing heavy taxes on rail and transit industries, privately owned rail and transit I might add, used taxpayer money to do it. Without those highways, you have no suburbs.

The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act of the 1920's allowed for zoning laws that currently make traditional "Main Street" development (ie, mixed development and high density) illegal in many communities.  If I lived in a suburban neighborhood, it is highly unlikely that I could buy the plot of land on my street corner and build a grocery store or a drug store or a restaurant or bar or any other retail establishment.  It would simply be illegal.  Zoning laws dictate that residential property must be in one area, commercial in another and industry in another.  These laws also dictate how much parking must be provided on each piece of property (Schaumburg, IL for example requires 1.5 parking spaces for every bedroom in residential zoning).  They dictate the size of yards, etc, etc.  Again, these laws make it illegal to develop mixed-use, high density properties.

That alone would be enough of an argument for most reasonable people to realize that the suburbs were not a creation of the free market, but a result of corporate influenced, government central planning.  Now add in the fact that the FHA bribed middle class families to move out to the suburbs with federally insured, low payment, long term loans that were only available for purchase of new homes in low density areas.  Can you really still argue that the suburbs were created by the free market?

Quite simply, middle class families wouldn't and still couldn't afford to move out to the suburbs without these laws and subsidies.  When a new development goes up, residents in existing city or county neighborhoods have to equally share the cost of not only extending roads out to these 'burbs, but also water, sewage, schools, fire, police, ambulance service.  If the cost of these services were placed squarely upon the residents of newly developed 'burbs, there would be no market for them because the costs would be too high.

I realize that a rail system between Madison and Milwaukee would help in theory. It just will not help in practice. What will a person who took the train do when they arrive. There would have to be a mass transit net in place in each city for it to work. even a short cab ride would make the plan impractical. 

Most cities are or are trying to develop mass transit systems.  The argument from Conservatives is that nobody will ride these things, but they never provide any concrete evidence as to why this would be.  Amtrak is currently seeing record ridership on many lines and anybody who has ever had experience with Amtrak knows that it absolutely sucks.  Ride the rails in Europe and Amtrak becomes nothing more than a disgrace.  People are currently looking for transportation alternatives and trains provide that.

As for buses, they are an important part of an urban transit system, but difficult to have as a main source.  Rail systems are fixed and do not have to deal with auto traffic.  As a fixed system, it's more difficult to move or reroute, making it a reliable corridor for development.  Buses get stuck in traffic.  Bus routes can be rerouted or cancelled all together making them less reliable for economic development.  Plus, rail can move more people from point A to point B at a time.

As for the Lewis Black bit, I think you missed the point on that one.

I intend to respond to the whole piece, but I need something clarified...

What difference does zoning make? Just because people sleep in one area, work in another and shop in yet another, how does that help the suburbs flourish?

I am not trying to be a smart alleck, I really do not understand your point on this. Can you clarify?

Bump for response

that was an *** kicking.

Since I get no clarification  on that issue I will need to proceed.

1 Roads? Roads go everywhere. They have always been built by the government. It is a logical and constitutionaly limited role of government. People were living in the cities between the big cities for a long time. The idea that they built the roads to create subrubs is a bit of a stretch

2 Everywhere has zoning rules. You try to make connection between the government and the suburbs. The zoning rules for Warren, my suburb, were not made by the same poeple who made them for Detroit, the major city in my area. There is no connection beteen the two groups. How could this be a conspiracy?

3 Now the FHA is corrupt? People wanted to live in their own houses with their own yards and the FHA made this possible. I agree they overstepped their constutional limits, but it was to give people what they wanted, not to force them to do something they would never want.

The final evidence I have is...PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN THE SUBURBS! No one would live in a small apartment in a big city if they could afford their own house and commute to work. This is part of the American dream.

You have thrown together a series of unrelated points to create a conspiracy.

Posted by rlahann on 12/23/2010 9:05:00 PM (view original):
that was an *** kicking.

Yep.

Posted by antonsirius on 12/24/2010 2:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rlahann on 12/23/2010 9:05:00 PM (view original):
that was an *** kicking.

Yep.

In what way Anton. Explain why he is so right after you compare it to my recent couter-points.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/29/2010 4:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 12/24/2010 2:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by rlahann on 12/23/2010 9:05:00 PM (view original):
that was an *** kicking.

Yep.

In what way Anton. Explain why he is so right after you compare it to my recent couter-points.

It is so easy for you to poke your arrogant head up and make random comments than to actually defend a position.

You are the biggest joke on these boards. You refuse to defend any position you take and continue to spout baseless claims.

Your star status here is much like that of Parid Hilton....You bring nothing to the table, you are just here!

 People wanted to live in their own houses with their own yards and the FHA made this possible. I agree they overstepped their constutional limits, but it was to give people what they wanted, not to force them to do something they would never want.

With this sentence, you've neatly summarized the tea party philosophy.  Eliminate government spending unless it benefits me.  Don't you dare violate the sanctity of our constitution unless of course it's to subsidize my way of life.  It's okay for the Feds to subsidize low-density, suburban housing, but it's downright communist to subsidize high-density urban housing.  Keep pumping billions of federal dollars into roads outside my house, but if a city wants light rail they better pay for it themselves.  And don't even think about trying to give me advice on how to eat a healthy meal Mrs. Obama, just make sure your husband continues to allow billions in subsidies to make sure that fast food or convenience food is cheap, cheap, cheap so I can keep shoving it down my gullet.  Don't you dare use my tax dollars to provide health care for our citizens, but I'll throw a fit if you lay a hand on my medicare.

Bunch of selfish hypocrites.

If the suburbs were truly a result of the free market, then you should have no problem in letting the buyer take on the true cost of suburban living.  Roads, water, sewer, sanitation and other municipal services all fully paid for by the buyer with no additional cost going to current residents.  I would bet that if this were true, today's suburbs either wouldn't exist or would be vastly different to what they look like now. 

1 Roads? Roads go everywhere. They have always been built by the government. It is a logical and constitutionaly limited role of government. People were living in the cities between the big cities for a long time. The idea that they built the roads to create suburbs is a bit of a stretch

I never wrote that roads were originally built to create suburbs, although today they often do.  I said that subsidized road and highway development facilitates suburbs.  Your argument was that suburbs were a result of free market decisions of the public.  My argument was that the federal, state and local governments subsidize suburbs by create highway infrastructure specifically for them.  Historically, roads were built between to existing urban areas.  Today, we build highways out into the middle of corn fields to anticipate suburban growth. 

2 Everywhere has zoning rules. You try to make connection between the government and the suburbs. The zoning rules for Warren, my suburb, were not made by the same poeple who made them for Detroit, the major city in my area. There is no connection beteen the two groups. How could this be a conspiracy?

I never wrote that there was such a connection.  I'm talking about a municipality, no matter what the size, and it's relation to suburban development within it's jurisdiction.  When they create laws that dictate lot sizes, parking minimums, building types, etc, that's not a free market community, that is a government-planned community.  If low-density suburban development is what everyone wants, then why have laws making other development illegal?

3 Now the FHA is corrupt? People wanted to live in their own houses with their own yards and the FHA made this possible. I agree they overstepped their constutional limits, but it was to give people what they wanted, not to force them to do something they would never want.

If people want it, then let them pay for it.