Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda
Just because you see something in a certain light doesn't mean that is the way it is.
|
This most certainly applies to your arguments, which as yet, remain unsupported by a single citation of a single study or report or even an apt example.
Quote:
This is why I have stated over and over you live in a fantasy land.
|
This is an ad hominem attack. You don't offer any evidence of any kind to dispute my assertions for which there are real-world proofs which I have offered up.
You simply attack me. I have not spent my time attacking you or any other poster and I don't wish to.
I have had enough of your endless insults, don't respond to any of my posts, if you can't post politely.
Flame Wars are against the code of conduct.
Either argue substance which means tell me specifically what you think I've said is wrong, and then support that conclusion with evidence, or stay quiet.
Quote:
Its about a policy proposal for Houston to expand its freeway system, resulting n greater urban sprawl, greater poverty, and more pollution."
|
Yes, I said that. There is zero argument that expanding highways does not facilitate ongoing sprawl.
There is zero argument that sprawl is not cost-inefficient for government, resulting in either higher taxes or lower service levels or some combination of these, which will invariably hit those with the least income the hardest.
Sprawl also means those without a car are at the greatest disadvantage not only in employment, but in access to shopping, healthcare or simply sending their child to a good school.
Greater density makes the above easier (not easy).
There is no argument that increasing the total number of vehicles on the road does not result in greater pollution.
****
Quote:
I support this freeway, for greater access to sprawl yes, but not poverty and certainly not more pollution. If you're views of the freeways are that of causing these things and that won't change then a) it doesn't mean others support that while supporting freeways and b) you should come up with an alternative other than whining about freeways and, again, claiming those that support them want to see more pollution and poverty.
|
Can you please go back and find where I said "Proponents of highway expansion clearly want to cause more pollution or poverty"?
Because I don't remember saying that, if I did, I will apologize for misspeaking.
But I believe I said that's what the highway expansion program will cause, not that that is what motivated anyone.
Quote:
I'd certainly be open to having a convo with about expanding transit for Houston and reducing the city's reliance on cars but you will loose me(and I bet many others) at anything that forces people to change their lifestyle and telling me what I do and don't support.
|
Outside of compelling people to move out of the way of floods; I don't believe I proposed 'forcing' anyone to do anything. Its my understanding that Houston has already been doing this to some degree, I simply proposed a larger scale, and a prioritization system based on cost-efficiency for the taxpayer.
The rest is about incentives and disincentives (higher taxes if you cost the rest of us more money); (lower taxes if you don't) and prioritizing better transit service. There is no plot to micromanage everyone's life or tell them where to move. If you want 3 acres in the burbs you can have it. I'm just saying you should expect to pay the cost of it, not freeload on other taxpayers.