Saturday, March 19, 2011

Republicans and the Bicycle Coalition could "streamline" CEQA

The Bicycle Coalition has new allies---state Republicans---in its long-time quest to "reform" the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

"We wanted to streamline[the law] so there could not be as many levels of lawsuits," said Sen. Bill Emmerson (R-Hemet)...The proposal would sharply limit Californians' ability to go to court to challenge a construction project's environmental impact report---a document critical to final approval. The state attorney general would still be able to file such lawsuits. Citizens would keep limited rights to file litigation, but only by making a deposit to the court of $50,000, or 1% of a construction project's costs if that amount is smaller. Telecommunications companies seeking to expand their broadband networks would receive exemptions from environmental rules for related construction. Such a change would be a boon to firms like AT&T, which has contributed a total of $38,100 in campaign money to the five Republican senators since 2009 ("GOP lawmakers threaten to withhold votes unless environmental rules are rewritten," LA Times, March 16).

Recall that when the court issued the injunction against the city's Bicycle Plan, Leah Shahum accused us of "perverting" that law because bicycles don't cause any pollution---or something-or-other. "We're frustrated. We've got a case here where the environmental laws are being perverted in a way that is not helping the environment and not helping the city of San Francisco...Our local environmental review process is not very environmental. This court ruling highlights the problems in the system. If we are going to be a truly green city, we must update the way we make transportation decisions in San Francisco."

Shahum's understanding of CEQA has always been sketchy. The initial phase of the litigation was only about whether the city was required to do an environmental review of the Bicycle Plan project, not about the allegedly benign contents of the Plan itself. When he ordered the city to do an environmental review of the Bicycle Plan, it was an easy decision for Judge Busch to make.

But for years the Bicycle Coalition has urged "reforming" and "updating" CEQA, which is only about eliminating the level of service ("LOS") standard for traffic studies---how long it takes traffic to get through intersections. If a project will degrade LOS standards---that is, make traffic significantly worse in the project area---the project's sponsor either has to mitigate that impact or the project can't be implemented. If the city and the Bicycle Coalition didn't have to consider the LOS standard, they could take away traffic lanes on busy streets all over the city to make bike lanes regardless of the effect that would have on our traffic.

Supervisor Mirkarimi has of course supported that idea, as he has everything else the Bicycle Coalition wants to do to our streets. The problem he and the Coalition face, however, is that CEQA is a state law that trumps local law. If they want to dump LOS traffic studies, they have to go through the state legislature to get the law changed.

Maybe they can now make a deal with the Republicans: If the Repugs agree to exempt bicycle projects all over the state from CEQA review, the SFBC could agree to make environmental groups put up $50,000 before they can file suit against developers. That would make environmental and neighborhood groups mad, but it's bikes uber alles, right? Nothing's more important than bikes!

When he responded to this question in the Bicycle Coalition's questionnaire back in 2007, Mayor Newsom understood that changing CEQA on the local level wasn't so simple:

The CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was designed to help citizens and policy makers understand the environmental impact of development proposals by requiring environmental impact reports (EIRs) on such projects. Currently, the SF Planning Department chooses to apply that requirement to the conversion of traffic lanes to bus-only, bike-only lanes, and wider sidewalks, increasing the cost of such proposals and delaying their implementation, even though these projects are clearly beneficial to the environment. Would you support changes at the local level to exempt projects which prioritize sustainable transportation modes from environmental impact reports? Yes ___ No ___

Mayor Newsom's cautious answer displays a reality-based approach to CEQA while assuring the bike people that he supports their proposed "improvements" to city streets:

CANNOT ANSWER YES/NO WITHOUT MORE DETAILS
Since CEQA is a State law, I’m unsure how we could make changes to the CEQA review process at the local level. I also want to ensure our Planning Department is cautious with how it interprets CEQA, to help avoid situations like the required EIR for the Bike Network that has stalled bike improvements in San Francisco. That said, I stand ready to do what we can to ensure CEQA achieves its goal of identifying environmental impacts with minimal disruption to the city’s environmental improvements.

Now that Newsom is Lieutenant Governor and is in Sacramento, maybe he can broker a deal with the Republicans and Governor Brown so that San Francisco can make even more "improvements" to its streets to make it as difficult and expensive as possible to drive in the city.

Labels: , , ,

38 Comments:

At 7:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://mobile.oregonlive.com/advorg/pm_100904/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=A4AE45E5CBCD7A4749EA0FFF3A66F71E?contentguid=oAxuwfiF

Better get that "vote" on bike lanes soon, every year more of "your people" die and more of "our people" become eligible to vote.

Your picture is in the dictionary next to "Grumpy old man".

If that was how my life ended up being summarized - I'd shoot myself.

 
At 9:44 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Yes, but as a smug young twit you're one of the anointed ones, though a bit of a wimp with the anonymity. I may be a grouchy old man, but I always put my name on my opinions. The complaint filed by the opponents of the bike lanes in New York raised issues of fact and questioned the process by which the lanes were created. I suppose you think the court should dismiss the case now that public opinion as supposedly spoken, but I bet there will be an exchange of briefs and then a hearing on the merits of the suit.

You draw inspiration from New York, but what about San Francisco?Nothing to say about CEQA, Republicans, and the SF Bicycle Coalition? Is it uncool for "your people" to actually engage on the issues being discussed?

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Here's a link to the suit filed by the opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lanes in New York City that raises factual and process issues about the lanes.

"Better get that 'vote' on bike lanes soon..."

What vote? As I've pointed out a number of times, City Hall and city progressives will make sure that SF voters never get a chance to vote on the Bicycle Plan, just like Mayor Bloomberg and NY progs will make sure of the same thing in New York.

 
At 9:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feel free to google the various people who have riddled that lawsuit with holes.

" Is it uncool for "your people" to actually engage on the issues being discussed?"

Like you want to engage on anything. Engagement means an open mind, yours shut years ago.

 
At 9:55 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Suspicious that you provide no names or links of those "who have riddled that lawsuit with holes."

"Engagement means an open mind, yours shut years ago."

Examples, please? You're faking it. You have to be specific. The problem guys like you have with me---and you're always anonymous---is that I actually read the documents I write about. I read the brief on the New York bike lanes, but I don't know either the process or the law in that city. Nor do I have any familiarity with the history of how the lanes evolved through New York's process, unlike the Bicycle Plan in SF, which I witnessed from the start.

But the post was about the Bicycle Coalition, Republicans, and CEQA, about which you have nothing to say. The question is, Why say anything if you have nothing serious to say? Which is why you'r anonymous, I suppose.

 
At 10:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because we did the EIR and the lanes are in.

 
At 10:47 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

You haven't got them all in yet: Second Street, Fifth Street, Cesar Chavez, and Masonic aren't done yet.

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no reason to engage with you. What would that accomplish? Would I get some girl scout cookies? It certainly isn't going to improve cycling infrastructure.

People only read your blog and comment here to gloat and to pick on you. There's no need to try to change your mind, because as current events show, you don't count. It's sort of sad to pick on a senile old man, but it's still entertaining.

 
At 12:17 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

The problem you and your like-minded comrades have is that you are unable to "engage" because you rarely do your homework or know what you're talking about. Typical that you have nothing to say about the SFBC's ignorance and special pleading about CEQA. What do you have to "gloat" about? You folks have already demonstrated to anyone who's paying attention that you're uninformed, crackpots, and kind of stupid.

"Current events show" what exactly about which issues? The wisdom of the Bicycle Plan? How popular Critical Mass is with city voters?High-speed rail? The dumb "smart development" and "transit corridors" ideas of the Planning Dept.? How far-sighted city progs have been about the homeless issue? Graffiti as art? The legalization of prostitution? Dumping JROTC from city schools?

Yet you seem to think you're clever with this sort of comment. I particularly treasure the crude ageism you and other commenters display as a substitute for thought.

 
At 3:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see - you quote "some guy in the Times" who wrote an poorly researched piece in the region section.

I'll reference Mayor Bloomberg's Senior Advisor - writing on Mayoral Letterhead.

If you are using Grynbaum as the lede in one of your posts, you are the misinformed person you rant about so much.

 
At 3:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I particularly treasure the crude ageism you and other commenters display as a substitute for thought."

Agreed. No reason to call Rob a "Grumpy Old Man". Far simpler to just call him a "Grumpy Man"

 
At 3:39 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Not clear what post you're even responding to, but it's presumably the one about Weiner, Bloomberg, and the bike lanes in New York. I cited an article that quoted a witness about what Weiner said to Bloomberg about his "fucking" bike lanes.

You cite someone who works for Bloomberg as if it's some kind of holy writ. It's on "Mayoral letterhead," yet, with a capital "M"! That doesn't make it automatically credible, to put it mildly.

Grynbaum quotes his sources---two people who confirmed the story---about what Weiner said. I haven't heard any denials from either Weiner or Bloomberg, though apparently Weiner later told someone he was just kidding.

In the rest of the article, Grynbaum quotes other people on the bike lanes and the behavior of Sadek-Kahn. Are you claiming that he misquotes someone? Why is a reporter for the NY Times less credible than someone who works for Bloomberg and was likely just singing for his supper?

 
At 9:48 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

"I haven't heard any denials from either Weiner or Bloomberg, though apparently Weiner later told someone he was just kidding."

Rep Weiner's twitter.

And there's this.

 
At 10:38 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Here's that memo.

-"The majority of New Yorkers support bike lanes."

-"255 miles of bike lanes have been added in the last four years. The City has 6,000 miles of streets."

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

What point do you thing you're making? Some of what Wolfson is saying in his memo is apparently what's disputed by the lawsuit. He works for Bloomberg and of course he's going to support the bike lanes. Unlike you I'm not going to pretend to be an authority on what the bike nuts in New York are doing to that city's streets, though I'll be interested to see how the litigation turns out.

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

He also cites numbers suggesting the bike lanes have made the streets safer for all users. You must of missed that or didn't feel like reading the memo. Those numbers aren't biased so who cares if it comes from the mayor's office or some crack pot lawyer.

I also posted the links to Weiner's twitter to show that he did in fact retract his statement and then went on to say he supports bike lanes. Quotes directly from the source, not 2nd hand.

 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

The safety numbers are in fact in dispute in the lawsuit I linked earlier in the thread. This guy works for the mayor! He's not necessarily a reliable source of information. Weiner has apparently backtracked on a statement that two witnesses told the Times he made. Too bad. I kind of liked the statement.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

You have issues. You clearly hate bikes and are blinded by that hate.

And now the NYDOT is a bunch of bike nuts? Come on now.

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Haven't we had this exchange before? I hate bikes as physical objects, the opposite of your bike fetish? Not likely, is it? I don't hate bikes or even the people who ride them. I dislike the dumb, anti-car policies that you and other bike fanatics are foisting on the public.

You're officially replacing Murphy as an all-around know-it-all with your comments. Sounds like you still haven't read the legal brief I linked. I don't really know if it's right or wrong and neither do you. Let's wait until New York files their brief in response and a hearing is held on the issue.

You're sure the bike people of New York are right, but you have nothing to say about the subject of my post, the SFBC's attempt to "reform" CEQA?

 
At 2:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't really know if it's right or wrong"

I thought you knew it all.

I'll clue you in. It's wrong.

Reference: http://www.google.com

 
At 3:28 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

You're the clever one, since you know The Truth without having to bother with evidence.

 
At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The evidence - facts - are there.

You rely on lies.

 
At 9:46 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

LOS is a joke and should be addressed. It is a relic that promotes single occupancy vehicles over everything else.

"I dislike the dumb, anti-car policies that you and other bike fanatics are foisting on the public."

Time and again I have to say there is NO WAR ON CARS. A very very tiny percentage (1%-2%) of street space has been given over to non-signal occupancy vehicles (e.g. buses, peds, bikes) in the last 5 years. THERE IS NO WAR ON CARS. You are full of hyperbole.

And I'm not sure the NY "bike people" (demeaning as your use of that term is, you're such an asshole) are right but the argument coming from the NBBL is about as weak as they come.

 
At 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lookee lookee....

The approved parklets:



•1300 Fulton (Café Abir)

 
At 10:52 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

You can repeat your opinion "time and time again" and even put it in caps, but it's still untrue, as I've shown time and time again over the last five years. I understand that you hate to actually read my blog, so here's a couple of links among many showing that the city does in fact have an official anti-car policy. Here and here, and there are plenty more in my archives.

"A very very tiny percentage (1%-2%) of street space has been given over to non-signal[sic] occupancy vehicles (e.g. buses, peds, bikes) in the last 5 years."

This "street space" argument is unconvincing to anyone who understands existing city streets, which are very limited in space. You have to take away at least five feet to make a bike lane, which means you have to either take away street parking or traffic lanes to do that, which is all we're really talking about here.

Of course the folks at Streetsblog agree with you. They hate the litigation filed opposing the bike lanes in New York, but we still need to wait for all the briefing and a hearing on the issue to really understand both the facts and the legal issues involved. You of course don't have to do that, since you already are in possession of The Truth as an adherent of BikeThink.

There was no media coverage of our litigation here in SF before we got the injunction. Afterwards, as I've pointed out a number of times, all good city progressives denounced us in the media, including of course the Bicycle Coalition. But none of our critics really understood the legal issues involved, which were actually very simple in the first phase of the litigation. I suspect the same may be true about the litigation in New York: people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

You desperately want to believe that it has no merit, but that remains to be seen.

"LOS is a joke and should be addressed. It is a relic that promotes single occupancy vehicles over everything else."

LOS (level of service) is a sensible way to measure the impact any development can have on traffic: you measure current traffic by measuring how long it takes traffic---buses, taxis, autos, trucks, emergency vehicles, bikes---to get through intersections. Then you calculate how much additional traffic a development may generate to figure out its potential impact.

Of course you bike people hate that, since obviously taking away a traffic lane with a bike project on a busy street will have a negative impact on traffic. Ditto for taking away street parking, which leads to motorists circling around a neighborhood looking for parking.

What the Bicycle Coalition wants to substitute for LOS is something they call "auto trips generated" (ATG). Their logic: Though taking away traffic lanes and street parking will make traffic worse, a bike lanes doesn't "generate" any new auto trips; it just jams up existing traffic!

A lot of bike people in the city have long wondered why SF doesn't simply adopt ATG and dump LOS. The answer: CEQA is a state law, and it's unlikely that the courts will allow cities to dump LOS if they don't have a sensible way to measure traffic impacts to take its place. The folks at MTA and the City Attorney's office understand this issue better than you and the Bicycle Coalition, which of course also didn't think the Bicycle Plan required any environmental review, an obvious falsehood.

That brings us back to the subject of this post, which is the Bicycle Coalition's biased interpretation of CEQA. Interesting that both the lobbyists for developers and you bike people agree that CEQA is in need of "reform."

 
At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They hate the litigation filed opposing the bike lanes in New York, but we still need to wait for all the briefing and a hearing on the issue to really understand both the facts and the legal issues involved."

Bullshit. The complaint has been filed, and analyzed. Not by Streetsblog, by attorneys and law professors.


"In sum,” concluded (Roderick Hills Jr., an NYU Law School professor with a focus on local government law), “I take this complaint to be largely public relations, with no more law behind it than is minimally necessary to avoid sanctions for frivolity.”

The opponents of the bike lane are under the same delusion as you - that everyone hates bike lanes and if they just knew about the EVIL SOCIALIST PLOT to FORCE us to RIDE BICYCLES - then the peasants would REVOLT. So they flung up a crappy lawsuit - not because they think they can win in court, because they think they can win in the media. The problem is - as the various links we've sent you show - is that they are trying bike lanes in the media and LOSING.

You tried your case in court, won a battle, but lost the war. In the process, there was a little media exposure and you LOST in the media. If the people of SF were opposed to bike lanes as vehemently as you claim, some opportunist would run for Supervisor or Mayor on that platform and WIN. Instead, anyone who has used such a platform has gotten their ass kicked. Exhibit A: Rob Anderson. "Oh, but Ross has so much more money than me". If people hated bike lanes, they would be falling all over themselves to contribute to your campaigns. Didn't happen.

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

Having your complaint analyzed by those who oppose it is not enough to decide on the merits of a case. If that was the way the system worked, nothing would ever get a hearing. It will still have to have a hearing before a judge. The "media" has nothing to do with it any more than Judge Busch was influenced by all the negative feedback we got after the injunction. He still had to rule on the law as he understood it.

No one---least of all me---thinks that the bicycle fad is some kind of "socialist" plot. It's just a trendy, poorly-thought-through traffic policy that will eventually come up against some kind of natural limits in SF, New York, and elsewhere.

"You tried your case in court, won a battle, but lost the war. In the process, there was a little media exposure and you LOST in the media."

Yes, I've lost in the SF media---which, mainstream and otherwise---is remarkably lame on the bike issue and others, like high-speed rail---but we're appealing Judge Busch's certification of the EIR on the Bicycle Plan because we think he made some serious legal errors in his decision. It's not over yet!

"If the people of SF were opposed to bike lanes as vehemently as you claim, some opportunist would run for Supervisor or Mayor on that platform and WIN. Instead, anyone who has used such a platform has gotten their ass kicked."

No one really knows what the people of SF think of bike lanes, the boorish behavior of you bike people on city streets, or Critical Mass, since they've never had a chance to vote on those issues, since no citywide candidate has ever raised those issues in SF. As I've said before, it would be good for the city if a candidate like bike guy David Chiu raised those issues so that voters and candidates could have a real debate about City Hall's anti-car policies, including the Bicycle Plan, parking meters, parking tickets, parking fees, etc.

"Exhibit A: Rob Anderson. 'Oh, but Ross has so much more money than me.' If people hated bike lanes, they would be falling all over themselves to contribute to your campaigns. Didn't happen."

My 2008 campaign was only for District 5 Supervisor and not a citywide campaign. I didn't solicit any contributions and barely campaigned at all. I went to the candidates' forums and walked a small part of the district with a doorhanger, which I paid for myself. Even so I got more than 1,900 votes!

Ross, on the other hand, was the incumbent and raised $80,000. I've never complained about that. But he did poorly at the poorly-attended candidates' forums and even had a put-upon reaction---like a lot of elected officials, he lives in a bubble---when I knocked all the crap he supported in his first term, including the bike bullshit, the Market/Octavia Plan, allowing UC to hijack the old extension property, his support for Critical Mass, his support for the Rincon Hill highrises, etc.

The only interesting thing about Ross's campaign is how he tried to hide his support for the Bicycle Plan, LOS "reform," Critical Mass, and everything else bik-related on his campaign website. It seems clear that he didn't think those policies would be universally popular, even in "progressive" District 5, not to mention for his inevitable run for citywide office. That's also why he dumped the Green Party; he understood that being an ultra-lefty would be a liability in a citywide campaign.

 
At 1:55 PM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

"It's just a trendy, poorly-thought-through traffic policy that will eventually come up against some kind of natural limits in SF, New York, and elsewhere."

You mean like the car and the "natural limits" of cheap gas?

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

No, motor vehicles are here to stay, whether they run on gasoline, electricity, or dogshit. What I mean: there are limits to how much the people of SF will allow you anti-car bike zealots to screw up their traffic. I suspect we're close to those limits now---and close to the point where it will threaten to damage the city's economy.

 
At 2:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even so I got more than 1,900 votes!"

75% of those people don't even know who you are. This is the nature of elections, it is well studied, that a certain percentage of the electorate will *always* vote against the incumbent. In your race, that meant flipping coins to pick someone else.

Add in that "Mirkarimi" is an "ethnic" name, you cornered most of the racist vote, much like John McCain did.

 
At 2:43 PM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Good thing you are also a scientist. "dog shit"? Pure gold!

Well, once the gas prices break the economy's back you'll have a convenient excuse in bike lanes.

"you anti-car bike zealots"

The anger and scapegoating that you seem to run to so often just doesn't really seem to get you anywhere.

You could put something on the ballot about bikes if the stick up your ass just won't go away. You gather some signatures, suck up to Alioto-Pier (if she hasn't run back to Marin) and slap it on the ballot.

 
At 5:19 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

"Add in that 'Mirkarimi' is an 'ethnic' name, you cornered most of the racist vote, much like John McCain did."

Back in the days when I used to run in a lot of footraces in Mendocino County, I used to think that runners were the biggest know-it-alls in the world. Now I understand that you bike people are close competitors in that category. In fact I wasn't Mirkarimi's only opponent in 2008. Owen O'Donnell, another old white guy, got more than 16% of the vote, because he spent the same amount of money on the campaign as the Murk---more than $50,000. O'Donnell's vote was a more pure anti-Mirkarimi vote than mine because he spent a lot of money advertising and thus had higher name recognition, though he wasn't very good on the issues. The people who knew who I was were more likely those who read my doorhanger and/or knew who I was---the anti-bike guy. I spent only $1,600 on my doorhanger, most of which I still have in my storage room in the basement.

"Well, once the gas prices break the economy's back you'll have a convenient excuse in bike lanes."

I understand that you bike jerks want that to happen, since it would vindicate your crackpot anti-car worldview, but it's just wishful thinking.

"The anger and scapegoating that you seem to run to so often just doesn't really seem to get you anywhere."

I'm not angry at all. You bike feebs are so surpised when you learn that not everyone thinks your so adorable that you seem to think any criticism of your great movement is a hate crime.

"You could put something on the ballot about bikes if the stick up your ass just won't go away. You gather some signatures...and slap it on the ballot."

If I had that kind of money, I would put the Bicycle Plan on the ballot, and it wouldn't be hard to get enough signatures, either. I was thinking about approaching Don Fisher, but he up and died before I could ask him to bankroll a signature-gathering effort.

 
At 5:34 PM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

I don't want to see the economy go to shit, asshole. I want to protect it from volatile gas prices as best as possible. Driving around your SUV for errands that are all within 2 miles of your house is a waste of precious resources.

I'm not saying it to be cute. It's all over the news because gas is going to work its way up this summer. What happened the last time gas hit $4.50 - $5/ gal? 2008? I recall everything going to shit. You might have a rosier picture of that summer than myself though, being all knowing as you are.

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

I haven't owned a car in more than 20 years, but a lot of people have to factor in time when they choose their "mode": work, children, errands, appointments, lessons, etc. Muni works for me, but I don't have a job or a family, and I'm rarely in a hurry. If you have children, an SUV makes a lot of sense, even for short trips.

Gas prices caused the recession? No, the recession was caused by the collapse of the housing market, which surprised no one. But the effects of that collapse are still rippling through the economy. I don't think gas prices had much to do with it.

I liked the summer of 2008, not only because I didn't have to buy gas, but because at that time it was becoming increasingly likely that Obama was going to be elected president, which made me happy---and still makes me happy, in spite of the HSR fiasco.

On the cute issue: the bike movement is a main branch of what I call the Cute Movement, which includes Critical Mass, the new Bike Party, Parking Day, the pillow fight---and all the other demos that the Cute People do under the apparent assumption that what they are doing---at the expense of city taxpayers---is cute and clever.

These mostly-young people are the product of the self-esteem movement that swept the country 20 years ago, when many parents brought their children up to think that everything they did was wonderful. Every turd in the toilet got approving oohs and ahhs. Then all these over-reinforced kids move to San Francisco to show the rest of the world how clever and adorable they are by acting out on our streets---even permanently redesigning our streets in the case of the bike kids.

Just a hypothesis, of course, and I'll wait for more data to confirm it before I insist that it's truth.

 
At 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Back in the days when I used to run in a lot of footraces in Mendocino County, I used to think that runners were the biggest know-it-alls in the world. Now I understand that you bike people are close competitors in that category."

"People who kick my ass are just a bunch of know-it-alls"

"increasingly likely that Obama was going to be elected president"

The only issue you aren't a teabaggin republican on is MUNI, and entitlements - in other words you are against anything that you benefit from.

 
At 8:41 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Oil didn't cause the '08 recession? Tell that to the millions of families living paycheck to paycheck that had to decide to pay their mortgage or get to work.

And you think that being an Obama democrat somehow absolves you from being a complete jack-ass? I don't care who you voted for, you are still amazingly out of touch with reality.

And gas prices will hurt the economy. I'm not saying it because I'm a bike nut but because it is true. Let's work to a situation where a 50 cent rise in gas won't cripple us. We already have some of the lowest priced gas in the world.

"If you have children, an SUV makes a lot of sense, even for short trips."

How can you argue with that logic?

And your views on this so-called "cute issue" just shows you are a grumpy old man. And how is your applying of broad non-based generalizations not just as much "age-ism"?

 
At 9:47 AM, Blogger Rob Anderson said...

You pretend to be in touch with reality while claiming that oil prices caused the Great Recession? Silly me, I thought it had something to do with the housing bubble, mortgage loans, and over-leveraged financial institutions.

Of course high oil prices can hurt the economy. On the other hand, if they're too low, people tend to conserve less.

Of course an SUV and/or some other type of motor vehicle is a great help if you have a family with all the logistical and transportation problem that involves. Can I assume that you have no children? I used to have a family, and juggling work, school, shopping, appointments would have been impossible without some kind of motor vehicle.

You're the one who seems to have a tenuous connection with reality.

 
At 9:11 AM, Blogger Mikesonn said...

Spacing puts it well.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home