Tag: Grand Vision

Too bad.  There is so much to say that addresses the broad based policies that complete streets encompasses. So much that brings an appropriate negative light on the issue and its implementation.  Roundabouts, suicide bike lanes (like the one in the video of the last story), spending large sums of money for rural areas where only the transient bike through (tour bikers) might use, and perhaps even other reasons like private property.

Silly stuff like that.

In fact, we have one of those bike lanes in Traverse City.  The bicyclist is broken away from the right shoulder, and directed into the left turn where the lane abruptly ends (no warning) forcing the automobile into the bicycle, or mating them inappropriately. Somehow, no one has yet died on the corner, though some close calls have occurred.  I suppose the smarter cyclists avoid it, which would explain why I never see anyone using the bought and paid for streetscape as planned.

So imagine the excitement in finding out the Grand Vision folks up here (A21 implementation team) were sponsoring a traveling road show to each of the rural townships.  The effort of course, was to have neat little picture show, and included in the packet of trustees would be a ready made resolution in support of 'Complete Streets'.  Ready to serve; just add moronicide.

In my own township, I didn't see it making much sense, so I prepared a statement.

The nature of the way that government is influenced is becoming incredibly complicated.

For the average person, it is often nearly too complicated to correctly know what certain groups represent, or WHY they wish to advance government in a particular direction, other than what might be stated as a flowery and appealing descriptive.  Positive reflections of outcomes wished for detailed in descriptive titles.

Grand Visions. Sustainable Growth.  Smart Growth.  Regional Collaboration. Visioning.

How could anything be wrong with that?  No one wants "bleak Visions," "corrosive growth," or stupid growth," or even "regional disagreement," right?  The descriptive labels can be misleading.  The method for deciding what growth is "smart," or who's vision we shall follow, is unfortunately-too-often a bit of a travel through the socialist myopic lens. One that means that we must all collaborate on what our neighbors should be allowed to do. Control of our community resources so that all (including our generational beneficiaries) may equally benefit, no matter their contribution.  Excluding those of course, who cannot survive the onslaught of new limits to their own plans.

Its sometimes hard to explain all the ways in which this happens, so that people understand the insidious nature in which their best participatory intentions are twisted into a socialist Utopian tool.

It requires a step back and an arms length review of the elements in play.