During public comment prior to their discussion, I said:

"East bay twp is a mostly rural twp with little to no chance of becoming a densely populated metropolis within the next 40 years.  Its connections to other townships and municipalities are sparsely populated, though some area densities might support a sidewalk or bike lane or other elements broadly called for by complete streets.

However, tying our county and particularly East Bay to a one size fits all land use and transportation theme is not good policy.  It ties the hands of future planners, and citizens who have a very real stake in the outcome of such schemes.  The costs involved in the complete streets paradigm cannot be justified  in the seasonal environment in which we live. In fact, the rural nature of MOST of the township, rejects through common sense, an application of complete streets."

Continuing, it had to be noted, that the resolution was not as innocent nor calorie free as the promoters wished it to be viewed.

"As cost effectiveness of a complete streets program is questionable, signing on to a pledge or resolution that lays the foundation for this type of activity would be irresponsible by this board, or any governing board in the county outside of Traverse City.  Seemingly a better fit, and having more of an urban element even Garfield township would be pledging itself to an abuse of public trust were it to fully adopt the premise of complete streets; which fails to recognize the  very real differences of urban and rural areas.

I believe we are all aware that even within the Urban design of Traverse City, it has demonstrated nonsense involved in such planning, by creating the suicide bike lane that one can find at 8th street and Woodmere."

"And of course marrying the pedestrian and bicycle traffic to motorized traffic is ALWAYS a good idea, right?

It makes perfect sense to place such traveling incongruities next to each other on rural thoroughfares.  Nothing like encouraging greater amounts of  mass travel with a differential between 20-50 miles per hour so close to each other.  Particularly, when one traveling interest might be so fatally affected by a chance occurrence; one that is far more likely with this type of implementation."

"Then there are property rights

Make no mistake, Complete streets is about land use, and land use is about property rights.  An additional bike or pedestrian lane requires one of two things a shrinking of the actual roadway, OR additional easement from adjacent property owners.

It requires further inconveniencing by government to land owners.  This seems to fit well within the grand vision scope of blind acceptance that certain interests have been trying to push for the last 8 years.

Signing on to this resolution is about that agenda.  Its about securing grant monies that have been specifically targeting changes like these to make land use by private property owners more restrictive, reduce or eliminate single vehicle use in select areas, and attempt drive property owners off their land and into more densely populated and controlled environments.

Don't just say no to complete streets, but say No-WAY by taking this resolution and disposing of it appropriately in the recycle bin of worn out and unwelcome foreign planning schemes."

For which I am glad.

The streets promoters didn't go away without the foot in the door however.  "The resolution could be changed to the way you like it" they chimed. "You can make it your own" they said.

And it reminded me of how the left gets the moderates on board with their agenda.  "You can flavor the poison so that you enjoy it best.."

And they do.

In the end, the sales will be made to a number of local municipalities who won't recognize the box they will be building around themselves until its too late.  A few here a few there.  The incremental advances of this particular agenda will mirror all those others of a progressive in-your-face nature that plague us these days.