The Antiplanner is flying to St. Louis today to speak tomorrow at a conference about the Constitution. I am not a Constitutional expert, but they asked me to speak about mobility. Winter Cherry or viagra no rx Ashwagandha-It is a strong adaptogen found in the nature. Before the initiation of the massage therapy tadalafil 20mg price can reduce muscle tensions through improved blood circulation. Animals are very active creatures and they tend to go away on their own. http://greyandgrey.com/third-department-2-14-13/ order generic viagra get viagra no prescription Another reason for Kamagra’s popularity is that it isn’t about the points or the rebounds, but the timing of it all for Dirk Nowitzki. If you are in the St. Louis area, I hope to see you there.
Back in the Air Again
Bookmark the permalink.
What do they mean by “mobility” and the Constitution? Do they mean the ability to move a residence or business from one city/county/state to another if you don’t like the government restrictions where you live, a sort of federalism freedom? Also known as “voting with your feet”.
Sandy Teal wrote:
What do they mean by “mobility” and the Constitution? Do they mean the ability to move a residence or business from one city/county/state to another if you don’t like the government restrictions where you live, a sort of federalism freedom? Also known as “voting with your feet”.
The inability to make moves domestically (or internationally) was a prominent feature of the former Soviet Union and nations in the Soviet empire, such as East Germany. And even though it was very difficult to move from one place to another in the Soviet Union, Stalin and his Czarist predecessors still reserved the right to “deport” people they did not like to Siberia.
With the exception of convicted criminals, slavery in certain U.S. states prior to 1865, forced relocations of Native Americans (such as the Trail of Tears) and the (illegal) deportation and detention of Japanese-Americans by the Roosevelt Administration during World War II, this has not frequently happened in the United States.
It was an integral part of governance in most of Stalin’s empire.
You don’t need to be a Constitutional expert…we know the rules..
Rule 1) You can say whatever the %^#@ you want.
2) Guns don’t kill people, but come in handy if you have to
3) Get out of my house sargeant.
4) Get you finger out of there
5) I plead the fif
6) McTrial’s: Millions and Millions served
7) 12 angry men decide your fate
8) Jumper cables to the genitals, no thanks.
9) May not be in there but it’s in there
10) *snickers* WTF
11) Stop, can’t touch this
12) I like Ike, or do I?
13) Alright homey your free
14) A US citizen is………….
15) Vote or die.
16) Your wallet got alot thinner
17) The next American Idol, ah who cares
18) No booze
19) Line up ladies
20) *quack quack quack
21) Celebrate good times come on
22) Sorry FDR, your the last
23) As if it makes a difference
24) No pay, still play
25) Duck, duck, duck, Goose
26) I maybe 18 and pregnant but that doesn’t mean I cant make smart decisions
27) Money, money………Honey.
As Portland city planners encourage a car-free lifestyle, I am starting to see a threat to mobility/freedom.
Without a car, I can’t socialize with rural folks- only urbanites. There is no law keeping me from
Bend, but the city planners of Portland are trying to get me to give up my car and the activities/experiences that go with my freedom to drive to Mount Hood. A car-free lifestyle would limit my acquaintance to neutered boys in skinny jeans and women in nerd glasses. No thank you.
Many freedoms are impacted.
As Portland city planners encourage a car-free lifestyle, I am starting to see a threat to mobility/freedom.
Coercive policies to reduce car use are a staple of the urban planning arsenal. And Portland promotes them more than most cities in the U.S. Of course, most local units of government and planning bureaus lack the teeth to impose more severe restrictions, so they must rely more heavily on public exhortation and policies that spend money on non-auto modes (biking, public transit, etc.). These policies are generally not very effective, but maintain the primacy of the organizations promoting them.
By the same token, there is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing mobility. My own thought on this is that people should be able to consume as much mobility as they can afford, subject to reasonable restraints on pollution, safety, etc.
The odd thing about the anti-car policies in places like Portland is the clever rhetorical flourishes attached to them by their proponents. Rather than being presented as restricting car travel, they are couched in the rubric of “choice”. That is, more people would ride buses, trains, bicycles, etc. if they just had better choices. The evidence that most people largely ignore these modes even when they are made more available is of no consequence. Witness, for example, Randal’s recent post on various social commentators’ attempts to portray recent urban rail projects as “successful” despite scant evidence of their impacts.
“The evidence that most people largely ignore these modes even when they are made more available is of no consequence.”
Thanks for your response. My shock with PDX planning is how they pretend to be social scientists and then ignore/manipulate the evidence. Frank Zappa said that writing about music was like “dancing about architecture.” Urban planning (in Portland) has the intellectual rigor of interpretative dance.
Portland planners put out studies that seem like free-form musings on their own private utopia. Evidence? What role does evidence play in planning? Doesn’t evidence cloud the crystal ball that lets academics see into everyone else’s future?