Part 1 - Maybe I'm missing something, but electricity doesn't grow on
trees. Right? It's produced in power plants that pollute too - barring
water and wind electricity production.
You are missing several things.
1. There is only one, finite, rapidly being used up source for gasoline for automobiles. Petroleum production has been declining for years and usage has been increasing. China's use is skyrocketing. This spells an abrupt and unpleasant end to cheap gasoline in the near future.
2. It's easier to control and mitigate pollution produced in large, fixed locations like power plants, than it is to handle hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines in cars, trucks, snowmobiles, lawn mowers, boats, etc.
3. Until we find another way to power automobiles, they pretty much run on petroleum. As you pointed out, electricity can be generated currently from a variety of methods, and there are a bunch more that are known that could be put to use.
But you're right, electricity does not grow on trees. It is just a better choice over petroleum when feasible.
Part 2 - The other point I've been holding back for awhile now is the attack on the suburbs and relating it to mass transit. As the burbs go further out, we will see changes in where people work as well as where they live. Just because someone lives in Albertville doesn't mean they work downtown, it could mean they work in St. Cloud or Maple Grove or Watertown. High density housing, either must depend on high density employment to match, or we'll either have people living in MPLS and commuting out for work, or a stagnant economy due to lack of business development.
That's approximately true, all else being equal and defining "high density housing" and "high density employment" appropriately.
Suburbs allow for a better business growth and development which brings
Let's see some evidence for that statement. It's an argument I've never heard before, and I can't think of one good reason why it would be true. I can also think of lots of counter examples which show very successful growth and development in urban cities, not in suburbs.
Lastly, despite all the subdivision developers, and misguided thinking by suburban and small town city councils, one cannot keep growing in order to maintain an artificially inflated standard of living. There are limits which will be hit some day, and it's blind ignorance or idiocy to keep arguing that "growth" is a requirement for a healthy city. I know Ms. Rubenzer is not making that argument, but her reference to growth is precariously close to using that fallacy as an assumption.
Other smaller urban cores should be encouraged!
Absolutely, as well as small cities, large towns and small towns. Emptying out the countryside and having them all migrate into the biggest metro/suburban areas is a recipe for economic and environmental hardship.
And with all of these
little booming areas, mass transit will not work - it will nickel and
dime us to death.
Again, let's see some evidence to support that rather unusual assertion. Mass transit like LRT and especially commuter rail work perfectly in such a situation. Again, the counter examples are numerous.
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
