Put the blame for urbanization where it belongs.

So many people are concerned about what they are calling "Agenda 21" and scare others by saying that "they" (the government) will be taking us out of our houses and forcing us into pack and stack - and taking our cars away and forcing us onto bicycles.

Let's look at this issue more realistically.

Some years ago, the environmentalists convinced the voters to create and maintain open space areas.  That meant no new development in the hills.  Property owners - like my friend Lowell Gratin - were not allowed to develop their own properties.

Since they "land-locked" us and we had a huge need for housing - and in particular for housing reasonably priced enough to allow our workers (police, fire, teachers, etc.) to be able to live close to work.

So, city planners changed their restrictive building plans (single story houses & one story strip shopping centers) to allow builders to build two, three and sometimes as many as five stories.

Transit - public transportation - became more important in their eyes (government officials) than more roads and highways.

Putting the two together - developing more density in transit corridors.

Since, like most other professions, people in the same profession read the same books and articles, take the same courses in college and attend the same conferences - most cities adopted a plan allowing for urbanization, mixed use development - increased public transit and moving it all conveniently together.

Now, if - and only if - all of this was done by free choice it would have been fine.

Where is becomes dangerous is when government mandates - force - becomes the determinant.  If eminent domain is used to take people out of their homes and/or remove businesses from the strips - without taking their needs and wants into consideration + fair compensation - then we should be fighting it.

Fight the use of force.  Fight the faulty regulations.  But, please stay practical and realistic

Transit craziness

I'm no expert, but...

Caltrain, operated by Samtrans is used extensively. Indeed, if there were more trains running, more people would probably use them. I for one would love to be sure there was a return train around 11:00 PM from San Francisco home. BART has lots of ridership.

So, Caltrain is broke. BART is in financial trouble. But there is money for a high speed rail, that few seem to want or express needing to use and VTA keeps soaking up money for the light rail which most of the time has hardly any ridership.

What's wrong with this picture?

Infrastructure - Necessary, but not sexy

So, transit is sexy. Transportation needs such as roads, repair of potholes, etc., is not sexy. Water and water waste are not sexy. Energy is only sexy to the extent that we create windmills and fear nuclear energy.

The question is: How do we get citizens to recognize the importance of maintenance over the latest greatest - such as light rail or high speed rail. I say this, fully aware that one of the things I love about NY and DC is public transportation.

I'm not against. I'd be happy if we had a really effective transit system - but we don't and in the mean time our potholes are growing to be ponds, and our roads are even more congested, slowing every one down.