| Subject: | Re: FW: George, Tell the Oregon Senate Committee not to weaken Colum |
| Date: | 08/31/2004 04:20 AM |
| From: | djsh-@comcast.net |
|
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24830_1093988147_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Long time listener, 1st time writer... Maybe I've got it all wrong but, if you "push an ever increasing population into a confined area" people might be more inclined to not drive? Call me un American but, there are lots of alternatives to sitting behind the steering wheel of your car. It seems to work pretty well in Europe. Doug Shanks -------------- Original message -------------- Matt wrote: "political" decision to conserve our land, many places that are currently enjoyable to ride in would be significantly less so. You mean like the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument where you can only enter on foot now and will be fined if you ride your mountain bike? If it weren't for Oregon's limiting of urban sprawal, I'd be forced to spend more time biking through and past subdivisions and shopping malls. So, your desire to have peaceful rides is more important than another person's property rights? FORCED? Does someone MAKE you ride through subdvisions? Why don't you hop on the mass transit until you get on the outskirts of town and then ride? Sometimes it seems like people here don't realize how nice the Urban Growth Boundary makes it for us bicyclists. Yeah, I love it. The more we push an ever increasing population into a confined area, we get more traffic, pollution, and disease. I love coughing for hours after a nice ride through an urban area. year the sprawal creeps a few more miles outward, devouring once peaceful farmland and diminishing the bicycling experience. That "peaceful farmland" is supposed to be a business if you are not aware of that. Unfortunately, most farms are very unprofitable, except perhaps wineries and that is not a proven commodity for Oregon yet. Limited urban growth boundaries are taking away people's rights to do with their land as they wish (within reason). I am certain a family holding acreage, (some of which has been in families for generations) and can ONLY FARM IT, are not too concerned about your interests in the "bicycling experience." It is more likely they are killing themselves trying to keep the County from foreclosing due to ever increasing property taxes while faced with ever decreasing farm income. Before you talk about how great stripping people of their property rights is for your interests, perhaps you should think of the impact it has on the property owners, unless of course you want to buy the land yourself. To respond to the whole group send to ob-@topica.com. To respond to the list manager send to cmur-@obra.org To unsubscribe send to obra-uns-@topica.com --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24830_1093988147_0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <html><body> <P>Long time listener, 1st time writer...</P> <P>Maybe I've got it all wrong but, if you "push an ever increasing population into a confined area" people might be more inclined to not drive? Call me un American but, there are lots of alternatives to sitting behind the steering wheel of your car. </P> <P>It seems to work pretty well in Europe.</P> <P>Doug Shanks<BR></P> --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_24830_1093988147_0-- |
