He already has. It's in the endzone.Originally Posted by DONW
Both actually.
|
|
|
|
|
He already has. It's in the endzone.
Both actually.
Have you ever written grants for a city. Especially a small city where the citizens are "under-served" by public transportation. Too easy!
"Under-served" by public transportation? - may be the most liberal thing I've ever read.
Well, this is about Federal grants.
What about this?:
To combat the systemic inequality of Ruston, everyone should pay their fair share in order to provide access for those under-served by public transportation.
Yes ... people can't get, or keep, jobs without transportation to those jobs. Right now, our transportation infrastructure practically makes automobile ownership a prerequisite to joining the workforce.
It's unfair and unfortunate that transit is perceived as a social program for the poor. That same logic is not applied when considering the staggering public investment in highways, which are effectively an entitlement program for car owners.
Yep, government roads are in fine shape. We should let them take care of public transportation too.
Do you mean those car owners who pay taxes on gasoline to pay for those roads?
Our roads are in bad shape bc we built more than we can maintain. We built more than we can maintain bc of political demand from automobile owners.
A special interest group, car owners, lobbied for more than a century for massive public investment in infrastructure designed exclusively for automobiles. And now they really believe that's what they are owed, with no strings attached, forever. All the benefits + no direct responsibility = entitlement mentality.
Thank you. Pont taken.
Oh please. Those are a pittance, a drop in the bucket, compared to the full, life-cycle costs. A tip cup at best.
RIGHT. Cuz only crazies follow the dollars.
Things work in Texas. They have it figured out. Less liberal corruption maybe? More toll roads? More public transportation?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
