From: mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:40:57 GMT
Reply-To: mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

>Before we get into this, Dr. Vandeman, I want you to realize that
>in essence I favor your position.  However, not everyone has the
>personal freedom or the inclination to make proximity to work their
>top priority.  A lot goes into a choice of "where to live", including:
>	1)  ability to afford a home;
>	2)  size of the home for a family;
>	3)  proximity to quality education;
>	4)  proximity to quality health care;
>	5)  safety (includes fire protection, police, crime rate);
>and 	6)  convenience (shopping, groceries, recreational activities, etc.).
 
You didn't mention the environment....

>: -located Potomac River.  In the case of Maryland to Northern Virginia
>: -commuting (the higher volume), and the reverse, the Beltway is the only way.
>: -How does your proposal address the thousands of people who have just this
>: -route to their occupations?
>
>Vandeman:
>: Who cares? They made their bed (so as to destroy the environment). Why
>: shouldn't they lie in it (or remake it)???
>
>	Here's where you are slightly wrong.  The people living in the
>suburbs aren't to blame for urban planning that went awry.  The
>government which allowed urban sprawl and the developers which exploited it
>are to blame.  But now we have families with (maybe) one person living

Here's where you are slightly wrong. We all have a choice. Those who care
about the environment don't choose to live in the suburbs.

>reasonably close to work or the Metro (the suburban Md. Metro is quite
>good and extensive), and the other?  Usually at least one spouse is
>forced to work farther from home or inconveniently.  Are you going to
>help them out or burden the middle-class further?

Is paying for the damage you cause a burden? Then so be it.

>: Where most of the poor live. get it?
>
>Me:	This really is a good idea.  Take away more cash from the middle
>class so they are closer to the level of those living in the inner
>cities.
 
No, just to fix the environment.

>: They made their bed. Choose to live near work & transit, as I did, &
>: you have no problem.
>
>	It's clear that you have an admirable lifestyle.  Mind answering
>a few questions for our files?
>	1)  What is the frequency of rainfall in your region?

Lately (due to the automobile etc.) rarely, but umbrellas still work.

>	2)  Snowfall frequency?

Never, but there are clothes for that.

>	3)  What are your job requirements?  Does it require formal business
>attire (suit, tie, polished leather shoes), in general?  Do you
>have a large amount of paperwork, as in the legal profession?

Informal. Allergic to suits.

>	4)  Do you have flex-time?

Yes.

>	5)  Are you single or partnered?  (Married or non-marital partner
>affiliation)

Partnered.

>	6)  If you are not single, what is your partner's occupation?
>Are they close to work & transit as well?

Walk to work.

>	7)  Are there children in your household?  Do they have any
>non-school related or school-based activities?

No. No time for that.

>	8)  Do you have any leisure activities or social groups?
>(Church, Lions Club, racquetball, etc.).  Are these facilities located
>close to work & transit as well?

Hiking. 10 min walk from home. Environmental activities at various locations.
I once spent 7 hrs. going to a highway hearing.

>	9)  How close are you located to medical facilities, especially
>pre-natal and pediatric care for children?

On bus & BART or bike..

>	10)  What percentage of your income goes for transit?  (Mine: 6.5%
>of gross yearly income).

About 1%.

>	11)  What is the percentage of your daily awake time (nominally
>16 hours) that you spend in transit to and from work?  (Mine:  4.7%).
 
15% (but I use it to read -- LOTS)

>	I'm still not trying to say you're idea is bad, since I'm in favor
>of it.  But all of the above criteria are relevant to considerations of
>where someone chooses to live and work.  Are we reaching a level of
>understanding here yet?
 
Yes. It can be done, but must be thought out. Most of us haven't done that
yet, hence react with HORROR.

>Me:   Getting the money is a noble goal, and so is improving mass
>transit.  I hope this dialogue, on some level, will indicate two
>things:  one, why the Clinton/Gore administration is likely considering
>a gas tax, and 2)  why it's going to inconvenience a lot more of the
>middle class.  Something will get sacrificed -- families will give up
>getting their children in the best public schools, there will be less
>personal time at home, leisure and social activities will be
>reduced.  It'll hurt.
 
Does recycling hurt? Saving water? Minimizing consumption? I doubt it.
We adjust almost instantly.
Newsgroups: sci.environment