Originally Posted by
RPK79
I see a lot of arguments that people should have the option to choose not to drive, but then choosing their environment to live this car free lifestyle is ignored. There are places where going car free is easy and places where it is difficult. Why should the difficult places to be car free be changed simply because a small amount of people there may suddenly decide after moving there that they no longer like the area they are living. The beauty of a free country is that it allows people to vote with their feet and their wallets by living in regions that most suit them and patronizing businesses that align with their beliefs. By forcing a cookie cutter policy across the board from a national or even statewide level it strips the local governments and people from their freedom.
I don't agree with a lot of people in this sub-forum, but I fully support their right to make their particular communities over in the way they see fit if they can gain the support of their peers there. I just want them to do the same for me.
I don't believe that it is possible to undo sprawl -- even if it were physically possible, it would be financially impossible and irresponsible; so, let's not go down that dead-end road. OTOH, we can do a great deal to ameliorate the problems of sprawl by investing in improved public transportation and allocating space for realistically-wide bike lanes on public roads.
I'm not looking to "make-over" affected communities, just to adapt/upgrade their transportation routes for a wider range of travel/travelers.
PS: Many (most?) of us cannot "vote with our feet", insofar as affording to live near(er) to where we work. If I had a dollar, for every article I've read in the newspapers about "regular" people -- teachers, first-responders, etc. -- who had to live an hour-or-more away from their places of employment, due to the high cost of buying or renting -- and the option to "vote with our wallets" has been, effectively, taken out of our hands (pockets?).