The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Can you not answer the basic question of how does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Hmmmm. It’s almost like you are just making it all up.

Point is that if you want specifics, you need to ask someone who really knows that city. And few know the city better than David Simon. He will give you the information you seek. And some exotic insults.

So in conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about. Good to know. Thanks!

About the city of Baltimore? Compared to David Simon? Most definitely not, oh smarmy one.

Again, do you have any information that you can provide that can describe how Baltimore City subsidizes Baltimore County? Anything?

DP, but I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable.

Huh? The link posits that this is occurring, that cities are subsidizing suburbs. I am asking for an explanation of how that actually works in this specific circumstance. If you cannot provide an explanation for how it works in this circumstance, then it’s not a worthwhile idea. This link may help you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

The link walks you through several case studies, not simply "posit[ing] that this is occurring." Check them out, then get back to us.

And, since your education on argumentation seems to be limited to what you can glean from Wikipedia, this link may help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid

This isn’t high school debate club kid. You seem well intentioned but poorly informed. Good luck in life!

No, it certainly is not, but one would hope that a poster who is very concerned about evidence and deductive reasoning would be able to easily furnish fact-based logical arguments. Alas!

Just answer the question. You've spent a lot of time deflecting, distracting, pretending, and insulting in an effort to avoid it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I'm amused that you think this is some kind of gotcha. As I said earlier, I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable. You brought up Baltimore County and Baltimore City after the evidence that suburban finances are necessarily subsidized. This is how discussions work. Person A makes a claim, person B rebuts the claim with evidence. Person A must respond to Person B's rebuttal, not blab on about non sequiturs. The ball is in your court.

It's not a gotcha. It's a straight forward question based on your own claim. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

Your continued insistence on asking this question instead of examining and rebutting the evidence countering your assertion is a tacit admission that you are wrong, you know you're wrong, and you're pathologically incapable of admitting it.

You made a rhetorical assertion. A legitimate question was asked regarding that assertion and you keep avoiding it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I made an assertion backed with evidence. You are choosing to ignore this evidence and are instead insisting that I respond to a non sequitur. You can choose to respond to my counterargument. Or, you can continue to pretend that it doesn't exist in the hopes that I'll grow tired of your tactic and give up. Your call.

There's no non-sequitor in that question. And all you're doing is deflecting and distracting in an attempt to avoid answering it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

It is a non sequitur because it does not follow from the argument I have presented. It does not counter the evidence presented against you. It does not address the counterarguments people have presented in response to your initial assertions. I don't know how many times I've posted this at this point, but I will be more than happy to answer your question once you have stopped pretending that counterarguments to your initial claim do not exist. You can respond to my argument, or not, the choice is yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Can you not answer the basic question of how does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Hmmmm. It’s almost like you are just making it all up.

Point is that if you want specifics, you need to ask someone who really knows that city. And few know the city better than David Simon. He will give you the information you seek. And some exotic insults.

So in conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about. Good to know. Thanks!

About the city of Baltimore? Compared to David Simon? Most definitely not, oh smarmy one.

Again, do you have any information that you can provide that can describe how Baltimore City subsidizes Baltimore County? Anything?

DP, but I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable.

Huh? The link posits that this is occurring, that cities are subsidizing suburbs. I am asking for an explanation of how that actually works in this specific circumstance. If you cannot provide an explanation for how it works in this circumstance, then it’s not a worthwhile idea. This link may help you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

The link walks you through several case studies, not simply "posit[ing] that this is occurring." Check them out, then get back to us.

And, since your education on argumentation seems to be limited to what you can glean from Wikipedia, this link may help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid

This isn’t high school debate club kid. You seem well intentioned but poorly informed. Good luck in life!

No, it certainly is not, but one would hope that a poster who is very concerned about evidence and deductive reasoning would be able to easily furnish fact-based logical arguments. Alas!

Just answer the question. You've spent a lot of time deflecting, distracting, pretending, and insulting in an effort to avoid it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I'm amused that you think this is some kind of gotcha. As I said earlier, I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable. You brought up Baltimore County and Baltimore City after the evidence that suburban finances are necessarily subsidized. This is how discussions work. Person A makes a claim, person B rebuts the claim with evidence. Person A must respond to Person B's rebuttal, not blab on about non sequiturs. The ball is in your court.

It's not a gotcha. It's a straight forward question based on your own claim. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

Your continued insistence on asking this question instead of examining and rebutting the evidence countering your assertion is a tacit admission that you are wrong, you know you're wrong, and you're pathologically incapable of admitting it.

You made a rhetorical assertion. A legitimate question was asked regarding that assertion and you keep avoiding it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I made an assertion backed with evidence. You are choosing to ignore this evidence and are instead insisting that I respond to a non sequitur. You can choose to respond to my counterargument. Or, you can continue to pretend that it doesn't exist in the hopes that I'll grow tired of your tactic and give up. Your call.

There's no non-sequitor in that question. And all you're doing is deflecting and distracting in an attempt to avoid answering it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

It is a non sequitur because it does not follow from the argument I have presented. It does not counter the evidence presented against you. It does not address the counterarguments people have presented in response to your initial assertions. I don't know how many times I've posted this at this point, but I will be more than happy to answer your question once you have stopped pretending that counterarguments to your initial claim do not exist. You can respond to my argument, or not, the choice is yours.

You’ve lost the plot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Can you not answer the basic question of how does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Hmmmm. It’s almost like you are just making it all up.

Point is that if you want specifics, you need to ask someone who really knows that city. And few know the city better than David Simon. He will give you the information you seek. And some exotic insults.

So in conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about. Good to know. Thanks!

About the city of Baltimore? Compared to David Simon? Most definitely not, oh smarmy one.

Again, do you have any information that you can provide that can describe how Baltimore City subsidizes Baltimore County? Anything?

DP, but I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable.

Huh? The link posits that this is occurring, that cities are subsidizing suburbs. I am asking for an explanation of how that actually works in this specific circumstance. If you cannot provide an explanation for how it works in this circumstance, then it’s not a worthwhile idea. This link may help you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

The link walks you through several case studies, not simply "posit[ing] that this is occurring." Check them out, then get back to us.

And, since your education on argumentation seems to be limited to what you can glean from Wikipedia, this link may help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid

This isn’t high school debate club kid. You seem well intentioned but poorly informed. Good luck in life!

No, it certainly is not, but one would hope that a poster who is very concerned about evidence and deductive reasoning would be able to easily furnish fact-based logical arguments. Alas!

Just answer the question. You've spent a lot of time deflecting, distracting, pretending, and insulting in an effort to avoid it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I'm amused that you think this is some kind of gotcha. As I said earlier, I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable. You brought up Baltimore County and Baltimore City after the evidence that suburban finances are necessarily subsidized. This is how discussions work. Person A makes a claim, person B rebuts the claim with evidence. Person A must respond to Person B's rebuttal, not blab on about non sequiturs. The ball is in your court.

It's not a gotcha. It's a straight forward question based on your own claim. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

Your continued insistence on asking this question instead of examining and rebutting the evidence countering your assertion is a tacit admission that you are wrong, you know you're wrong, and you're pathologically incapable of admitting it.

You made a rhetorical assertion. A legitimate question was asked regarding that assertion and you keep avoiding it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I made an assertion backed with evidence. You are choosing to ignore this evidence and are instead insisting that I respond to a non sequitur. You can choose to respond to my counterargument. Or, you can continue to pretend that it doesn't exist in the hopes that I'll grow tired of your tactic and give up. Your call.

There's no non-sequitor in that question. And all you're doing is deflecting and distracting in an attempt to avoid answering it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

It is a non sequitur because it does not follow from the argument I have presented. It does not counter the evidence presented against you. It does not address the counterarguments people have presented in response to your initial assertions. I don't know how many times I've posted this at this point, but I will be more than happy to answer your question once you have stopped pretending that counterarguments to your initial claim do not exist. You can respond to my argument, or not, the choice is yours.

You’ve lost the plot

You've finally waved the white flag. Congratulations on showing some heretofore unseen self-awareness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wanna REALLY see them get upset? Have police start ticketing riders who exceed the new 20mph speed limits on neighborhood streets and not stopping at all for red lights (this is post-Idaho stop law, where stop signs are yields and red lights are stops).

It’ll be funny hearing them complaining about laws THEY wanted.

The bike lobby isn't primarily the bike rider bros; it is the companies that litter the streets with those lime and red bikes and scooters. They stand to make a ton of cash if it is easier to use bikes and they can convince people to actually use their bikes.

City Bike etc get paid by the city. They aren't proftable based on use amd wont ever be. Their entire model is built on goverment subsidies.

I don't have a problem with them doing that. They're a nice recreational amenity. That's the problem though. That's all they are and pretending otherwise is foolish.

So is metro, the US military and other government services. If everything was profit centered, do you think anyone in rural America would receive USPS service at all?

And SO ARE ROADS THAT DRIVERS DRIVE ON. Taxes pay for all of this; suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban areas and if people who live in the cities want to bike two miles to their destination on roads their taxes paid for them drivers who insist on driving in a city because they want a big house ten miles away can slow down and recognize that there are other road users with conflicting priorities to them.

No, that's not true. Close in suburban areas subsidize both urban and rural areas. The ROI on the interstate highway system is off the charts.

DC residents are the ones opposed and complaining. This isn't about whatever weird hatred you have for rural areas. We do not benefit from isolation.

In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base.

I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration.

You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing.

It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html

Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon?

You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement.

The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas.

It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built.

Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again.

And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population.

So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures.

And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem.

So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs.

This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world.

Lol

Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no.

Reality matters.

That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you?

Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument.

DP. You think this is a “debate”? Usually when people make claims they can back them up with facts. All
You have are platitudes and urban legends.

The PP is requesting that you identify the mechanism by which Baltimore has or is subsidizing Bethesda. It’s a good question that goes to the heart of your claim.

Is Bethesda a suburb of Baltimore? Was it ever? Do you even know what a suburb is?

How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Please be specific.

I think this would be a great question to pose to David Simon. He would give you a very informative and entertaining response, albeit one punctuated by obscene insults.

Can you not answer the basic question of how does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County? Hmmmm. It’s almost like you are just making it all up.

Point is that if you want specifics, you need to ask someone who really knows that city. And few know the city better than David Simon. He will give you the information you seek. And some exotic insults.

So in conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about. Good to know. Thanks!

About the city of Baltimore? Compared to David Simon? Most definitely not, oh smarmy one.

Again, do you have any information that you can provide that can describe how Baltimore City subsidizes Baltimore County? Anything?

DP, but I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable.

Huh? The link posits that this is occurring, that cities are subsidizing suburbs. I am asking for an explanation of how that actually works in this specific circumstance. If you cannot provide an explanation for how it works in this circumstance, then it’s not a worthwhile idea. This link may help you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

The link walks you through several case studies, not simply "posit[ing] that this is occurring." Check them out, then get back to us.

And, since your education on argumentation seems to be limited to what you can glean from Wikipedia, this link may help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secundum_quid

This isn’t high school debate club kid. You seem well intentioned but poorly informed. Good luck in life!

No, it certainly is not, but one would hope that a poster who is very concerned about evidence and deductive reasoning would be able to easily furnish fact-based logical arguments. Alas!

Just answer the question. You've spent a lot of time deflecting, distracting, pretending, and insulting in an effort to avoid it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I'm amused that you think this is some kind of gotcha. As I said earlier, I'll gladly talk about Baltimore City and Baltimore County after you post a detailed, fact-based rebuttal to the Strong Towns series of articles about how suburbs' finances are unsustainable. You brought up Baltimore County and Baltimore City after the evidence that suburban finances are necessarily subsidized. This is how discussions work. Person A makes a claim, person B rebuts the claim with evidence. Person A must respond to Person B's rebuttal, not blab on about non sequiturs. The ball is in your court.

It's not a gotcha. It's a straight forward question based on your own claim. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

Your continued insistence on asking this question instead of examining and rebutting the evidence countering your assertion is a tacit admission that you are wrong, you know you're wrong, and you're pathologically incapable of admitting it.

You made a rhetorical assertion. A legitimate question was asked regarding that assertion and you keep avoiding it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

I made an assertion backed with evidence. You are choosing to ignore this evidence and are instead insisting that I respond to a non sequitur. You can choose to respond to my counterargument. Or, you can continue to pretend that it doesn't exist in the hopes that I'll grow tired of your tactic and give up. Your call.

There's no non-sequitor in that question. And all you're doing is deflecting and distracting in an attempt to avoid answering it. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

It is a non sequitur because it does not follow from the argument I have presented. It does not counter the evidence presented against you. It does not address the counterarguments people have presented in response to your initial assertions. I don't know how many times I've posted this at this point, but I will be more than happy to answer your question once you have stopped pretending that counterarguments to your initial claim do not exist. You can respond to my argument, or not, the choice is yours.

It follows completely from your own assertion. You have been trying really hard to avoid it and I understand that you are embarrassed. But the question still remains. How does Baltimore City subsidize Baltimore County?

[Anonymous]

Why was this 29 pages long???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why was this 29 pages long???

Why did you bring back this zombie?? There are like 20 other bike-hating threads that were posted recently you could have hopped in.

[Anonymous]

God i remember this awful thread

[Anonymous]

The bike lobbyists are coming after more residential street parking in my neighborhood despite the fact that there are already bike lanes on parallel streets in both directions that are hardly used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobbyists are coming after more residential street parking in my neighborhood despite the fact that there are already bike lanes on parallel streets in both directions that are hardly used.

OHHH NO NOT THE ALL POWERFUL BIKE LOBBY GOD SAVE *YOUR* PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE REALLY JUST PUBLIC LAND THAT WAS PAVED OVER FOR FREE CAR STORAGE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobbyists are coming after more residential street parking in my neighborhood despite the fact that there are already bike lanes on parallel streets in both directions that are hardly used.

People on bikes benefit from multiple parallel routes just like people on foot and people in cars. Have you ever asked yourself why parallel streets exist? Well, that's the same reason why parallel bikes lanes exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobbyists are coming after more residential street parking in my neighborhood despite the fact that there are already bike lanes on parallel streets in both directions that are hardly used.

OHHH NO NOT THE ALL POWERFUL BIKE LOBBY GOD SAVE *YOUR* PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE REALLY JUST PUBLIC LAND THAT WAS PAVED OVER FOR FREE CAR STORAGE

Right, to hell with the long time elderly residents and families that live on the block. They’ll figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobbyists are coming after more residential street parking in my neighborhood despite the fact that there are already bike lanes on parallel streets in both directions that are hardly used.

OHHH NO NOT THE ALL POWERFUL BIKE LOBBY GOD SAVE *YOUR* PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE REALLY JUST PUBLIC LAND THAT WAS PAVED OVER FOR FREE CAR STORAGE

Right, to hell with the long time elderly residents and families that live on the block. They’ll figure it out.

Elderly residents and families? Who's saying to hell with them?

[Anonymous]

This thread and the Conn Ave bike lane thread are finally going to convince me to donate to the dreaded bike lobby. I'll do it in honor of Lee Mayer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobbyists are coming after more residential street parking in my neighborhood despite the fact that there are already bike lanes on parallel streets in both directions that are hardly used.

first they came for the service lane
and I did not speak out
because there was parking on Connecticut Avenue
then they came for space on Connecticut Avenue
and I did not speak out
because I do not regularly use Connecticut Avenue
then they came for residential parking in my neighborhood
but there was no one left to speak for residential parking in my neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lobbyists are coming after more residential street parking in my neighborhood despite the fact that there are already bike lanes on parallel streets in both directions that are hardly used.

first they came for the service lane
and I did not speak out
because there was parking on Connecticut Avenue
then they came for space on Connecticut Avenue
and I did not speak out
because I do not regularly use Connecticut Avenue
then they came for residential parking in my neighborhood
but there was no one left to speak for residential parking in my neighborhood.

Very typical of cyclists in DC.

No compulsion about using a very famous anti-nazi phrase

Psychopaths