Errands after dark - am I the only one reconsidering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

[Anonymous]

I stopped running errands at night or exercising at night once I moved to the DC area a number of years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not changing anything. I'm at work in the daylight hours. If I didn't go do stuff after dark, I wouldn't be able to run errands on weekdays for half the year.

Same. I never considered this at all. My kids have sports practices after 5pm and in winter it's dark at that time. We drive around after dark all the time.

[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:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

Nobody is arguing in favor of keeping people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of limiting people to unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of preventing people from using connections between 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In college in the 90s we did "take back the night" marches and safe spaces and all that, but I was never duped that the world is actually safe..since Chandra Levy I haven't walked alone in a park and certainly wouldn't do errands after dark OR early morning. The current system/and changemakers don't "care" about crime victims. Not only are they not proactive, but not even reactive. Be wise and look out for Numero uno.

You’re insane.

It’s so insane that every university in the country has emergency phones all over campus and night time escort services?

If you don’t have access to an emergency phone or a night time escort, then avoiding walking alone at night time in areas where crime is a concern makes total sense.

What doesn’t make sense is to have so little regard for public safety.

Don't really see why it matters to you if I don't take any extra precautions for my own safety, though. In the (very unlikely) event that I'm mugged, how does that make your life worse?

On the one level, it does matter because we should all have an interest in keeping our community safe. If we stop being concerned for others safety and only our own, that’s not conducive to building a strong community.

In terms of your specific question, what I would in turn ask is if your focus is individualized, why do you feel it’s necessary to antagonize others who make a different choice?

I'm the PP your directly responding to but was not the PP who said it was insane to take precautions -- I think it's fine for others to make different choices. Just didn't particularly like the implication upthread that it's somehow insane if I don't suddenly start changing my own behavior.

[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:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

Nobody is arguing in favor of keeping people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of limiting people to unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of preventing people from using connections between 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

I am bemused that you think you’re smarter than a Harvard professor who is the foremost expert in the field.

[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:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

Nobody is arguing in favor of keeping people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of limiting people to unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of preventing people from using connections between 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

I am bemused that you think you’re smarter than a Harvard professor who is the foremost expert in the field.

This critique Glaeser is making seems to be at a much more abstract level than the question of "should I live in downtown Silver Spring," "is it safe in downtown Silver Spring," or even "is downtown Silver Spring pursuing smart urban planning" — that article you (or whoever) linked to is dealing with a broad concept in urban development, not with specific decisions made by specific places.

Also, even engaging with it on the level that you are, Silver Spring is not a good example of a place that's disconnected from other areas; there are very good transit and street connections to downtown D.C. and decent ones to Bethesda, and it's also easy to just walk into D.C. from there. I wouldn't really say it's an enclave whose residents are cut off from other people and/or that's cut off from other areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In college in the 90s we did "take back the night" marches and safe spaces and all that, but I was never duped that the world is actually safe..since Chandra Levy I haven't walked alone in a park and certainly wouldn't do errands after dark OR early morning. The current system/and changemakers don't "care" about crime victims. Not only are they not proactive, but not even reactive. Be wise and look out for Numero uno.

You’re insane.

Maybe but they are alive

[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:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

Nobody is arguing in favor of keeping people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of limiting people to unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of preventing people from using connections between 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

I am bemused that you think you’re smarter than a Harvard professor who is the foremost expert in the field.

Which field, specifically, is he the foremost expert in?

[Anonymous]

When I lived in DC (and then some other cities) in the 90s, I was extremely cautious about walking by myself at night. Basically, always be watching for dangers. If I saw a male or a group of males, I would cross the street. Try to stay in heavily trafficked areas, where possible. If there was an alley or obscured area that someone could be hiding in, I woudl either cross the street or, if no traffic, just walk in the street so that I would be more than a arm's length or a jump from someone at any given moment. Have keys in my hand to punch. Have a purse/bag ready to throw in the opposite direction from my running. I knew a fair numbero f people held up at gunpoint or jumped, so it didn't seem crazy.

I also lived in Bowie when they were having a lot of trouble with car-jackings in the early 00's. Again, be aware -- if it's night and parking lot is not crowded, always have at 20 ' sightline with no one in 20 ' of you.

I hate parking garages and will avoid them if at all possible, especially if they aren't heavily trafficked with lots of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame mental health not being prioritized

When has mental health ever been prioritized in the US?

I agree with both of you. I think there is also a significant uptick in the number of people with dangerous mental health problems caused by fetanyl. It's pretty well established that fentanyl can cause psychosis and permanent brain damage, and the amount of fetanyl circulating on the street is truly mind boggling. It makes the crack epidemic look like a lemonade stand compared with walmart. This sh-t is all over and its turning people into crazed zombies. Yesterday in my 10 minute walk to the metro, I passed two different women screaming really detailed obscenities at invisible people on the street. That didn't used to happen, or maybe once in a decade I'd see someone that far gone -- but now its pretty common. Sadly, I don't know that prioritizing mental health would even help these people -- I don't know if they are responsive to traditional anti-psychotics or if the etiology is too different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not changing anything. I'm at work in the daylight hours. If I didn't go do stuff after dark, I wouldn't be able to run errands on weekdays for half the year.

Same. I never considered this at all. My kids have sports practices after 5pm and in winter it's dark at that time. We drive around after dark all the time.

Sadly, this Council spends more time working to prevent you from driving your car than it does working to prevent people from stealing your car. The world is upside down.

[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:We thought about DTSS because it was so much cheaper but due to the longer commute to downtown Washington on the red line, we bit the bullet and paid 20 percent more to live somewhere else. I’m so glad we did. Our neighborhood has not been free of crime — nowhere is — but it hasn’t suffered from nearly as much violent crime as DTSS. Even if we switched jobs and DTSS was closer to our new jobs I don’t think I’d want to move there now. I know a lot of people like DTSS and aren’t bothered by the crime, and I’m glad they found a place they like. For me it’s just too much.

The people that are not bothered by the crime also seem to be the same people who support the enclavement of DTSS which results in making the neighborhood less convenient, as you deduced, and serves to increase crime. It’s unfortunate. While on an objective data basis it may not prove that your current neighborhood or DTSS are safer, the fact that you feel safer is very important and as you have also deduced, living under the constant uncertainty of how bad crime can get in that neighborhood has significant effects on your quality of life.

What is the "enclavement of DTSS"?

Leading urbanist Ed Glasser says that the “15 minute city” concept is equal to enclavement and ghettoization that reduces opportunity. This concept is being actively promoted by many in Silver Spring as the organizing principle for planning and development of Silver Spring. These same individuals have publicly balked at efforts to reduce sources of crime in the community.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/05/28/the-15-minute-city-is-a-dead-end-cities-must-be-places-of-opportunity-for-everyone/

"Leading urbanist" Ed Glaeser? Ha. Not to mention that he should be embarrassed about that blog post, which consists of arguments against things nobody is arguing for.

Is your contention, anon DCUM rando, that Harvard professor Glaeser is not one of the foremost urban economist in the U.S. and lacks expertise in this area? That’s pretty bold.

Did you read the blog post? Who is saying that people should be forced to stay within their 15-minute areas, whether or not it has what they need, and that there should be no connections between 15-minute areas? That's what he's arguing against.

That is not what is said, so you are misconstruing the point. If DTSS is determined to follow this path, there is evidence that it can lead to more crime.

15-minute city: it should be possible for people to get their daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride of their homes.
you: this will lead to more crime!

You have not addressed the specific critique of this concept by the leading urban economist in the country that directly leads to such a conclusion. Everyone is free to their own opinions, however I prefer to listen to experts.

Sure I did. His specific critiques are:

1. It's bad if you can't meet your daily necessities within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from your home but also can't get anywhere else to meet them
2. It's bad if the city overall is unconnected

However, nobody is arguing in favor of locking people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

He never said “locking people”. If you’re going to be disingenuous at least be smarter about it.

Nobody is arguing in favor of keeping people within unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of limiting people to unconnected 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.
Nobody is arguing in favor of preventing people from using connections between 15-minute areas, so those critiques aren't actually critiques.

I am bemused that you think you’re smarter than a Harvard professor who is the foremost expert in the field.

Which field, specifically, is he the foremost expert in?

I would guess that when you have a PhD, a publication record that’s almost incredible with an massively high H-index, authored the seminal book on the economic value or cities that is required reading for college students all over the country and has an endowed chair at Harvard then maybe you can be considered credible. I am not going to rule that out because anything is possible but I suggest that you get started asap because you’ve got a lot of ground to makeup. Cheers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, not changing anything. I'm at work in the daylight hours. If I didn't go do stuff after dark, I wouldn't be able to run errands on weekdays for half the year.

Same. I never considered this at all. My kids have sports practices after 5pm and in winter it's dark at that time. We drive around after dark all the time.

Sadly, this Council spends more time working to prevent you from driving your car than it does working to prevent people from stealing your car. The world is upside down.

If you judge actions by outcomes then surely they see car theft as another too to meet their objectives.

[Anonymous]

This thread is full of crazy PPs.

Wow.