7 ms·

This is unquestionably not a "fantastic deal for Chicago and its taxpayers". Did you read the article or just do a brain-dead interest calculation? The deal fo

by ydc123 3y ago

This is unquestionably not a "fantastic deal for Chicago and its taxpayers". Did you read the article or just do a brain-dead interest calculation? The deal forces the city to remain car-dependent, which is absolutely not in the best interest of the people. We should be moving away from cars and making things friendlier for pedestrians, cyclists, public transit and ride-sharing, not just for the climate but for the safety and the health of the city overall.

WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago
[dead]
didgeoridoo 3y ago
Yikes. Honest mistake. Try to be civil on this forum please, this doesn’t add anything to the conversation.
- ydc123 3y ago
  Calling this a "fantastic deal" is the opposite of civil. The article literally has "disaster" in the title and goes into excruciating detail about how damaging it has been to the city.
  - didgeoridoo 3y ago
    I’m sorry you’re so angry about this, but direct personal attacks are in a different category from commentary on an article. It’s generally not considered “uncivil” to question the premise of a headline. Calling another commenter “brain dead”, however, is not acceptable here.
    - ydc123 3y ago
      You didn't "question the premise", you disregarded the content of the article and why it was written. Doing this opens yourself up to criticism.
      - didgeoridoo 3y ago
        I’m not sure where you’re used to commenting online, but here criticism and personal attacks are different things. As you can see above, naturalauction criticized my comment, identifying a mistake in my approach. You attacked me personally and gave rise to an incredibly boring thread that I hope for everyone else’s sake ends up [dead]. I’m done here.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
Who is deciding what is in the best interest of "the people?" Motor vehicles are an absolute necessity in the United States, both for economic and personal reasons. If people didn't need cars, they wouldn't buy them. Mass transit will never be able to replace motor vehicles, and trying to shoe-horn an wholly ideologically-driven agenda will blow up in everyone's faces spectacularly.
- ydc123 3y ago
  I agree with everything above minus the last part. Bikes, walking, and mass transit can (and should) absolutely replace car usage if the infrastructure is there to support it. This has been proven in many European cities, Americans are just stubborn and carpilled.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    So the double amputee with no feet is going to bike to go food shopping? America isn't Europe. We have spaces between places and are not packed in like sardines.
- Tactician_mark 3y ago
  > If people didn't need cars, they wouldn't buy them. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. US cities have spent billions on highways and parking and rewrote ordinances to require low density, car-dependent development. You could argue all of that is an honest reflection of voter desires (or at least voter desires of 40 years ago, when most of that stuff happened), but many have undoubtedly bought a car because their environment was designed that way.

by ydc123 3y ago

WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago

[dead]

didgeoridoo 3y ago

Yikes. Honest mistake. Try to be civil on this forum please, this doesn’t add anything to the conversation.

ydc123 3y ago
Calling this a "fantastic deal" is the opposite of civil. The article literally has "disaster" in the title and goes into excruciating detail about how damaging it has been to the city.
- didgeoridoo 3y ago
  I’m sorry you’re so angry about this, but direct personal attacks are in a different category from commentary on an article. It’s generally not considered “uncivil” to question the premise of a headline. Calling another commenter “brain dead”, however, is not acceptable here.
  - ydc123 3y ago
    You didn't "question the premise", you disregarded the content of the article and why it was written. Doing this opens yourself up to criticism.
    - didgeoridoo 3y ago
      I’m not sure where you’re used to commenting online, but here criticism and personal attacks are different things. As you can see above, naturalauction criticized my comment, identifying a mistake in my approach. You attacked me personally and gave rise to an incredibly boring thread that I hope for everyone else’s sake ends up [dead]. I’m done here.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

Who is deciding what is in the best interest of "the people?" Motor vehicles are an absolute necessity in the United States, both for economic and personal reasons. If people didn't need cars, they wouldn't buy them. Mass transit will never be able to replace motor vehicles, and trying to shoe-horn an wholly ideologically-driven agenda will blow up in everyone's faces spectacularly.

ydc123 3y ago
I agree with everything above minus the last part. Bikes, walking, and mass transit can (and should) absolutely replace car usage if the infrastructure is there to support it. This has been proven in many European cities, Americans are just stubborn and carpilled.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  So the double amputee with no feet is going to bike to go food shopping? America isn't Europe. We have spaces between places and are not packed in like sardines.
Tactician_mark 3y ago
> If people didn't need cars, they wouldn't buy them. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. US cities have spent billions on highways and parking and rewrote ordinances to require low density, car-dependent development. You could argue all of that is an honest reflection of voter desires (or at least voter desires of 40 years ago, when most of that stuff happened), but many have undoubtedly bought a car because their environment was designed that way.