10-03-2014, 11:39 PM
(10-03-2014, 09:32 AM)mboos Wrote: It's fine to disagree with TriTAG's positions, (you'll find there are some candidates on the survey we've published who do), but I'm a bit confused where the "strongarm tactics" accusation is coming from. We're open about our positions and our work, and we offered candidates the opportunity to share their own on our website without comment or endorsement.
"without comment or endorsement" is a little disingenuous. I agree that you do not comment on the responses from particular candidates, but you certainly do lay out your positions, and the implicit expectation is that you would prefer candidates who support your views to be elected.
Maybe "strongarm tactics" is not exactly the right phrase -- you do not always get your way (thank goodness) and you do not have enforcement power. But you do take a "one size fits all" approach in your walkability positions, and you have an unfortunate tendency to dismiss the concerns of people who do not follow your proposed policies. Despite the fact that Kennedy/Palmer are perfectly walkable and safe as-is, if you had your way you would force sidewalks upon the residents, because you don't want to set bad precedents. You dismiss any legitimate claims that the residents might have against sidewalks on both sides of the road with the statement "The problem is that we all need a rich and complete sidewalk network, but the temptation for "Not In My Front Yard" is strong." No doubt you will find some pretext to dismiss my commentary despite the fact that I am in exactly the demographic you are trying to protect: an occasional visitor to the area who does not live there, and gets around by bicycle or foot. (I am guessing "the plural of anecdote is not data" or "your experience is not universal" or something, but maybe you will surprise me.) You are not willing to admit that the marginal increase in safety you *might* get if you forced sidewalks on both sides of the streets in that area is more than offset by the loss of trees, which are also an important factor in walkability.
The fact is that we do not actually (or should not actually) care about sidewalks. When thinking about walkability, we should care about safety and accessibility. Palmer and Kennedy already achieve that with sidewalks on one side of the road, because the roads are not thoroughfares for motor traffic. They are extended driveways, just like all of the cul-de-sac driveways in the suburbs, except that they are straight streets. Unlike some of the other streets mentioned in Chris's blog here: http://waterloons.blogspot.ca/2014/02/fo...ewalk.html , it is trivial to cross the street at any point of the road, because they are dead quiet. They are so quiet that I would have few qualms about walking right up the centre of the street.
It is true that Kennedy is on an incline, but that has not been a problem even in the winter (and until the City either clears all sidewalks itself or seriously enforces the shoveling bylaws that is not something you can say for sidewalks).
The worst thing is that instead of making allies around this issue, you have mobilized a community against you. I certainly do not know everybody on those streets, but the few people I do know seem largely aligned with your views. But they are not very happy with your position on this issue, and I think Paul Stickney is right: TriTAG wields a lot of power in this municipality.