I would argue that the guy with the small truck is there to do a job for someone, and you’d be utterly fucked if you had a burst pipe and he wasn’t allowed to drive in the city. They are the one exception to the rule
The guy with the big truck most likely just uses it to make up for his micropenis, right enough
you’d be utterly fucked if you had a burst pipe and he wasn’t allowed to drive in the city.
Who said anything about not being allowed to drive? He can drive wherever he likes; I’m just saying we shouldn’t fuck up the street building the parking spaces. Where he parks the thing should be his own problem (or his client’s landlord’s problem, as the case may be), not imposed on the public.
It may seem like I’m nitpicking, but that distinction is really important. There is an oddly pervasive issue in urbanism debates where the car-brains and the NIMBYs make a habit of trying to frame the issues precisely ass-backwards. For example, you suggest abolishing restrictions on zoning – literally removing government regulations – and they call you a “big government communist.” Or you talk about adding extra ways to get around by improving bike and ped infrastructure, and they accuse you of trying to take away their freedom to drive.
Or, as in this case, you talk about simply not bending over backwards to make special extra accommodations for cars (i.e. not spending public resources – both money and space – to build parking spaces), and it gets misconstrued as proposing banning driving. I’m not saying you’re a car-brain or a NIMBY, but I’m just saying it’s apparently real easy for people to slip into that Bizarro-World mindset and it needs to be called out when it happens.
I would argue that the guy with the small truck is there to do a job for someone, and you’d be utterly fucked if you had a burst pipe and he wasn’t allowed to drive in the city. They are the one exception to the rule
The guy with the big truck most likely just uses it to make up for his micropenis, right enough
Who said anything about not being allowed to drive? He can drive wherever he likes; I’m just saying we shouldn’t fuck up the street building the parking spaces. Where he parks the thing should be his own problem (or his client’s landlord’s problem, as the case may be), not imposed on the public.
It may seem like I’m nitpicking, but that distinction is really important. There is an oddly pervasive issue in urbanism debates where the car-brains and the NIMBYs make a habit of trying to frame the issues precisely ass-backwards. For example, you suggest abolishing restrictions on zoning – literally removing government regulations – and they call you a “big government communist.” Or you talk about adding extra ways to get around by improving bike and ped infrastructure, and they accuse you of trying to take away their freedom to drive.
Or, as in this case, you talk about simply not bending over backwards to make special extra accommodations for cars (i.e. not spending public resources – both money and space – to build parking spaces), and it gets misconstrued as proposing banning driving. I’m not saying you’re a car-brain or a NIMBY, but I’m just saying it’s apparently real easy for people to slip into that Bizarro-World mindset and it needs to be called out when it happens.