My own two-wheeled notable to report: Friday was my first bike commute day since knee injury, and it didn't go badly! Yay!
(Saturday informed me I should not have tried to do the whole 15-mile r/t on my first day back, but at the time riding was too nice to cut myself off and transition to the bus. /shrug )
If your kid needs a midnight ER run for croupy breathing difficulty, know that they'll get good steroids and come home happy as a clam in short order.
...Know also that they'll be high as a kite the next day, and the combo of no school, 'roid rage, and too cold to go outside is bonkers.
So, movie and popcorn time it is. (OG Mary Poppins)
My other concern is that the end result looks the same either way to me, and the 100 corps narrative distances the solution from the humans affected.
For ex, we need to reduce driving of motor vehicles, esp single-occupant ones. If we start from asking/understanding why individuals drive so much, we're more likely to achieve the outcome in a way that supports those individuals' mobility needs, where if we start from "it's Exxon's fault, kill oil", we risk leaving people stranded w/o options.
This narrative bugs me, and I'm looking to understand why it shouldn't.
Part of my objection is that it seems most often to be presented as a balm -- don't worry, you don't have to turn out the lights / drive less / eat lower on the food chain, because climate change isn't your fault -- rather than as an actual strategy. And in that sense, it's presented in opposition primarily to people who are proposing concrete individual/aggregate actions.
See also Allen Park, Hazel Park, Oak Park, Wayne -- a little more pricey, but still generally move in for under $150k in neighbs at least as walkable / bikeable as 75% of A2.
Yes, A2's job concentration means it has a much higher share of non-driving commutes (and 70% of commutes are < 10 miles so could be non-driving), but that's not reason to dismiss other places as lost causes for sustainable urbanism.
legislation / affordable housing
Lack of this explicit enabling had been preventing (at least) A2, Ypsi, Grand Rapids, and Traverse City from enacting programs, and cast a shadow on Detroit and Ferndale's programs, based on an interpretation of the state's rent control prohibition.
"Voluntary" will perhaps cause some people concern, but (to borrow words from a colleague in GR) "voluntary means the developer can choose not to take the incentives if they don't want to include affordable housing."
legislation / affordable housing
In better lame duck news, SB110 is now Public Act 585 of 2018, explicitly enabling,
"a local governmental unit to adopt an ordinance or resolution to implement a plan to use voluntary incentives and agreements to increase the supply of moderate- or low-cost private residential property available for lease."
...which means cities can now tie affordable housing reqs to various development incentives.
residential solar panel taxation
Okay, of all the things for snyder to veto on his way out, this was one of his choices?
Happy public domain day! https://law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2019/
some A2-relevant good news coming out of lame duck -- looks like the Senate (unanimously!) passed the legislation clarifying residential solar as property tax exempt earlier today (had already passed house). Also, the bills enabling cities to require affordable housing in developments using public incentives passed earlier this week.
Hi there! A2mi.social is a Mastodon community intended for people living/working/studying in and around Ann Arbor (including Ypsi and elsewhere!) and their friends. Please read more about this community here, including this site's rules and other important information.