Diane Davis has some great questions about the so-called Greenway. The bottom line is that certain perceptions have been created, but the reality may be a bit different.
I think Diane's questions should be answered objectively by someone in a position to do so.
I think Sue kind of nailed it:
http://sue.polinsky.com/?p=5758
Posted by: cm | March 09, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Michele, I think we have to differentiate between truly objective sources of information, vs. sources that engage in boosterism and advocacy. And I am not referring to Sue, but rather to the links she provided.
One of those links, however, reminded me of how voters were hoodwinked into supporting the greenway by placing it on a street improvement bond.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 09, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Regardless of the objectivity of sources, this whole greenway thing's been talked to death for a long time now. Seems a little late for questions. (As Sue points out, rather well.)
Wisdom says pay the mortgage and utility bills and buy groceries first, and then buy new shoes if there's money left over. Or opera tickets. Or whatever. But Greensboro's not that kind of town, apparently. Again, though, that's an argument you'd want to make a little earlier in the process. One might think.
Posted by: cm | March 10, 2009 at 12:43 AM
We did make the argument earlier, but Robbie Perkins wanted this and was damned well going to get it by hook or crook. so as Joe said they put it in the Street Improvement Bond and naturally are going to do it before they improve any streets! BB
Posted by: Brenda Bowers | March 10, 2009 at 02:16 AM
Brenda, there were definitely some forces behind the scenes that made this happen. Major new proposals such as this generally do not move without influential folks advocating for it.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 10, 2009 at 07:05 AM
Dianne raises some legitimate questions, the answers to which someone may know, but are not publicly available.
The Greenway discussion is not over. There will be the need to raise additional funds, almost certainly to include another gulp at the public trough. The Greenway has its merits. Rather than dismissing Dianne's questions, they should be used by Greenway promoters to create a publicly available FAQ.
Posted by: Roch101 | March 10, 2009 at 08:58 AM
Roch, that would be a good thing. But there are some folks skeptical about the concept of greenways-- for instance, the folks at the JLF-. And perhaps an objective look by folks who maintain a skeptical outlook, drawing from certain wells of expertise, may come to different conclusions than the promoters.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 10, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Fair enough, Joe. I'm all for a face off on the facts. As I said over at Sue's, proponents do themselves no favor when they overreach in explaining the Greenway's benefits, it's just sending easy pitches over the plate for opponents. The Greenway is not an alternate transportation alternative, for example.
Posted by: Roch101 | March 10, 2009 at 10:37 AM
You are right about that, Roch. Placing the project on a street improvement bond was a prime example of what Jerry Bledsoe was describing-- and what you also have described-- about Greensboro embodying an overall political lie.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 10, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Yes, Joe. It is systemic. There are various descriptions for it, Jerry calls us the city of the lie, Joel Gillespie says we are a city of small people -- it's all the same problem, a genteel acceptance of mediocrity; people too insecure to say "my side" is wrong on this point; or "Yes, that is a valid objection;" or "I made a mistake on this." The result is that each new generation of leaders in Greensboro end up chained to a confederacy of mendacity.
Posted by: Roch101 | March 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Roch, I apologize, I didn't mean to be dismissive of Diane's questions. She asked good questions. I realized after reading your comments that I've come to expect that you can ask questions and protest, but in the end, certain groups of people in this town run the show, and they're going to do what they want to do, regardless. And yes, there's a name for what I'm feeling: apathy. That's not good.
Posted by: cm | March 10, 2009 at 11:26 AM
CM, that better be temporary. Just because schmucks are running things now doesn't mean that they always will.
Posted by: Roch101 | March 10, 2009 at 05:04 PM
"Just because schmucks are running things now doesn't mean that they always will."
I hope you're right. [Sigh.]
Posted by: cm | March 10, 2009 at 07:48 PM
Have you thought about running for city council, CM?
Posted by: Roch101 | March 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Did anyone read my answer to some of these comments?
I posted an update on my blog at:greensboropeerpressure.blogspot.com
Posted by: diane | March 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Diane, that post is here:
http://greensboropeerpressure.blogspot.com/2009/03/by-those-who-follow-leader.html
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 11, 2009 at 01:23 PM
Cross-posted from Diane's blog:
Ah, but Sue suggests that the cheerleaders of our Greenway shouldn't have to provide anything like a cost/benefit/usage analysis.
Why?
Because they know such a study (assuming no built-in bias toward the project) would show minimum benefit to the taxpayers who are expected to foot the bill, and an exorbitant cost per actual user.
Along with the political dishonesty of labeling the Greenway a "transportation issue" and placing it on a bond referendum as such, is it any wonder that many of us refuse to go along with the "business as usual" crowd on this point?
http://greensboropeerpressure.blogspot.com/2009/03/by-those-who-follow-leader.html
It's also worth noting how our chief local Greenway blahger cheerleader handles herself on this issue. Her comments speak for themselves.
http://sue.polinsky.com/?p=5758
Posted by: Bubba | March 11, 2009 at 01:47 PM
roch, i'd rather eat bees. ;)
Posted by: cm | March 11, 2009 at 02:02 PM