Urban vs Suburban Debate

General discussion on all things Omaha.

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

I think this fits here.

http://journalstar.com/news/local/artic ... fb43e.html
When Augustus Harvey drew Lincoln's first plat, streets ran from A to Z, First to 17th streets, but another street was sketched in a half-mile to the south of A Street. This was felt to be as far south as the city would ever grow. That street was named South Street.
When the University of Nebraska Board of Regents was pushed to build a dormitory, particularly for the female students, it instead found a group of individual investors who would build a residence hall. The dorm was erected on the northeast corner of 14th Street and University Place (today's U Street), but failed. The students simply refused to live that far from the university at 11th and R streets.
I think it is interesting to see how different nearly every one view development 100 years ago.
West Gate Bank's new location at 50th and O streets is called the Midtown Branch, so one wonders exactly how far from 10th and O streets is indeed "too far from downtown."
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:The end of freeways--lifeblood of the suburbs...
The end of underused highways.

The I-80's and Kennedy Freeways of the country will continue to exist. Whether things like the North Freeway remain is a different matter.
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

OmahaBen wrote:The end of underused highways.
I noticed that as well.  Essentially, a common sense, non-news story that agenda driven people will warp to convince themselves their views are correct.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Exactly right, Joe. Exactly right.  :yes:  :yes:  :yes:

:roll:

Ben, you are right, this has mostly to do with underused highways, but it also casts a shadow on the prospects of new highway construction. Sure, the infrastructure that we have should be maintained so that it can live out the duration of its natural life--but in the meantime, we are going to see a lot more investment in other mobility options and a de-emphasis on new highway construction.

Even Jonathan Barnett, urbanist guru of Pennsylvania University and WRT fame, who consulted on the original OmahaByDesign plan and study, mocked Omaha for building an elevated freeway in an era where cities are tearing them down in favor of greenways and transportation alternatives.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Even Jonathan Barnett, urbanist guru of Pennsylvania University and WRT fame, who consulted on the original OmahaByDesign plan and study, mocked Omaha for building an elevated freeway in an era where cities are tearing them down in favor of greenways and transportation alternatives.
At least we can agree on the stupidity of that.

Regarding the rest of my comment, I think it is the chicken and the egg argument.  Many cities were/are trying to build out their infrastructure to meet the future needs of their populace.  An example is all the times Omaha has looked at building an interstate loop further West of 680.  The question is:  are cities building highways that people need because of where they are living or are people following the design path set forth by cities.  Many individuals would claim that it is the latter.  They then use stories like this to try and influence cities to build for an urban-centric city, assuming the sheep will follow.  Some even go so far as to tell us this is REALLY what people want and we just need to provide it for them.  Some go even further and say that while people would want to move away from the center, they just are too ignorant to know what they really want and these individuals will show it to them.

I am of the camp that the people will go to where they want, regardless of where cities try to push people.  Most people I know want to live in an urban area when they are single and young professionals.  They then want to move out to suburbs when they have a family and then want to move back to the urban environment when they are empty-nesters.  I think what we have seen for the last 50 years seems to prove this out.  Now that we have an aging population, you are starting to see more empty-nesters want to move downtown.  

Unfortunately, this does not play out the same in every city, as their demographics can vary wildly from city to city.  For instance, you simply are not seeing the large groups of people in Omaha with a strong desire to move downtown.  In my opinion, you can build all the roads or trains that you want.  However, people will ultimately move to where they desire unless you make it painfully impossible to do so.  For instance, I have worked downtown for 11 years now, but would never want to raise my kids here.  I love being able to get home in the evening and play basketball with them in the driveway for 15 minutes.  I love being able to let them play out front for 10-20  minutes while I make dinner, knowing there is little to no traffic in the circle we live in.  I love being able to go out for a walk, as a family, after dinner without worry of lots of traffic that you see around downtown, due to all streets running straight East-West or North-South.

In short, people will ultimately move to where they want and there is NO panacea that will work for every city and every demographic.
DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9678
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by DTO Luv »

I can't wait for the day the GOP cuts transportation funding to the point that you literally can't afford to live that far away from the city, just because the roads are in shambles. Then your ancestors will have to play basketball in crowded streets full of minority-driven streetcars. Don't worry, whites will be the minority by that point so don't call the NAACP on me just yet.

Joe, at some point you have to face the fact (maybe not even in your lifetime) the way you "like" to live is either going to be unrealistic due to costs alone. I wouldn't say any city has really fixed the suburb problem: when plans for smarter growth have been introduced, implemented, and proved around the country it makes places that don't implement those plans (Omaha) look backwards; people too. I would say it's akin to those who deny climate change. "So what if it gets hot? I'll just turn the AC up? So what if my neighborhood is bigger drain on resources than 10 unwed welfare-queens with 10 kids each, I like it so why fix it?"

People's attitudes are hard to overcome, if at all possible. Choosing where you want to live is a very personal choice but your individual housing choice is subsidized in some way by everyone else. Broken record: roads, sewers, utilities blah blah blah.
DTO
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

I can't wait until we are all living in Arco's and they launch into space.  Admit it DTO, that is you end goal.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

joeglow wrote: The question is:  are cities building highways that people need because of where they are living or are people following the design path set forth by cities.
Absolutely right.

However, it's so easy for everyone to think that they live where they live because they want to live there. But why do they want what they want? And should they always be able to have what they want?

What I mean by the first point is, to what extent is the tail wagging the dog; Would you really not be able to play that quick pick-up basketball game with your kids if you lived in the city, or go on a safe enjoyable walk living in the city? Or have you been sold the idea that you can't have those things unless you live on an isolated cul-de-sac in the suburbs? I'm not saying that this applies to you, per se. But this is important to consider.

What I mean by the second point is, as more and more data become available that illuminate the negative externalities wrought on others or society as a whole by certain lifestyles, we should start to see more limitations and regulations on those lifestyles. Some of us don't see that as a scary notion.

But of course I understand how people who live such lifestyles would feel threatened and fear the loss of their way of life. This is why we hear rhetoric attacking policies to levy appropriate user fees on people who choose to live a certain way--calling them an attack on the American way of life, because obviously, their way of life is the American way.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

I have lived in urban and rural areas.  As I stated, I enjoyed living there when we were child-less.  As much as you will hate this, I would like to own a second property (a downtown condo) when the kids are gone, in addition to a property out in the country.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

DTO Luv wrote:I can't wait for the day the GOP cuts transportation funding to the point that you literally can't afford to live that far away from the city, just because the roads are in shambles. Then your ancestors will have to play basketball in crowded streets full of minority-driven streetcars. Don't worry, whites will be the minority by that point so don't call the NAACP on me just yet.
Good god, DTO...

"Momma says GOP the devil!!!"
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
joeglow wrote: The question is:  are cities building highways that people need because of where they are living or are people following the design path set forth by cities.
Absolutely right.

However, it's so easy for everyone to think that they live where they live because they want to live there. But why do they want what they want? And should they always be able to have what they want?

More than 180 years of urban development history on this continent would indicate that given transportation options and the wealth to take advantage of the options people in the United States tend to move from the urban core to the urban fringe.

Those who could afford a horse and buggy lived farther from the urban center than those who couldn't.

In the 1830s those who could afford the fare to commute by the new railways moved to suburban locations on the railway.

In the 1890's those who could afford streetcar fare moved to the streetcar suburbs (Dundee, Benson, and Florence for example).

Since the 1920s the automobile has allowed more suburban choices.

It seems the want to live outside the urban core has been around long before highway construction forced us foolish (I'm not a grad student in urban planning :sarcasm:) suburbanites to live where we do.

I do agree with 100% with joeglow that our neighborhood choices change based on stage of life. There is nothing wrong with more Omaha options: streetcars and midtown/downtown residences, light-rail to selected destinations, commuter rail to Lincoln, Fremont, etc. but that doesn't mean the expressway choices go away.
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:But why do they want what they want? And should they always be able to have what they want?
...
This is why we hear rhetoric attacking policies to levy appropriate user fees on people who choose to live a certain way--calling them an attack on the American way of life, because obviously, their way of life is the American way.
The former is a resounding yes, so long as they can legally acquire it and it doesn't impose a substantial harm on others (you have the right to own a gun, but you don't have a right to shoot your neighbor). We live in a regulated market economy for better or for worse. In general, the market suffices as an ample distributor of goods. This is especially true in areas with fierce competition, which is most consumer goods, including cars and living spaces. (areas where the market is less than effective include quasi-utilities like cable/satellite, cell phones, and internet, though much of that is due to gov't interference that is half***ed - essentially granting monopolies without regulating them as such).

Certainly government spending has an effect on making areas more or less desirable, but that has more to do with location than the actual housing choice. I've lived in an apartment (or its dorm equivalent) for the last decade, give or take. One of the biggest reasons I wanted a house was having four walls not shared with a neighbor, no condo in an urban core was going to give me that.

As to the latter, is that really any different than you wanting zero-liability laws for bikes and subsidization of bike trails and the like? Of course we all want our interests funded and say "to heck" with everyone else's desires. That's why we elect representatives to make policy choices at the various levels of government. To the extent that roads are an inherent subsidization of both automobiles and the suburbs, I'd agree, which makes people who rail against subsidization of rails without recognizing that fact somewhat hypocritical. But then, most suburbs don't get things like tax increment financing, historical improvement credits, or the like that buildings in a downtown area generally get, so there's certainly money being thrown at urban development, too. In a perfect world, the government would stay out of the way as much as possible and let the chips fall where they may. But this being the real world, that isn't going to happen. as to what amount of spending gets thrown in what direction, though, those are policy differences, and not something that makes either position inherently right or wrong.

You're arguing the suburbs are overly influenced by the government, I disagree to the extent that most people don't like being crammed in like sardines given the option. I grew up in the District 66 area, moved to the west burbs in junior high, went to college in a town of 10,000 along the Appalachian Trail, spent a semester living in Greenwich Village during an internship. I've covered pretty much everything short of living on a farm, and I'm much happier having a house with a yard than I was living in an apartment in Manhattan.

That people prefer to spread out given the option should neither be a shock nor be deemed morally wrong in and of itself. Humans are social creatures but they also like their peace and quiet; funnily enough, suburbs generally give them a mix of both. Consequently, the solution shouldn't be to force everyone back together in an urban core, but to eliminate some of the negatives of spreading out - better planned burbs, cleaner transportation options (which could still include individual motorized vehicles, they'll just probably run on something other than gasoline in 50 years), etc.

Essentially, Streets, I'm saying the issue isn't really your desire for more bike paths or better mass transit, but your next step which implies that people shouldn't be able to live in the burbs even if that's what they want. You're like a lefty version of Scott Walker in that you take what could be a good idea but do a huge overreach and take it too far. The moderate majority are first and foremost pragmatists. We generally like things the way they are, but know they're not perfect and are willing to try to change to make them better. Just don't change too much too quickly (in either direction) or we'll get upset and go with the other side to punish you (until they likewise overreach).
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

joeglow wrote:As much as you will hate this, I would like to own a second property (a downtown condo) when the kids are gone, in addition to a property out in the country.
Why would I hate that? That's ultimately my goal, too: a place in the city and a place in the country.

Joe and mrdwhsr, I'm not arguing against your choices. If you have lived in the city and in the suburbs and ultimately decided on the suburbs to raise kids, that's fine--but not everybody would choose to do so. Furthermore, to the extent that your choice makes the foregone choice less possible for those who would choose it, its price tag should be reflective of that.

mrdwhsr, good points about the history of cities. That's exactly what I studied, in high detail, during my first semester of grad school. But you have to ask, why were people leaving cities during that time? Urban areas today are vastly different than the industrial cities of the 19th Century: The streets aren't full of horse |expletive| and disease, there generally aren't factories spewing toxic chemicals in downtowns anymore, etc. etc. Not even bringing class and race into the equation, these are the "urban problems" from which people were fleeing.

There's not some inherent flaw to city living--if there were, other urban centers would not have continued to concentrate and centralize during the same periods of American city-desertion given the same technologies.

Ben, I'm looking forward to reading your comment, but it'll need to wait until I can dedicate just time to reading and analyzing it.
Last edited by StreetsOfOmaha on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

OmahaBen wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:But why do they want what they want? And should they always be able to have what they want?
...
This is why we hear rhetoric attacking policies to levy appropriate user fees on people who choose to live a certain way--calling them an attack on the American way of life, because obviously, their way of life is the American way.
The former is a resounding yes, so long as they can legally acquire it and it doesn't impose a substantial harm on others (you have the right to own a gun, but you don't have a right to shoot your neighbor).
Exactly. You've restated my point. People should be allowed to do whatever they want, with those conditions.

I'm not going to argue economics with you, and I think there is a fare amount that we agree upon.

Where am I taking this too far? See my last post and others. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't have the right to a suburban house with a yard. heck, I would be more happy in a house with a yard than living in Manhattan.

And in terms of suburbs being market-driven, I wholly disagree--with history and facts on my side. The suburbs WOULD NOT have happened, at least not as we have come to know them, without the policies put in place by the US government in the first half and middle of the 20th Century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_of_1949
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

S33 wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:I can't wait for the day the GOP cuts transportation funding to the point that you literally can't afford to live that far away from the city, just because the roads are in shambles. Then your ancestors will have to play basketball in crowded streets full of minority-driven streetcars. Don't worry, whites will be the minority by that point so don't call the NAACP on me just yet.
Good god, DTO...

"Momma says GOP the devil!!!"
There's lots of things his momma says be the devil.  The GOP ain't one, sugah.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Big E wrote:
S33 wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:I can't wait for the day the GOP cuts transportation funding to the point that you literally can't afford to live that far away from the city, just because the roads are in shambles. Then your ancestors will have to play basketball in crowded streets full of minority-driven streetcars. Don't worry, whites will be the minority by that point so don't call the NAACP on me just yet.
Good god, DTO...

"Momma says GOP the devil!!!"
There's lots of things his momma says be the devil.  The GOP ain't one, sugah.
Yeah, I kind of forgot about that.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote: Why would I hate that? That's ultimately my goal, too: a place in the city and a place in the country.
:shock:

Just make sure you wait to buy that country home until after you and your like-minded cronies make it as expensive as possible to live beyond the urban core  - that's your goal, right? I'm sure owning multiple residencies contribute nothing to sprawl or the added need for expensive infrastructure in low-density places.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

S3, you've exhibited the classic example of confusing "country" living with "suburban" living.

And your assumptions about me continue to grow wilder and wilder.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:S3, you've exhibited the classic example of confusing "country" living with "suburban" living.
I grew up in the country, lived 6 years or so in the suburbs, and 2 years in an "urban" environment. I know the differences, and country living isn't exactly "efficient", so don't even try to BS your way through this one.

And your assumptions about me continue to grow wilder and wilder.
Hurry, you're about to miss 1-O'clock's exaggeration class.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Oh my god. You're out of control. Again I ask, what are you even talking about anymore? You just love spewing completely unprovoked nonsense.

Country living not efficient? Yeah, if you're commuting into a city everyday. What about growing your own food and doing your best to "live off the grid". What about living in walking or bicycling distance to a town with access to local food, goods, and services? Sure, you'd probably have to own a car, but that doesn't mean you have to use it every day, or even every week.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Oh my god. You're out of control. Again I ask, what are you even talking about anymore? You just love spewing completely unprovoked nonsense.
No, I make perfect sense, you just like to claim that I'm not so you don't actually have to respond with anything civil or relevant. Wait, let me guess, this was out of control, too?
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Country living not efficient? Yeah, if you're commuting into a city everyday. What about growing your own food and doing your best to "live off the grid". What about living in walking or bicycling distance to a town with access to local food, goods, and services? Sure, you'd probably have to own a car, but that doesn't mean you have to use it every day, or even every week.
K, but make sure you cr-ap into a hole in your backyard and bury it everyday. Fyi, my family, essentially, does just that - or as much as a reasonable person in 2011 without spending tens of thousands of dollars to do it.

SO yes, I get that part. However, I can't imagine having two homes, one in the city, the other in the country, and not commuting regularly... I do love how you can adapt your ideals when your personal wants need to be addressed, though.

And unless you plan to borrow Michael J Fox's hover-board, you better expect to pay your fair and equal share of infrastructure costs to support your duel residencies.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

What ideals am I adapting? I don't live inside a box that you've created.

Yes, I'll be sure to pay the extra infrastructure costs of a tiny, 100 year-old farmhouse with a dirt road leading to it. But to the extent that I would potentially own an automobile, drive on public roads, consume fuel, etc., of course I would pay the appropriate costs if being able to live in the peace and serenity of the country is worth it to me.

Anyway, this is really just a retirement scenario/fantasy. Get off my back dude. Again, you just love poking at me and pointing to hypocrisy that doesn't exist.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Really, lets have an honest discussion without the usual cr-ap.

I want to know just how you think country living is more practical/sustainable/or whatever, than the suburbs. Especially with the absence, for the most part, of decent amounts of commerce-driven tax receipts, extremely low density in comparison to miles of roadways, drainage systems and ditches, bridges, etc., needed to keep those areas accessible to the modern world and relatively low-incomes (well below national average), therefore having much less economic contribution from residents...

As far as going off the grid, living like Ed Begley and creating some sort of hippie retreat that is only accessible on horseback, then kudos to you. No secret here, I plan to do the same, but more so under the justification of not really giving a |expletive| about what anyone thinks rather than claiming to have little to no economic or environmental impact.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Country living isn't inherently more efficient or environmentally friendly; It's the effort to be self sustaining which, though it can be attempted anywhere, is very conducive to country living.

If/when I do this, it will be both out of not giving a |expletive| what anybody thinks and an effort to have little or no impact on the environment.

Anyway, as I said, it's more of a fantasy at this point.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Country living not efficient? Yeah, if you're commuting into a city everyday. What about growing your own food and doing your best to "live off the grid". What about living in walking or bicycling distance to a town with access to local food, goods, and services? Sure, you'd probably have to own a car, but that doesn't mean you have to use it every day, or even every week.
Streets, really? So country living = sustainable. urban living = sustainable. mix the two (suburban) and all of a sudden it's not?

Everything that you've said is bad about suburban living goes double for country living.

I wouldn't be as abrasive about it as S33 is, but he's got a tremendous point. Country living is far less efficient than even suburbia. It's necessary to the extent we need farmers and people to repair highways like I-76 and whatnot, but you cannot seriously say that living out in Cherry County is somehow better than living in Millard.

The only way that even comes close to making sense is if you are truly and completely off-the-grid, but by that I'm not just saying the electric grid, but the entire societal grid of the USA. That also means no mail service, no emergency services, no gov't provided roads to the nearest town, growing your own food with nothing shipped in from elsewhere, etc.

Likewise, if you live within biking distance of the nearest town for food, then you're no different than living in a suburb and being within biking distance of lots of food options. Except it takes less effort to ship said goods to the suburbs than a rural town, just as it's more efficient to get goods into an urban center than it is the various suburbs.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

A person can argue a point on this forum without being abrasive? How about that...
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

S33 wrote:A person can argue a point on this forum without being abrasive? How about that...
Not in this day and age...  

You can't put toys in happy meals
You can't give a kid an F in school
You can't give a kid a spanking
You can't use a Dead End sign
And on and on and on!

We are living in an age of wimps!
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

We are living in an age of wimps!
Society needs more fat kids like this  lol

[youtube][/youtube]
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105418
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Post by almighty_tuna »

Brad wrote:You can't use a Dead End sign
Huh?!
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

They are all PC now...  They are either "No Outlet" or "Not a through Street"
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105418
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Post by almighty_tuna »

ahhh...never looked at it that way.  So having "slow children" is better than "dead ends"?  ;)
OmahaBen
Human Relations
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:38 pm

Post by OmahaBen »

Brad wrote:
S33 wrote:A person can argue a point on this forum without being abrasive? How about that...
Not in this day and age...  

You can't put toys in happy meals
You can't give a kid an F in school
You can't give a kid a spanking
You can't use a Dead End sign
And on and on and on!

We are living in an age of wimps!
The NCAA calls an overtime period that ends upon the first score "Sudden Victory" rather than "Sudden Death" (except in the ice hockey rulebook, which I'm sure will be updated the next go around to comply)
DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9678
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by DTO Luv »

Brad wrote: You can't give a kid a spanking
:roll: Oh it's so terrible I'm not good enough of a parent or human being that I have to use violence on a child to get my point across. :barf:

But go on, suburbs... urbs...
DTO
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

Once again you cherry pick one little thing out of general comment to nitpick.  May be that was a bad example, but

My point was... we keep babying everyone and no one grows up with the ability to handle adversity anymore.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Go to your local Wal-Mart, it may change your mind about spanking children.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

S33 wrote:Go to your local Wal-Mart, it may change your mind about spanking children.
Yeah, the one on 72nd Pacific....  I would rather pay double than deal with that place.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Brad wrote:
S33 wrote:Go to your local Wal-Mart, it may change your mind about spanking children.
Yeah, the one on 72nd Pacific....  I would rather pay double than deal with that place.
I'm not sure it could be any worse than the Council Bluffs Wal-Mart...man, it's pretty bad. My dad calls those people "WalMartians"
User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Post by Omababe »

S33 wrote:My dad calls those people "WalMartians"
In case anybody has not seen it ...

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

Speaking of WalMartians...  "Take me to the Rive" by talking heads just came on and all I can think about is that stupid singing fish that all WalMartians have proudly displayed in their residence.
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

DTO Luv wrote:
Brad wrote: You can't give a kid a spanking
:roll: Oh it's so terrible I'm not good enough of a parent or human being that I have to use violence on a child to get my point across. :barf:

But go on, suburbs... urbs...
How many kids do you have?

Spanking is something I RARELY use and, even then, it is hard enough to grab their attention, but not hard enough to cause any pain.  I don't do it on my 8 year old because he is now capable of some level of reasoning.
Post Reply