Budget: Omaha Golf Courses

The Political decisions of Omaha.

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

User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Big E wrote:Let's also conveniently overlook the fact that it took massive lobbying from the auto industry, four-decades and half a trillion (inflation adjusted) dollars from the feds to implement the national highway system which made the free-market supported, privately owned mass transit systems of pre-WW2 obsolete.
Lol, umm no. Market demand, military need and a world war pretty much solidified the car nation. At per capita, lobbying wasn't out of the norm. Americans loved their cars, average citizens to politicians alike, lobbyists weren't fueling the industry.

Streets, I'm still waiting to be enlightened about your thoughts on rural travel in an auto-free world. =-)
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Big E is right on.
"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:Big E is right on.
Lmao! Is that so, Streets? Any more knowledge you'd like to share on the subject?
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Well, no not in this case. Just that Big E is right on.
"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:Well, no not in this case. Just that Big E is right on.
Well everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

I'm still very interested to here the solutions to rural travel in an auto-free utopia.
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Post by Seth »

I really don't want to be simply another contributor to further derailing this thread, but I feel the need to step in with a voice of moderation.

I don't think anyone can honestly expect cars to be completely unnecessary in the future, particularly in rural areas.  It's just as wrong to assume that cars are inherently bad as it is to assume they are the only practical and viable option for human transport.  Our transportation problems due not exist because cars exist, but simply because we have become excessively dependent on them.  Personal automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles are a perfect for far-flung rural populations and as new technologies such as hybrid and electric (I'm not so optimistic regarding the fuel-cell and hydrogen pipe-dreams) power systems develop, they will continue to be a practical and efficient solution.

The fact is, however, that only about 20% of the US population lives in rural areas: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm .  This leaves the other 80% of us in the position to have a balanced inventory of transportation solutions, where mass transit can be more efficient and sustainable.

Personally, I feel that the two main reasons we are so dependent on cars, even in urbanized areas: 1) we have become so accustomed to to personal cars that it is difficult to imagine another options, and 2) our short-sighted next-election focused political systems favors auto transport and highways because it does not require the degree of long-term planning and community effort that mass transit does.  We hardly keep up with the traffic congestion on current highway projects, yet countries like China are planning rail systems that will efficiently serve the population for the next 75 years.
ricko
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:54 pm

Post by ricko »

Well said. I also think that people who feel threatened by the idea of mass transit as part of the mix have never lived in a city where it is considered the norm.  The idea is too foreign.
ricko
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:54 pm

Post by ricko »

Well said. I also think that people who feel threatened by the idea of mass transit as part of the mix have never lived in a city where it is considered the norm.  The idea is too foreign.
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

When you have 3 kids, have to take them to multiple schools, have sporting events, Scouts and other activities in multiple places within 15 minutes of each other, public transportation is not an option.  When I need to take a kid to an unplanned visit at the Doctor and then to Children's for x-rays (as my wife did yesterday) public transportation if not an option.  When you don't want to spend half your life traveling when you could otherwise take care of it yourself, it won't work.

However, when all you know is that of a twenty-something single person, I understand how you can be so lazy and arrogant to possess a complete and utter lack of understanding as to what other people may need in their lives.
User avatar
nebugeater
City Council
Posts: 108879
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Gretna NE

Post by nebugeater »

nebugeater wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
S33 wrote:I also realize you hate the rural population, but I'm doubting horse and buggy are an acceptable status quo regardless of how uncultured and barbaric you may think they are.


Anyway, if you can't see past your nose to know that there are other options for rural transportation, then it's no use for me to try to make a blind man see by responding to you on this forum.

OK, humor me and expand on what there is that is acceptable to you.  I am just curious?

Streets,

Do you have any thoughts on what can work?  really would like to hear them.
For the record  NEBUGEATER does not equal BUGEATER    !!!!!!!
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

ricko wrote:Well said. I also think that people who feel threatened by the idea of mass transit as part of the mix have never lived in a city where it is considered the norm.  The idea is too foreign.
From everything I've noticed since I joined this forum a couple years ago, not a single person here is threatened by public transportation. I may be one of the more vocal opponents to some of the absurd notions that individual transportation will be a thing of the past, but only because I know it's over the top, ridiculously stupid.

However, we have all pointed out the need for better public transit many, many times.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Basically, I see the "hub-and-spoke" model used by many urban public transit systems as a microcosm for what could be applied in rural areas. The small towns and municipalities of a rural region could organize a shuttle service that feeds a larger town in that region, which would have bus and rail connections to larger, regional cities. Depending on how it's organized, it could even be set up where one could call and arrange a pick-up, benefiting those who live well outside of town on farms, ranches, etc.

The point of this being to decrease reliance upon cars to get where you're going. As Seth mentioned, private means of travel will likely not disappear in rural areas, but even if families could drive from their farm into town where they could "park and ride", that would be a major improvement.

Of course, all of this means nothing if you don't accept the premise that car-dependence (not necessarily cars themselves) and the amount of land subsidized to accommodate it is inherently bad, as some of you don't.
"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:Of course, all of this means nothing if you don't accept the premise that car-dependence (not necessarily cars themselves) and the amount of land subsidized to accommodate it is inherently bad, as some of you don't.
-I find every study that supports that position highly suspect.
User avatar
OmahaJaysCU
Planning Board
Posts: 2164
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:00 pm

Post by OmahaJaysCU »

joeglow wrote:THis is why politics sucks:  build and support the sh*t I want, but the |expletive| you want is unnecessary and a waste.

You mean I cannot walk on the floor of the Qwest whenever I want?  THat is BS and a waste of money.
Streets as an avid golfer I am curious as to what your response would be to that.  I can't just walk around the outfield at Rosenblatt either.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

I guess I would just say that those are major civic facilities... not golf courses.
"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:I guess I would just say that those are major civic facilities... not golf courses.
How do you define a "major civic facility?"  Something that operates in the red and is what YOU want?
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

I'm pretty sure you understand what I mean by a "major civic facility". If you don't see the difference in economic impact, civic image, etc. between the Qwest or TD Ameritrade Park and Elmwood Park Golf Course... I don't know if I can help you.
"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:I'm pretty sure you understand what I mean by a "major civic facility". If you don't see the difference in economic impact, civic image, etc. between the Qwest or TD Ameritrade Park and Elmwood Park Golf Course... I don't know if I can help you.
So, using your logic of "economic impact" pools, golf courses, etc. SHOULD be provided by the city.  Look at the "best places to live" criteria and items people look for in a community.  Thanks for finally proving my point.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

There is no reason the golf courses shouldn't be self sufficient.  Some how, I think they could almost support the pools if it was all ran right.
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

Brad wrote:There is no reason the golf courses shouldn't be self sufficient.  Some how, I think they could almost support the pools if it was all ran right.
Back when I worked for Spring Lake, they did fund the pools.  I know they still operate in the black.  However, it would not shock me if the could fund the pools, but they need to use that money elsewhere to fund actual government functions, so they just take it from the pools.
Post Reply