EPA and revitalize auto industry is obviously a conflict of interest.

I don’t think it is ridiculous that an older person should move to have their needs met. That is pretty much the entire point of retirement homes and communities, they are more centered around the needs of seniors. You also hear people talk about “this will be ny retirement home” which is often a much smaller place than they would have had before.

I won’t deny there are many other costs related to moving and the whole retirement home business has been getting exploitative but historically moving was actually a really good solution to her issues.

I think its just best that we don’t force people who don’t want or can’t handle the responsibility of rasing a child into raising a child. People generally are not good at things they don’t want to do and being a parent is a pretty important job that often lasts for life.

Republicans all care about life and babies until it comes time to give time off to raise the kids, provide welfare programs for poor families, provide schools with lunches. Can’t kill a fetus in the womb but they dont give a fuck if the child starves at 5.

First it was ontario is open for business, under pierre all of Canada will be “open for business”. They would sell every ounce of Canadian fresh water to just to watch a dozen people get rich.

As a Canadian who has watched our politics slowly try to mimic America’s, I’m terrfieid. As it is our conservative provincial premier is ripping out bike lanes on city streets that have apartments being built right now that offers significantly more bike parking than car parking. Its backwards progress, a signifcant amount of the lanes were just built and now we gotta spend more money ripping them out because some fat conservative feels offended he is too unfit to cycle.

I think people should have some responsibility for the emissions of their investments. If I’m exclusively investing in fossil fuel companies I’d be directly investing in emitting carbon. In the case of the billionaire class, some companies would have never attempted certain projects or even stayed in business without their billionaire supporters. They may have even been able to take losses and coast on investments while they grab their share of the market then shift to being more profitable.

The manipulation some billionaires do with their money is insane. Jeff Bezos managed to shuffle his assets and investments around just right one year that he was “poor enough” income wise to collect a tax benefit for his kid. We absolutely need to include investments when we are judging billionaires, it is often their investments that keep them rich, not some massive pile of cash or gold stashed away somewhere.

The power their money has when invested is far different than yours or mine. They could single handedly ensure certain companies do not fail, get specific contracts, bypass regulations and many other shady things.

A lot of them aren’t given the problem of planning a city, its more like" hey this road is busy, design a bigger road since its so busy". But then their superiors belittle and threaten to fire them if they recomend building a tram line instead of 6+ lanes of car traffic. “The tram line isn’t by the book”, “we aren’t some experiemental urbanist city” or “the projected level of car service isn’t adeqaute for our predicted car traffic using models where the only transport option is driving”

Well to win, the jeep would have to be running, so most would be disqualified before the match even starts. If the ref is feeling nice they can allow up to 3 attempts to start the jeep.

This is where im blessed, my body very very rarely bruises so most people have no idea how clumsy I am on a daily basis.

It wouldn’t be as much a problem if there we dedicted lanes for mopeds and other similarly sized vehicles.

What would your solution for a blind peron be in this car dependant world? Having multiple transportation options is the most fair system. Right now in many places the car is the only option.

The city could at least communicate with the development plans and purchase the required land for public stops. The city could mandate certain developments require this kind of transit inclusion to the planning process. The city can also mandate for denser zoning around major transit corridors.

The college I went to maintained a roundabout for buses. The college had to fully cover the costs of pavement maintaince and snow removal. It seemed worth it since tons of their students were arriving by bus, because it delivered them to the center of campus.

We pay for it by redeveloping massive multi lane roads into multi transit corridors when their major repair/resurfacing work is due. A few places have used this strategy to redevelop car centric areas into areas with better transit and pedestrian accesses.

They may be horribly ineffecient but that seems to be the standard design. Plus compared to pretty much any other land use, even the most optimized surface level parking lot is an ineffecient use of land.

Are you proposing a society where we never leave our cars and every business is a drive thru? Even if you drive to a wal mart today, they still have to have the door open for you to shop there.

And our current urban fabric is everything is a road, you can’t go anywhere unless you drive a car. Can’t afford a car? Too young to drive? Have a health condition that prevents you from driving? Want to choose a car free life? Too bad.

If we can make a devloper build parking, we can make them build transit stops. The car is not the only thing we can force developers to accomadate.

Most cities cannot afford their extisting road infrastructure maintaince. Once built transit systems and walkability are far cheaper to maintain.

Depending less on car infrastructure will save more tax money long term. Eliminating parking minimums and building denser developments often increases city tax revenue, turns out parking lots don’t generate a lot of taxable revenue, meanwhile more business space does.