In (his/her/their/its) most recent piece, the Shredder made an important point about eminent domain, that being doing what is best for the greatest number of people (“Tree-huggers in crisis,” Aug. 29). So, which is better? Spending $18 million for the benefit of a relatively small group of people, or spending it on transportation that will benefit a larger group of people: elderly people that can’t ride bikes, regular people that have more sense, and less affluent people that can neither afford Schwinn beach cruisers nor drinks at Mr. Ricks? You tell me.
Mark Henry
San Luis Obispo
This article appears in Sep 5-15, 2024.
1. “Elderly people that can’t ride bikes”: Projection? I see elderly people out riding in San Luis Obispo daily and I am sure many would be very grateful for expanded access to safer infrastructure. You do remember an 87 year old man was killed on his bike in an unprotected bike lane in our own city in July, right? Did he and others like him not deserve access to safe recreation and transport? 2. “Regular people that have more sense”: You really could expand on this one, Mark. I quite honestly cannot figure out what you mean by this one so I don’t have much of a response. 3. “Less affluent people”: Do these people not deserve alternative low-cost transportation options? Even if just for recreation, why do you feel poor people won’t go out with their family for a fun bike ride? How else do you propose an active transportation grant be spent? Hint: cars are not active transportation and motor vehicle infrastructure wouldn’t qualify for the grant. I look forward to your next opinion piece which outlines your plan!