NICNE0

NICNE0 t1_j6i06rq wrote

I am being downvoted too, this is just a very controversial issue, and that is fine. Typically nicer suburban areas don't have any pedestrian infrastructure but in general, you won't find much solidarity with non-drivers throughout the state.

It is very expensive to live here, even if you have the money to buy a house, taxes won't give you a break, so it can be overwhelming this feeling of giving a lot to the state in exchange for nothing, some people get angry when you come out with solutions that imply public spending(I can't blame them), because they know this could incur into more taxation.

3

NICNE0 t1_j6hyxno wrote

Let me extend it a little bit more. I believe pedestrian infrastructure is just as elemental as vehicle infrastructure, It shouldn’t be seen as an "upgrade" it should be mandatory. The town should guarantee the safety of the residents by providing them with proper designs. If I go for a walk and a car hits me because it is a narrow road with a 35mph limit I didn't do anything wrong, nor did the driver, it was terrible urban design.

5

NICNE0 t1_j6hyeup wrote

I don't think sidewalks are "amenities". I mean, I know what you are saying. But I think it comes to bad Urban planning, the amount of money and maintenance you give to such a thing is very marginal, I think the urban code should be modified. We waste public money on a lot of nonsense, why can't we use it for something that will benefit the community?

5

NICNE0 t1_j6ht2wl wrote

Imagine you manage to buy a house, Imagine you worked your ass really really hard, and you manage to buy a fantastic house in a nice area. Now imagine you start a Family and don't want to have a sedentary lifestyle and decide to go for a walk or let your kids play outside. Now take this one, You have no sidewalks c:

You did everything right but now you are throwing the dice every day to win the chance for a driver rolling you or your loved ones over because We NeEd To SaVe MoOoNey...

0