KFnet in T-Town

Aug. 8, 2012 at 6:53am

City Receives $1 Million Towards Bike, Pedestrian Project


The US Department of Transportation saw fit to award Tacoma $1 million to push it's mobility master plan further down the road (or bike lane, or sidewalk). It's going into the Tacoma 13* Corridor for Active Transportation and Safety Project which will form the backbone of a strong bike network in town. From the City's press release:

Once completed, the Tacoma 13 Project will provide convenient and safer access from neighborhoods to downtown, transit, parks and commercial areas. Plan improvements include Tacoma’s first bike boulevards, pedestrian crossings, traffic calming features, accessibility enhancements, wayfinding and signalized intersections.

For the size of our city we're doing pretty well on bike lanes and I'm excited to see this expanded. Paint is cheap, as I always say! Encouraging cycling around Tacoma can represent a huge gain in the health and fitness of residents while preventing road wear and tear and environmental side effects cars present.

Link to City of Tacoma press release


* 13 really? They skip this floor number on tall buildings for a reason. Couldn't have been trimmed to 12 miles or expanded to 14?

comments [179]  |  posted under bike, cycle, funding, grant, mobility master plan, tacoma

Comments

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 7:00am
At the same time that the government is investing tax dollars in making bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements it's also legislating street trees which will make bicycling and walking more dangerous.

The street trees make it harder to see autos backing into the street and entering from sidestreets. The trees crack the walks and streets making the surfaces precarious for bikes and pedestrians. And finally they drop leaves and other debris all over the place which few people do a good job cleaning up. This results in a slimy and slippery surface.

Just another way the government works diligently to thwart it's own objectives.

by Jesse on 8/8/2012 @ 8:58am
@fredo:  just because there's a tree smack-dab in front of your store doesn't make all street trees bad.

"The street trees make it harder to see autos backing into the street and entering from sidestreets."  - fredo

I think you're thinking about shrubs not trees.

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 9:08am
jesse, well that's how originally became interested in the subject of street trees.  

but, now I have a more global viewpoint. liberals use the beauty of trees and the beneficial aspects of trees to attack people's property rights and create an incredible bureaucracy for the purpose of advancing the "cult of landscape." 

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 9:11am


  I was amused by your suggestion that shrubs made it hard to see cars that were backing but trees didn't make it hard to see. That will certainly be comforting to the next person who is laying in the hospital with major trauma because he was flattened by a car he couldn't see because of tree.

by cisserosmiley on 8/8/2012 @ 9:16am
Stupid bike lanes down 30th street hill are inviting an accident!!!
There could be bike lanes down 29th OR 31st ...

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 9:26am
No trouble for cyclists seeing thru this leafy beauty.
 

by Jesse on 8/8/2012 @ 9:30am
"liberals use the beauty of trees and the beneficial aspects of trees to attack people's property rights" - fredo

Sometimes they do.  There are some tree cutting laws that are ridiculous.

"I was amused by your suggestion that shrubs made it hard to see cars that were backing but trees didn't make it hard to see." - fredo

Trees *can* make it hard to see when driving but a shrub is usually ten times wider, lower, and in the line-of-sight than a tree trunk.  You can see around a tree trunk it you inch out.  Often times you can't see around a shrub no matter what you do. 

by KevinFreitas on 8/8/2012 @ 9:36am
@cisserosmiley I just saw these the other day. Previously lanes were painted down/up the entire hill then removed in favor of the [correct] current configuration of sharrows downhill and a lane on the uphill side.

Before I moved I used to ride down this hill on my way to work and think, since it's easy to keep up with traffic in that direction, bikes should share the lane with cars mostly to avoid parked cars opening their doors. As for the uphill lane, good luck with that! I never chose to ride the same way home but instead opted for a different route.

Overall I'm happy to see the bike markings on that hill as a way to alert drivers and hopefully slow some who blast down that hill.

by cisserosmiley on 8/8/2012 @ 9:47am
I do like the symbolism of bike acceptance, but I had spent years traversing to old town from above and I always rode on 29th or 31st because of safety. I feel like 30th has been picked because it's a main road and intersects with other main roads. It is extremely busy and has a higher speed limit than the 2 parallel streets, but 29th & 31st are not as hep as a straight route. Just a couple of rational puzzles ???

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 9:53am
There's an uphill bike lane on N 30th St?

Is it being used or is just a symbolic lane: symbolism being an important component of cult organizations? 

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 9:58am
"For a planting cost of $250-600 (includes first 3 years
of maintenance) a single street tree returns over
$90,000 of direct benefits (not including aesthetic,
social and natural) in the lifetime of the tree."

22 Benefits Of Urban Street Trees.

northlandnemo.org/images/22BenefitsofUrbanStreetTrees.pdf

PS shut your f*cking ignorant face fredo



by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 10:04am
If a person is run over by a car he didn't see and ends up paralized for life...what's the lifetime cost of that injury? Oh, that would be a lot more than $90K.

Also, and this is just my observation: you should refrain from using your vulgarities on Kevin's blog. It's pretty disrespectful.

by tacoma_1 on 8/8/2012 @ 10:09am
that would be the car drivers fault, and preventable by promoting more cyclists with better bike lanes, and more transit with more frequent service, and by reducing the number of cars that kill people and pollute our air.  

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 10:13am
The only vulgarity here fredo is the way your brain thinks. So don't. 

Fredo, its not that you try all kinds of angles to cut back on the citizens faith here in government, its that you try all kinds of weak angles. I mean, I'd be impressed if your arguments were better and probably leave you alone. So if I'm going to watch someone disenfranchise my fellow Americans, it better be in a way that is actually thought out:)

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 10:17am


I provided some input about safety for cyclists low bar. All you provided was another exposure to your vulgarity.

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 10:19am
 " that would be the car drivers fault" tacoma1

As a practical matter, what difference would that make? If a person is laying in the hospital is he going to take any real comfort from the fact that his injuries were somebody elses fault?

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 10:23am
  "I'd be impressed if your arguments were better " lowbar

The subject of the blog is BICYCLE SAFETY. I noted that sight lines for bicyclists were being diminished by the city tree canopy initiative. Why wouldn't diminished sight lines for bicyclists not be an argument against street trees?   That seems like a pretty strong argument to me. 

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 10:23am
"I provided some input about safety for cyclists low bar. All you provided was another exposure to your vulgarity."

and all you provide are falsehoods, which in my opinion are a lot more damaging. Which is why you spread them.

Pretty much everything you say is a falsehood as I clearly 'provided' evidence of the benefits of street trees. 22 pieces of evidence.

choke on it cretin.



by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 10:25am
  "and all you provide are falsehoods" lowbar 

trees make it harder for cyclists to see dangerous conditions. Are you saying that's a falsehood? In what way is it a falsehood?

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 10:28am
You moron fredo...the subject implies bicycle safety from moving objects like cars, not trees you dumb dumb. You think by now in 2012 that urban engineers don't know what tree to plant where. This sh*t isn't even planted yet and yet here you are doing your job which is to disenfranchise the American citizens faith in government. You don't even care if anyone gets paralyzed by a car, you just want spread your well poisoning hearsay. 


by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 10:29am
Don't attack me fredo, attack the 22 pieces of evidence you ignorant fool. Its like we have to even teach you how to argue.

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 10:34am
Fredo...let me show you how its done. You make a claim that low visibility of street trees causes diminished sight lines and accidents then you have to go and get some evidence of this. You have to get some articles that show who got hit when and where because of what tree you moron. That's how it works. I'm sure kevin besides vulgarities doesn't stand for hearsay polluting his blog

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 10:54am
  You want proof that planting obstructions in proximity to where bicyclists wish to ride their bicycles might interfere with their sight lines?

We know some things intuitively and they don't need to be proven.

Like when you eat an avacado you know that you don't swallow the seed thats inside.

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 11:04am
See the problem with bartenders is they think in bartender logic and speak in bartender gossip. 

and they all think they know everything. nothing worse then a smug bartender. just shut up and get me my drink yesterday.

by tacoma_1 on 8/8/2012 @ 11:07am
fredo
you are an idiot....when I go for a bike ride, one of my favorite rides is along ruston way (now that it is open) up thru 5 mile drive in Pt Defiance, and the trees are the main draw.They add visual interest, shade, and calm traffic.  Without trees, the ride would be hot, barren, more dangerous, and uninteresting. 

by cisserosmiley on 8/8/2012 @ 11:17am
I like the pt and waterfront views, but for transportation purposes cars, public transit, and bikes should not necessarily share the same surface. If there are parallel lanes why not move bikes to them through high traffic or high speed areas.

by dolly varden on 8/8/2012 @ 11:18am
This is really great news for the city!

by tacoma_1 on 8/8/2012 @ 11:19am
cisserosmiley
that would be why they will be using some of this funding to put in bike boulevards. 

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 11:19am


Pt. Defiance is hardly an example of a typical urban bike ride. There are few cross streets, no residential driveways and few parked cars. Only an idiot would confuse the two. 

by cisserosmiley on 8/8/2012 @ 11:28am
I'm tired of future speak of what will happen, I ride around 30th and it's just poor to prefer bike lanes to be painted on a road so all can see them instead of a better road where they can be used. I challenge all to hop their rides tonight and take a spin up & down 30th then use 29th and you will learn first hand how dumb 30th can be for a psycholist

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 11:31am


cissero, I hope you will post some pictures of the folks who will take you up on your offer and ride up 30th st. tonight. Maybe tacoma1 will join you. He likes to ride his bike in places where there is lots of visual interest.

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 12:19pm
Smug fredo, real smug. fredo,

no one is preventing you from living where there is always visibility and zero government: mars (you know mars, the place government really wastes money on yet you have no comment for, you only care about fredo blocking a bunch of trees in tacoma. moron.)

by tacoma_1 on 8/8/2012 @ 12:29pm
I actually ride 30th regularly.   I do wish that the uphill bike lane went in more of a switch back manner rather than straight up, but I do manage it slooooooooowly.

And for an urban bike ride example, I take Dock street, N Yakima Ave, and N Union all the time for the tree cover and for the relative lack of speeding cars.

by cisserosmiley on 8/8/2012 @ 12:36pm
I wish Union had a trail down the median like Mason street has.

by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 12:47pm
"Pt. Defiance is hardly an example of a typical urban bike ride. There
are few cross streets, no residential driveways and few parked cars.
Only an idiot would confuse the two."
—fredo

And, then: Fredo becomes a hypocrite by being the person that he clamors against.

Perhaps "idiot" isn't perceived as a vulgarity?  (It is for my daughter.  She considers it a "swear word.")



by Maria on 8/8/2012 @ 2:09pm
Yay for more bike lanes and paint. Helps people get their vitamin D by being outdoors, reduces smog and pollutions, allows for less traffic, helps with parking problems, gets more people out in the streets and can be a factor for people to combat the trend towards obesity.

Money spent on a city that's more walkable and bike-able is a plus in my opinion. I want more dedicated bike/running paths (like the Burke Gillman).

Washington, America's Most Bike-Friendly State

articles.cnn.com/2012-05-23/living/livin...

[my emphasis in bold]

"Washington is considered a model for all other states on using federal funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. It also earned points for adopting a safe passing and vulnerable road user law, which carries enhanced penalties for motorists who severely injure or kill a cyclist or pedestrian, Wempe said. It also creates a minimum 3-foot "safe passing" distance for cyclists by motorists.

The state also has a "complete streets" policy, which means new roads must be designed with cyclists and pedestrians in mind, Wempe said.

"Every state says bicycles are treated the same as vehicles, but that needs to be clarified," he said. "We're stressing that bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles, but their needs in terms of infrastructure need to be clarified."

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 3:12pm
  "And, then: Fredo becomes a hypocrite by being the person that he clamors against."

Good point troysworktable. I wouldn't say that I've been "clamoring" for a vulgarity free feedtacoma. I mentioned that it was disrespectful to use vulgarity on kevin's BLOG. I'll stand by that although Kevin himself hasn't weighed in on the topic. Maybe the vulgarity is OK with him. Is idiot a vulgarity? I'm not so sure.

by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 3:16pm
My point is that if you want to keep the conversation free of vulgarities (of whatever stripe) then you have to be above the need to use them when it suits YOUR purpose.  In my opinion, you either stay above the fray or you don't get to call it out.


by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 3:18pm
Ultimately, I would advocate for freedom of speech, and say that you and lowbar and whomever else should be able to say whatever you want.  However, if you complain about others exercising that freedom, then you should likewise refrain from that with which you disagree.


by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 3:35pm
The vulgarity I was referring to was the F word. If you want to get excited about the word idiot (which I would agree tends to be offensive) it's OK with me. The F word appears in a comment at 9:58AM.

by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 3:40pm
I saw the "F" word.  But if you are going to ask for censorship of a word that offends you, then why would you use a word that you just said "I would agree tends to be offensive"?  That's my point.  As I stated above: "Stay above the fray or you don't get to call it out."


by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 3:40pm
Or is there a hierarchy of vulgarity and offense?  If so, who gets to decide such?


by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 3:49pm
Well there is a hierarchy of vulgarity and offense.

The worst words include the F word, the MF word, and a few others that George Carlin once made a joke out of.

Less vulgar but still offensive would be jerk, idiot, moron, dummy, etc

I'm not sure who decided this, but I think it was the radio and TV broadcaster regulators. Just a guess.

by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 3:52pm
I stand by my statement.  If you are going to stoop to the level of your opponent (and you and lowbar appear to be opponents, at least in this conversation), then you don't get to challenge their use of the same.


by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 4:10pm


I didn't use the F word, that was low bar. How was I stooping to his level?

by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 4:15pm
I stand corrected.  You called tacoma1 an idiot.  However, my argument still stands.  You don't get to call lowbar out when you called someone in the same conversation an idiot.  It also doesn't matter that tacoma1 called you an idiot.  If you want to pretend that you are superior and stand above the fray, then you don't get to participate in the name calling.  If you want to cry to Kevin to act as parent or punishing figure or superego on the comments section of his blog, then you don't get to act as child or the poor sinned against or id.


by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 4:21pm


  I don't think the word "idiot" is a vulgarity. That was your daughter that said that. It's unkind, but it's not vulgar.

by troysworktable on 8/8/2012 @ 4:35pm
"Vulgar"at thefreedictionary.com:
1. Crudely indecent.2.a. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.

I think "idiot" suffices both definitions.

And perhaps lowbar doesn't consider the "F" word vulgar.

I stand by my statement.  You can either soak in it and absorb it and perhaps learn from it and grow from it, or you can discard it and ignore it.  Either way, I am done with this conversation.  It appears that you are once again trying to bait ME into doing exactly what you claim to despise.

Sad.

by fredo on 8/8/2012 @ 4:49pm
I'm trying to bait YOU into an argument? You've got that exactly backwards.

At 12:47 you tried to bait ME into an argument by claiming your daughter (age unknown) said that the word "idiot" was a vulgarity.

Here, I'll paste in your exact quote:

 "Perhaps "idiot" isn't perceived as a vulgarity? (It is for my daughter. She considers it a "swear word.")"

by low bar on 8/8/2012 @ 6:21pm
I think we should apply for a grant that would get fredo on the next rocket to mars. this would have a twofold effect. first fredo would be reunited with his martian buddies and they could all be happy and have a bunch of martian ideas about reality, and second it would give kevin another reason to go all puppy dogs and balloons about the government spending 2.6 billion dollars on martian landing bullcrap when we've got a failing economy and wars and god knows what else. i mean, i am failing to grasp here how someone can make a big deal about planting trees but not about spending 2.6 billion dollars on collecting martian rocks that 'may' have a blue print for something or another. This blog obviously doesn't cater to nor attract academia, swearwords or not. 

by KevinFreitas on 8/8/2012 @ 7:09pm
Anyway, back on topic. Riding around town I don't find trees a particular hazard to cyclists. Bushes might sometimes be but it's the same for cars in that case where you might not be able to see what's coming from around a corner. Same rules apply for me when I'm biking -- always scan the roadway ahead and behind and cover my breaks when near an area I can't quite make out due to obstructions.

When biking I'm more concerned with uneven pavement, partially exposed rails in the road bed (Commerce Street south of 21st, I'm looking at you!), and car doors opening.

As for "vulgarities" none bother me. What bother's me is uncivil discourse that degrades into frustration and straight-up name calling. I'm not going to censor it but just plain think it's a bit elementary school. If that's how you roll, so be it. But I always believe we/Tacoma can do better than that.

by cisserosmiley on 8/8/2012 @ 7:53pm
Bike education could be a good use of $$$ because I have seen loads of atypical bikers riding against traffic down 6th ave. Some like this on purpose, but it is dangerous.

by boearc on 8/9/2012 @ 8:18am
I don't have the time to respond to most of the extraneous comments on the blog - but the meat of this grant is for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements per the adopted Mobility Master Plan - which puts Pedestrians on the heirarchy before Bicyclists (since most of us are pedestrians at some time during the day).  Trying to think how making our City, Business Districts, and Neighborhoods more walkable and conducive to biking is a 'bad' thing - as it promotes better connectivitiy within Neighborhoods and Neighborhoods to Business Districts - and then more Tacoman's out of their car and walking and biking by storefronts of local shops rather than driving to the big box retailers across town.

by ixia on 8/9/2012 @ 11:32pm
Who can be against trees? Might as well say you are against life itself....

by KevinFreitas on 8/10/2012 @ 6:48am
Care with the variety of trees planted by the City near sidewalks and utilities needs to be taken so the roots don't cause problems dozens of years down the road or it's not likely to fall on people in a wind storm. That being said, trees are a good way to help break up the urban environment and beautiful, purify, and even create habitat along our streets.

by tacoma_1 on 8/10/2012 @ 8:55am
To paraphrase ixia here:

Who can be against pedestrians and bicyclists? Might as well say you are against life itself....

by ixia on 8/10/2012 @ 11:06am


It's fantastic news. I love how Tacoma has developed and the direction it is taking. I feel we are very fortunate indeed. And yes, Tacoma one: pedestrians, bicyclists and trees make a city so much better.

by tacoma_1 on 8/10/2012 @ 11:31am
I completely agree

I wouldn't want to live in a city that I couldn't safely walk or ride a bike.

And I wouldn't want to walk or ride my bike in a treeless city.

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 12:12pm
  "And I wouldn't want to walk or ride my bike in a treeless city."

that's a straw man argument tacoma_1 and you're smart enough to know that.

I never said Tacoma should be a "treeless" city.



I said we should be aware that the new city law which will require people to plant street trees may have an adverse effect on bicycle and pedestrian safety.  If people want to plant more trees on their own property I'm completely in favor. My own yard has lots of trees. However, my right of way between the sidewalk and the street has no trees. There are no visual hazards or broken pavement hazards for bicyclists or pedestrians passing my property.

by tacoma_1 on 8/10/2012 @ 12:26pm
Well the street trees in the city right of way provides shade from the sun, cover from the rain, and a buffer from the cars for pedestrians. So street trees enhance the pedestrian experience, not diminish it

The street trees also provide visual friction to the motorists and produce traffic calming in addition to oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis. This enhances the cyclists experience, not diminishes it.

Your treeless sidewalks are less walkable and less bikable than if they were treed.


by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 12:36pm
I've walked and ridden bicycles through the old parts of Tacoma with the giant trees along the streets. It's not the pleasant experience you seem to have found. The sidewalks are like rollercoasters and there are so many leaves in the street it's hard to see where the potholes are until you run your bike into one.

I didn't say that street trees aren't beneficial in some ways. I only said they have drawbacks as well. These drawbacks include poor sight lines, broken sidewalks and streets, broken sidesewers,  uncleaned leaves in the storm drains and pedestrian and vehicular surfaces. And these drawbacks are soon going to be legislated into a requirement.

People just don't take care of these problems tacoma_1. The utopia of wonderful trees that coexist with smooth paved surfaces always kept clean is a myth. Admit it.

I never said trees aren't beautiful and that they don't contribute beauty and shade on hot days.  

by cisserosmiley on 8/10/2012 @ 12:48pm
It is tough to walk on those tree root buckled sidewalks.

by tacoma_1 on 8/10/2012 @ 1:03pm
No shit.

Don't plant big leaf maples, Doug firs, or sequoias in the parking strip.

People that do, get to pay to fix the sidewalk. Problem solved.

by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 1:10pm
if a god damn street tree who's species happens to buckle a sidewalk (which is moot right now because no one has provided evidence of what species is being planted that might cause this) then great, a buckled sidewalk is a job. Someone has to be hired to fix it. City is going to have to spend some tax money. Tax money is going to have to come from the rich. The rich don't want to pay it because they don't care if your street is buckled, they only walk the streets of the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The rich don't care if you pedestrians like to have a little green around you while you toil away in your concrete farms that they own and operate but don't want to give a dime towards upkeep. I mean, the whole reason Tacoma has a pothole problem is because SOME PEOPLE aren't forking over their share of infrastructure upkeep, yet they benefit the most from its use. If you see uncleaned leaves in storm drains...again another job that someone can be paid to do by the city. All this goes back to SOMEONE wanting to choke the city of its funds to upkeep itself. If it's not a bike pedestrian project, it'll be something else they don't want to spend a teeny tiny bit of their profits on. Yet profit from you using those streets to get to their offices they will. Apparently these avenues aren't bare enough, aren't structured enough to just get you back and forth into their offices, and then back into your boxes at night. 

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 1:10pm
  "People that do, get to pay to fix the sidewalk" tacoma_1

Pretty naive, tacoma1. A lot of the sidewalk busting trees were put in by, are you ready for this....The City of Tacoma Washington. They claim to be broke. How do you get them to "pay to fix the sidewalk?"

by tacoma_1 on 8/10/2012 @ 1:14pm
I tire of your broken record nonsense.

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 1:26pm


  You don't like it when people rebut your claims. You only like it when people agree with you.

by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 1:30pm
Privatizing work to a city means those employers can set the wages as low as possible. Health benefits and a retirement? Forget about it in a privatized world. You will have no protection from the land lords. This is just the southern man wanting to make white slaves, black slaves, slaves of any color they can. The south keeps trying to 'rise again' economically, but the game has changed. Give it up plantation owner, the last days of incumbency are here.  

by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 1:37pm
Does anyone know the difference between a claim and an opinion? Some person here is failing to grasp this yet they continue to interject as if fully cognitive and learned enough to engage in the art of argument. A rebuttal usually has some things attached to it that seem to be missing from whom the burden of proof is falling on here last time I checked. 

by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 1:42pm
Kevin...if you are perhaps full of bubblegum flavored ice cream and done playing with your little ponies...could you perhaps explain to some person in the forum here how evidence and the burden of proof works? Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter:)

by cisserosmiley on 8/10/2012 @ 1:58pm
People are NOT fixing sidewalks as they are required to, I think it's too expensive for regular people to hire a sidewalk fixing crew. Maybe if we ask rich people they will fix our sidewalks ?

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 2:08pm
"  ...could you perhaps explain to some person in the forum here how evidence and the burden of proof works?" low bar

feedtacoma isn't a court of law nor is it a peer reviewed scholarly blog where each posting is expected to be properly footnoted. feedtacoma is just a community resource for people who love Tacoma. People are free to provide any sort of relevant comment they might have. I would like to note that about half of the links provided by people here in the comments don't substantiate what the commenter claims they substantiate. A link is just something to look at, it's not a proof.

by Jesse on 8/10/2012 @ 2:16pm
I feel like www.feedtacoma.com used to be a place to voice valid opinions where they might actually be read by people who have the power to do some of the things suggested.  Every topic, it seems, is quickly turning into a pissing match forum where those important people wouldn't waste their precious time reading any of the garbage on here to extract the tidbit of helpful information that may help them make more effective decisions.

Perhaps limiting each commenter to somewhere between 5-10 comments per thread is a good idea. Just my opinion...

by troysworktable on 8/10/2012 @ 2:28pm
Jesse: Amen.


by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 2:32pm
fredo dumbass, then don't use terms like rebut and claim you moron if all you are doing is leaving dumbass comments. hypocrite. when the argument doesn't go fredo's way suddenly its not an argument anymore, its just a series of comments of people who 'love' tacoma enough to let it crumble then have corporations pay their share of taxes to gainfully employ Americans to maintain the city ahahhahaha

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 2:32pm
  Your opinion is noted jesse.

Truly "important people" wouldn't have any trouble skimming through a blog looking for "tidbits of helpful information." Smart plumbers are always looking for rings and jewelry in clean out traps cause that's where a lot of the good stuff is.

by Jesse on 8/10/2012 @ 2:38pm
Thank you for your 25th comment on this thread fredo.  

Your opinions on street trees and the $1m toward bike and pedestrian projects was recognized many many comments ago.

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 2:41pm
low bar
your comments about the quality of my postings is of no concern to me.

When I see somebody attacking me PERSONALLY rather than my POV, then I know I've written something they would prefer not to acknowledge.

by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 2:42pm
why would you limit comments? why not just set up rules? jesse you disappoint me, lets look at the record. kevin posts an article, fredo posts a dumbass comment on it, and because it's dumbass you yourself Jesse go on the attack with @fredo, and not a comment towards the article. From then on its an argument if you ask me. And may the best win. That's how it works. Otherwise the only rules you can set up are that comments can only be directed to the article and not the support or attack of the article.

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 2:44pm
jesse,
if you don't like my postings then stop reading them. my god, what are you, like 8 years old?

by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 3:00pm
I also am not concerned with the lack of quality of your postings fredo, nor are a majority here. I believe your postings to be counter productive. lets look at the record. lets look at your first comment towards the article. it gives no proof, no solution, nothing but a disenfranchising tone. It's good for nothing. 


by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 3:05pm
"feedtacoma isn't a court of law nor is it a peer reviewed scholarly blog" - fredo

I guess its just ok to lie anywhere then. Truth stops where feedtacoma begins.

"Truly "important people" wouldn't have any trouble skimming through a blog looking for "tidbits of helpful information." - fredo

Well I guess truly important people aren't peers.

"A link is just something to look at, it's not a proof." - fredo

Well I guess tidbits of helpful information isn't proof.

fredo....are you at all aware of how dumb you are? You're making my eyes bleed.

by Fryer Tuck on 8/10/2012 @ 3:21pm
 @ low bar-- anybody can formulate Q.E.D 's by picking through Fredo's or anyone else's comments--it's counter productive to this discussion.  If you are going to treat this discussion like an argument than you should stay on topic and quit picking counter arguments in order to troll against Fredo.  


by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 3:21pm


People insulted Sir Isaac Newton, Copernacus and Galileo in their day.

by L.S.Erhardt on 8/10/2012 @ 3:25pm
Fryer Tuck, you're doing it wrong.

When Fredo and Low Bar go at it, you're supposed to sit back and enjoy the fireworks.



by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 3:27pm
@fryer tuck up till my last three comments in the record I have had words directed to the topic. anyone can look at the record and see that. anyone can look at the record and see how much i've voiced in support of the topic, while calling fredo out. suggesting this is solely trolling against fredo is plain to see a false accusation:)

fredo comparing himself to Galileo are some fireworks indeed. I've yet to see fredo speak truth to power hahaha

by Maria on 8/10/2012 @ 3:28pm
"I feel like www.feedtacoma.com used to be a place to voice valid opinions where they might actually be read by people who have the power to do some of the things suggested.  Every topic, it seems, is quickly turning into a pissing match forum where those important people wouldn't waste their precious time reading any of the garbage on here to extract the tidbit of helpful information that may help them make more effective decisions."Agreed. I prefer on-topic discussions as much as possible.

There are lots of different worldviews. One view of life is to criticize and beat dead horses. I prefer proactive change. Biking is like that. It's an active solution to several challenges (how to get to work, how to exercise, how to make the city more liveable and viable, how to get sexy calves).

Endless griping about the same tired subjects feels like riding a squeaky, stationary bike in a gym filled with used athletic socks and Muzak, whose windows face a wrecking yard dismantling the former dreams of cynics.

by Fryer Tuck on 8/10/2012 @ 3:35pm
Man is Nature. Concrete is nature. Everything is nature.  Some nature is smarter than other nature. If the trees are in the way of man than they have to go. When trees get smart enough to fight back like in the lord of the rings then they can stay, or get rid of us.  Until than, if they are obstructing people in any way, then they have to go.


by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 3:36pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA fryer tuck you sure you're not Jehovah's witness?? hahahaha

how the hell is stating that a tree has no value because it can't walk staying on topic WHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

tacoma jesus christ what kind of people are you housing?? hahahahahaha

by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 3:49pm
 " I prefer proactive change" maria

Oh, me too!

That's why I called out the city for forcing everybody to put street trees in front of their properties. Somebody is going to pay for this folly with their life unless enough of us rise up and say bicycle and pedestrian safety is more important than a canopy covered city. Please help me to proactively change this upcoming city initiative maria. And thankyou for your supportive comments. 

by cisserosmiley on 8/10/2012 @ 3:55pm
Now we are teasing jehova's witnesses...crazy

by Fryer Tuck on 8/10/2012 @ 4:00pm
"At the same time that the government is investing tax dollars in making
bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements it's also legislating street
trees which will make bicycling and walking more dangerous." Fredo

Fredo began with this comment, anything else is a response to that topic. Calling him or anyone else names is just trolling--usually troll type behavior goes after a single person--Fredo seems to be trying to avoid the troll like behavior--but clearly get's irritated and loses focus.  Best not to feed the trolls. The discussion started about it being ironic that our city is focusing on one thing but ignoring another.  This isn't an unpopular debate.  Seattle has had similar concerns about bike riding and tree obstruction. I had a friend who literally got knocked off her bike from a tree branch. She should have been paying better attention but since she could go get an ax and get rid of the tree if she wanted to then the tree should have been paying attention.  Might makes right. 



by Fryer Tuck on 8/10/2012 @ 4:08pm
Might males right when it comes to humans vs nature is what Im saying, if you don't agree with that than go let yourself get eaten by a hungry bear because it has needs too.


by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 4:16pm
I'm done. fredo have fun conservative trolling, tax whining and dumbing down discussions. fryer tuck I don't know where you came from but if this is what feedtacoma is all about, letting complete ignorance be the agent of 'proactive' discussion then awesome. i don't care for tacoma that much to keep arguing in favor of its development:) 


by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 4:38pm
 $1.9M damage claim due to bicycle accident related to  the obstructions created by street trees (Charlotte, NC)

"Wrongful death and personal injury action against City of Charlotte for
failure to maintain safe intersection by removing trees that obstructed view.
Car-bike accident, one child killed, one child paralyzed for life."

Think this can't happen in Tacoma Washington?

by Fryer Tuck on 8/10/2012 @ 5:12pm
@Fredo...indeed.

@Marie...indeed.

@low bar...arguing for the sake of argument is an act of aggression.  If you don't care about the development of Tacoma I suggest you find something you do care about. 





by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 5:36pm
who let the cretins out?? hahahahahaha

might makes right? what are you tuck some kinda cave man troglodyte going to go around and hit a bunch of trees with your bone??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"@Fredo...indeed."

"@Marie...indeed."


cretins pretending to all of a sudden be the polite voice of reason....HAHAHAHAHAHA i'd live to see the day...

btw fredo thanks for fear mongering on the issue of trees causing accidents. lets see where you got your evidence from in NC. Otherwise STFU. Not arguing for the sake of arguing here...only asking for proof.

by Fryer Tuck on 8/10/2012 @ 6:17pm



by fredo on 8/10/2012 @ 6:55pm
 " Once completed, the Tacoma 13 Project will provide convenient and SAFER access from neighborhoods to downtown, transit, parks and commercial areas."

If safety is an important feature of Tacoma policy then preventing people from planting street trees should be a key element of the overall plan. I know I wouldn't want to force someone to plant a tree in a spot where a small child might be mowed over because of some driver who couldn't see her due to the canopy required tree placement.

by low bar on 8/10/2012 @ 7:46pm
Isn't trolling me with a picture of a troll considered trolling? hahahahaha dumbass troglodytes hahaha guess someone didn't get the troysworktable memo on the fray HAHAHHA

by KevinFreitas on 8/10/2012 @ 7:52pm
I have an idea...

by low bar on 8/11/2012 @ 3:29pm
 "where a small child might be mowed over " - fredo

this is an appeal to fear. argumentum in terrorem. fredo is exploiting a known fear to create support. by creating a false dilemma fredoganda can freely infest the dialectic.

if something can't stand in court, it can't stand anywhere. still waiting to see the court ruling on the biker, the car driver or both vs the city of charlotte NC case fredo...but I'm sure fear mongering is easier then finding evidence;)



by fredo on 8/11/2012 @ 3:38pm
I probably could find lots of similar cases involving diminished sight lines.My example was the result of a one minute google search. It proves in my mind that street trees can be associated with tragic accidents.

The issue isn't the eventual judgement but the fact that a child was killed. Are you going to celebrate if the child's estate loses the case? That's pretty cold, even for you low bar.

Regarding an appeal to fear, this is used all the time by all sides of an argument. Recently the city council claimed that we had to increase the sales tax to fund some treatment for drug addicts who, if not treated, might harm people in Tacoma. This was an appeal to fear as well. We should be afraid of being run over by vehicles who can't be well-observed when cycling. It is this fear that stands between us and the morgue.

The bike lanes themselves are the result of an appeal to fear. The claim is that if bikes don't have their own lane that accidents might happen and this would create an unsafe condition. I didn't see you criticize this appeal to fear.

by fredo on 8/11/2012 @ 4:22pm
  Tree pruning is something where you don’t see the impact of deferring until there’s a tragedy,” said Councilman Brad Lander, a Democrat from Park Slope, Brooklyn, who joined with members of both parties to press for restorations to the parks budget. “As incidents have shown, there’s a real risk, and, hopefully, getting pruning back on a better schedule will mean New Yorkers will be safer.” A recent series of articles in The New York Times examined 10 lawsuits stemming from deaths or injuries caused by falling tree limbs in the city, mostly in parks, and revealed an uneven system of inspections and an overstretched budget for tree maintenance. The parks department relies primarily on outside contractors to trim and maintain 600,000 street trees, which have caused injuries and at least one death in recent years.  (NY Times)

I wonder if it hurts when a street tree limb falls on you when you're riding your bicycle. Oh well, as long as the rider can sustain his euphoria over the leafy splendor of a 30% tree canopy while recuperating... what difference will it make?

by low bar on 8/11/2012 @ 4:23pm
"Regarding an appeal to fear, this is used all the time by all sides of an argument" - fredo

I totally see your point. If other people do it, you're going to do it too:)

Still doesn't change the fact that you refuse to provide any evidence what so ever in your arguments...and that is a red flag. Accidents happen, all the time fredo, but if the city of charlotte won the case its not cold, its the law. Are you an anarchist or something fredo? Not sure what's worse, withholding evidence of a child's death only to further one's argument or...no thats probably worse.

by low bar on 8/11/2012 @ 4:26pm
"and revealed an uneven system of inspections and an overstretched budget"

Yep, its called people not wanting to pay taxes to upkeep their cities. Tax whining all day long yet wondering what happens when their tax whining and tax cutting causes deaths..let alone the loss of jobs..

you're only helping my position fredo...because I've got the easier position and you simply aren't bright enough to argue the harder position...

by fredo on 8/11/2012 @ 4:35pm
 " Accidents happen, all the time fredo," low bar

Yep, so why spend a million dollars painting stripes all over the streets? After all, accidents happen all the time.

by low bar on 8/11/2012 @ 4:38pm
Yep fredo, you're an anarchist. Plain as day.

Yes accidents happen all the time...that's why we try to minimize them with spending tax dollars to upkeep the city. You're a good little helper fredo!





by fredo on 8/11/2012 @ 5:04pm
Spending money to paint stripes to upkeep the city=good thing

Spending money to remove dangerous street trees to upkeep the city=bad thing. 

by low bar on 8/11/2012 @ 5:09pm
Spending tax money to plant nice trees and then spend more tax money to give an American a good non-outsource job to upkeep the trees = good thing

Fredo using his brain = bad thing

by low bar on 8/11/2012 @ 5:36pm
you know you got fredo licked when he starts with the apples and oranges.

wanna see some first class appeal to fear?

if i can connect fredo's ideas to anarchism, i can connect them to home grown terrorism.

have a great weekend...we'll be watching you fredo...hahahahahaha



by JesseHillFan on 8/12/2012 @ 1:00pm
About a week ago (a few days before this discussion) I took a hacksaw and some clippers along with me in my bikes pannier to cut some fir boughs that were obstructing a sidewalk along center street and I also had to cut a lot of buddleia davidii (Butterfly Bushes) along the sidewalks of center street near the intersection of orchard street that were severely blocking the pedestrian and/or cycling right of way.

by low bar on 8/12/2012 @ 1:49pm
good for you. according to fredolosophy you just become a small business that set the wage compensation to zero. assuming you don't want to have to do that or ride on the sidewalk anymore...well theres good news...your tax dollars are actually now going towards something you can use for a change when you are not sailing your yacht to the caymans 

by fredo on 8/12/2012 @ 2:04pm


It's OK to take hacksaws and clippers and start cutting down plants growing in the city right of way? Didn't know that was allowed. 

by low bar on 8/12/2012 @ 2:32pm
well, fredo..the revolution's gotta start somewhere. some people dump tea into a harbor while others hacksaw a butterfly bush hahahahaha

by fredo on 8/12/2012 @ 2:46pm


  I actually like JHFs suggestion. I think every person in Tacoma should be required to pack a hacksaw or chainsaw at all times so when right of way trees present a problem they can be promptly dispatched.

by low bar on 8/12/2012 @ 2:49pm
You can't believe in requirements fredo...you're a libertarian anarchist. you don't believe in government orders hahahahaha

by JesseHillFan on 8/12/2012 @ 5:19pm
Well I didn't actually cut down the entire shrubs (Those butterfly bushes can actually be considered weeds in some circumstances).They were on an empty lot with a for sale sign on it (for future development).Just trimmed the branches that were blocking the sidewalk.It's also known as the bomb crater bush "nickname" too.www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAn... 

Quite pretty but it can get out of control.Not anything bad like those Himalayan Blackberry noxious weeds that heavily infest the Tacoma Mall hillside.Those blackberries are about the worst type of viscous,difficult to remove weeds known. 
There were just two small fir boughs that had to be trimmed up at the top of the hill on Center Street.somewhat near South Mason Ave.When I rode there I always hit those small branches but they were only a small nuisance.
 

by fredo on 8/12/2012 @ 6:57pm
jhf@ hahahaha  

one man's "small fir bough" would be another man's 30% urban canopy. better be careful that the city arborist isn't watching you. that might be a grave insult to the Tacoma environment.

by JesseHillFan on 8/12/2012 @ 7:35pm
I have to ride on this sidewalk because the Center Street traffic is too fast and dense to ride on.The lanes ( 2 for each direction also with turn lanes) are also too narrow to share with motor vehicles too otherwise I would be holding up faster traffic making drivers hostile.It would be too dangerous to ride on this street with a bicycle.
Here is a story for you"Trees should never be lower than 15 feet tall on driveways, because those low trees make it difficult for fire trucks to get through. Perhaps most importantly, firefighters ask homeowners to keep brush around their homes trimmed"www.komonews.com/news/local/Hot-weather-... 
.

by ixia on 8/12/2012 @ 8:03pm
 
before fredo

by ixia on 8/12/2012 @ 8:04pm
 
after fredo

by fredo on 8/12/2012 @ 8:23pm


after Tacoma adopts 30% canopy law...good luck handicapped pedestrians.

by fredo on 8/12/2012 @ 8:42pm
branch from street tree impales bicyclists leg. I wonder if that hurt?
 

by low bar on 8/12/2012 @ 8:52pm
Thanks for pointing out fredo what happens to people when taxes aren't collected from the 1% and used together with the taxes of the 99% to upkeep the city by having big government with a lot of state workers to deal with the growth...trees don't kill people, small governments with small budgets kill people. 

by fredo on 8/12/2012 @ 9:04pm
Well, that's certainly a reasonable observation low bar.

If people paid even more taxes there wouldn't be any branches in the street.hahaha the 1% caused that branch to fall off the tree and become impaled in the guys leg..

At least this guy can breathe a little cleaner air while he's recuperating.

by JesseHillFan on 8/12/2012 @ 9:45pm
This guy would be a good arborist for Tacoma.I laughed after I saw this episode of Dragnet.He (the suspect) fits just right as a local city or county employee.

www.hulu.com/watch/55161 

by low bar on 8/12/2012 @ 9:52pm
Yes when people don't pay enough taxes to hire government and fund government works, then the whole thing falls apart...you do realize that you are living in a civilization right fredo? but of course I could see how a caveman's brains would think its the trees fault...and clean air's fault...sheesh you breed some real winners tacoma.

the 1% pay less taxes then the 99%. the 99% make less income then the 1% yet pay more taxes then the 1%. So who didn't pay their taxes to help upkeep the city and cause tree branches to fall on people? Did you flunk out of high school math fredo? looks like it.

you fail the IQ test every time fredo. What's going on? Unless you're just being ignorant on purpose...either way its not fair of you to confuse people on how the system is suppose to work

by NineInchNachos on 8/12/2012 @ 10:24pm
go paul ryan!

by low bar on 8/12/2012 @ 10:29pm
you mean warden ryan....youtu.be/Glzma7r-BOI

never in the history of the united states of america will such an anti-american run for the VP of the highest office. its a shame. town hall arrests of american citizens.

by troysworktable on 8/12/2012 @ 10:33pm
The picture of the cyclist's leg impaled by the branch is likely bogus.  Read an article (link below) that uses the photograph, as well as some of the comments.  You can't believe everything you read/see on the internet.  The story of a branch getting kicked up and going through his leg doesn't make sense.  The branch also appears to go through a section of solid bone in the leg, although the damage to the leg isn't consistent with such bone damage.  The leg below the entry is straight, there is no bruising or massive tissue damage.  This is likely a staged photograph.www.singletracks.com/blog/uncategorized/...

by troysworktable on 8/12/2012 @ 10:41pm
"This is absolutely real. I’ve met Bob and have also seen him since the accident. He’s recovering well because the stick missed the bones and main blood vessels and went through the muscle. If I recall correctly the accident happened after a windstorm blew a load of branches onto the bike trail he was cycling."  Yet the another article claims the bone was broken.  Which is true?  The guy who claims to have met Bob or the author of the original article?

by troysworktable on 8/12/2012 @ 10:51pm
www.ride-strong.com/freak-bike-accident-...


Did it happen in a residential neighborhood?  No.  It happened on the Loveland Bike Trail (a paved rail trail) in Loveland, Colorado.  Or was that in California?
How did an eight to nine foot long branch with a diameter of 1 and 1/2 inches make such a clean puncture wound?  Where is the bruising?  The section shown isn't completely straight, which would make me assume the same for the rest of the branch, yet it didn't tear up the leg more.
Oh, wait, I know Bob (no last name ever given that I can find by anyone who makes this claim).  He's a famous/well-known triathlete.  He's from the Cincinnati area.  Or was that California?

by troysworktable on 8/12/2012 @ 10:59pm
Many of the claims are for the Loveland Bike Trail in Cincinnati OH.  However, there are no records I can find in Cincinnati area newspapers or local newscasts for 2008 (the year of the accident).  Why isn't there a report of this somewhere other than a couple of cycling sites?  Why no concrete evidence for something so horrific?

by troysworktable on 8/12/2012 @ 11:06pm
"Very real. They were biking after winds from Hurricane Ike tore through the Cinci area. sustained 70mph for quite some time. We were without power for three days, some for just shy of a week. Anyway, these nuts went biking before all the branches had been cleaned up and this is what happened.Bob came out of this just fine. He went on to compete in additional events and puts in fantastic times for a guy that is now 51.I mentioned this to a biking friend at work and he said Bob is known for biking so hard that he snaps chains. Not a shock he was moving at a pace and with such power that this branch that kicked up could have done this."Give it a few more years and he'll have likely transmuted his body and passed the entire branch through his being without disruption before vanishing in a flash of heat and light.


by low bar on 8/12/2012 @ 11:08pm
CSI: TACOMA


by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 7:18am
The picture could be a photoshop fake Troy, I'll grant you that.

the idea that if people paid more taxes we'd have sufficient funds to hire armies of arborists to crawl through street trees all day looking for loose branches is preposterous. The city can't even fix it's pothole problem and that's probably a lot easier than physically inspecting every street tree branch.

If the object of government planning is to create a SAFE ENVIRONMENT for pedestrians and bicyclists then it's time to take a global look at ALL the dangers and not just the dangers of having unstriped streets. Do it for the children. If even one child is saved it will be worth it.

by tacoma_1 on 8/13/2012 @ 7:34am
The gravest danger to all pedestrians and cyclists is the 2 ton machine speeding past them, not a photo shopped branch or an imagined tree.

Anything that slows the motorist down, and forces the motorist to pay more attention to where they are driving Instead of who they are texting adds to the safety of all.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 7:43am
So if the city forces people to plant more trees on the street that will "add to the safety of all?"  

If a 2 ton machine is backing into the street and doesn't see the 6 year old on a bicycle because his vision is obstructed by a street tree won't that create a hazard for the bicyclist? That's a yes or no question.

by tacoma_1 on 8/13/2012 @ 8:30am


 No. The tree is not the hazard, the car driver backing out is the hazard.  Eliminate the car, and no hazard exists.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 8:36am
"The tree is not the hazard, the car driver backing out is the hazard. Eliminate the car, and no hazard exists." tacoma_1

So when the weatherman says that ice on the roadway is causing a hazardous condition then he's lying. He means the cars on the roadway are causing a hazardous condition.

by tacoma_1 on 8/13/2012 @ 8:39am


 Warning! Rabbit hole alert!

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 8:47am
Well you caused the "rabbit hole"

You claimed that hazards weren't hazards.

hahaha

by troysworktable on 8/13/2012 @ 9:20am
What about a collaboration of public (government) and private (property owners) to keep trees maintained?  As a property owner with trees, I take care of pruning, as does Puget Sound Energy.  They prune my black walnut tree on the north side of the tree where branches lean out over power lines (and above the right-of-way) every two or three years.  I take care of the west, south, and east sides on an annual basis, with emergency pruning and removal of limbs/branches after windstorms and the like.  (And, in my case, there is no sidewalk to worry about.)



by tacoma_1 on 8/13/2012 @ 9:27am
there is no room for practical, logical, common sense solutions in fredotopia

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 11:19am
You want a practical, logical, common sense solution to the hazard of street trees causing blind spots for drivers and bicyclists?

OK, here's such a solution. Stop the inititive which will eventually require all property owners to plant and maintain street trees in the city right of way. That would be practical, logical, and conform to common sense. Wouldn't you agree? 

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 11:23am
Troy, I actually like your suggestion of the collaboration of city and property owners managing the trees in the right of way.

I would add this caveat to your suggestion: if the city REQUIRED the property owner to plant the tree, or if the CITY itself actually planted the tree I would suggest that the city bears 100% responsibility for tree maintenance and damages.

If a couple sees an attractive tree at Lowes and brings it home to plant next to the street and it causes $10,000 damage I'd say that is the homeowners responsibility, I don't think the city of Tacoma should have to bear any responsibility. Thanks Troy. 

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 11:35am
  "They (PSE) prune my black walnut tree on the north side of the tree where branches lean out over power lines " troysworktable

Troy, who planted the black walnut tree and why was it planted in proximity to primary power lines? Is it right for the PSE ratepayers who don't have any walnut tree issues on their property to continue to subsidize all this professional tree trimming? 

by troysworktable on 8/13/2012 @ 11:36am
Fredo, I agree with you on both counts.


by tacoma_1 on 8/13/2012 @ 11:58am
fredo
"the inititive which will eventually require all property owners to plant and maintain street trees in the city right of way" 

There is no such initiative or requirement.  Problem solved.  

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 12:05pm
You can just mute fredologic now. Problem solved. 


So basically the last hearsay on the photo is that its stupidity that caused the injury? Like It wasn't the car that caused the hazard, it wasn't the tree that caused the hazard, it was the brain that decided to go for a high speed bike ride right AFTER a storm ripped through and BEFORE the city had the time and resources to clean it all up. So why are we still talking about trees when we ought to find ways to counter stupidity...beginning with fredology.

But I'm almost forced to agree with fredo on the grounds that there simply is no healthcare in this country to deal with the hazards of living in highly populated areas. I believe that fredo is merely warning us unconsciously that his constituency isn't afraid of paying the bill to upkeep the tree....its the bill to fix the injuries caused by the tree. You know, fredo mentioned something about ice on a road way. Well ice is a hazard too. Theres hazards everywhere that need tending to if only the government can afford it. What about that bridge that collapsed in Minnesota? When our we going to open our eyes and see that our infrastructures are being neglected due to a certain parties constant budget cuts?

Maybe fredo doesn't even want us to leave our houses...but what's the point of leaving your home only to see a world that is built for the automobile? Gee its a swell idea..you can leave your home only in a car to go visit a museum that only has cars in it. You can live your whole life in Tacoma thinking that life revolves around cars. I wouldn't want that for my children.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 12:09pm
"there is no such initiative" tacoma_1

Maybe you don't keep up on current affairs tacoma_1 so I'll forgive you:

  Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Tacoma’s Trees

Last Wednesday, the Tacoma Planning Commission took testimony on the new landscaping and urban forestry code. Ramie Pierce, Urban Forester for the City, introduced the code with a general overview of the 150 page package.When the testimony began it was clear not everyone was excited about the new regulations. The focus of the testimony was the requirement for every property to plant trees meeting a specific amount of tree canopy on their property. Every commenter spoke in opposition to the regulations.

Unrealistic canopy coverage requirements in dense areas, like 15-25 percent coverage on downtown parcels.

Industrial uses could be precluded with substantial tree requirements.

Property owners are required to provide 30 percent tree canopy for all adjacent public streets rather than the City being responsible.

Cannot average landscaping and trees across parcels – meaning off-site habitat/vegetation mitigation is not allowed.

Lack of clarity on when the code and canopy requirements are triggered.

Exterior changes to a building (including single family homes), would trigger canopy requirements.

Fees-in-lieu of planting canopy are 4 times larger than the actual cost of a tree and its maintenance.

No protection of views.

Encourages use of non-native tree species.

Self-managed agencies, including those with separately elected boards and foresters, are subject to City oversight rather than being recognized as independent municipalities.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 12:16pm


Low bar, OK with me if you shut off my comments. Have a happy day.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 12:19pm
  "So why are we still talking about trees when we ought to find ways to counter stupidity"  low bar

Fair enough. But wouldn't it be easier to just eliminate the branch problem in the first place so that stupid people aren't injured because they don't have the common sense required to evaluate road conditions? We can fix trees, we can't fix stupidity.

by troysworktable on 8/13/2012 @ 12:20pm
The original property owner planted the tree.  I believe that the tree predates the current power lines, those lines replacing (in a different location) the original power lines to the property.

PSE has tree crews trim trees on other properties along my street and neighboring streets.  I don't have a problem with subsidizing their trees being trimmed.  And PSE isn't trimming them for aesthetic reasons, but practical reasons.

I believe in the commons, the shared pieces of society.  Therefore, I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes for goods I use and some I don't.  I paid for schools before I had children and will glad to do so once mine have graduated.  I pay for the protection of a police force and a fire department.  I like my public library, city parks, public transportation, paved streets, etc.

I do, however, have a problem when those in the upper echelons of income pay less in taxes (as a percentage of total income) than those of us in the lower. 

by tacoma_1 on 8/13/2012 @ 12:28pm
fredo
The proposed tree policy is not a requirement.  The property owner can opt out of planting trees for a fee, thus it is NOT a requirement to plant.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 12:33pm
Thanks for that troy.

So you favor a social order where ratepayers with no tree problems (because they planned their landscape properly in the first place) should continue to subsidize the tree problems of ratepayers who failed to observe proper landscaping design?

I understand that society gets a benefit from things we all pay for even if we never use them. I rarely use the library but I understand that society benefits when I help pay for it. How does society benefit from people making bad planting decisions in their landscape. If the problem tree wasn't planted in proximity of the power lines there would be zero expense for the ratepayers. 

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 12:38pm
  "The proposed tree policy is not a requirement. The property owner can opt out of planting trees for a fee, thus it is NOT a requirement to plant." tacoma_1

I'm afraid you've misread my posting. The initiative isn't a "requirement" at all. It's a proposal before the planning commission. We don't know if it will be passed on to the council as proposed or if there will be substantial modifications.

The point is the city is trying to force more street trees into the city design even though we know intuitively and through direct evidence that the trees cause safety problems for bicyclists and pedestrians.

by troysworktable on 8/13/2012 @ 12:38pm
If we look at my yard, for example, the poor planning would be on the part of the government, represented by the utilities.  The power lines used to approach my house from the opposite side of my property, where there are no trees, as did my sewer line (since I discovered the old line after having my utilities located when installing a fence).

So, who is responsible for upkeep?  It appears it should be PSE.  They placed power lines next to a tree that likely was going to have branches hanging over them, when the original power lines avoided all of the trees in the yard.



by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 12:39pm
You can fix stupidity fredo. It's called being smart and hiring an accountant to off shore your then non taxable income, but don't hire snipes accountant;)...but I digress. When you look at the electoral map of the red states every year you're right fredo...you can't fix stupid. You can't fix the decedents of idiots that live in the middle of nowhere USA and weren't smart enough to keep pushing their wagons west, and don't live in cities where collectivism is constantly knocking on their doors to show them another way.  

by troysworktable on 8/13/2012 @ 12:41pm
I favor a social order where we each pay into the commons, for the common good.  Your shining star property owner without tree problems likely has some other problem with his or her property that I get to help subsidize.  (And you can read my prior comment about libraries and streets and safety to get a glimpse of how such functions.)




by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 12:45pm
troy in your case I would agree the utility should bear the cost if they hung their lines over an existing tree.

Probably would have been cheaper in the long run to remove the problem tree and plant a new one in a better place.

There are lots of examples of folks planting trees directly beneath primary and secondary power lines all over Tacoma. This is prohibited as a matter of policy by Tacoma City Utilities but it happens nevertheless and the ratepayers have to pay for all the foolish tree trimming that results.

My utility bills are about $5000 per year so I don't appreciate the extra expense caused by all this trimming.

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 12:48pm
"I favor a social order where we each pay into the commons, for the common good."

Ah the common good. Such a simple concept to grasp if your American heart isn't infected by the rancour of the red state.  

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 12:49pm
"My utility bills are about $5000 per year so I don't appreciate the extra expense caused by all this trimming." - fredo

Wouldn't be a problem if your wages were higher and energy costs were lower. 

by troysworktable on 8/13/2012 @ 12:50pm
"Probably would have been cheaper in the long run to remove the problem tree and plant a new one in a better place."

Yes, but we are well beyond that point now.  The minor amount of trimming they do on that particular tree, even over the long-term, is likely less expensive than removal of the tree.

If it had been removed decades ago, then perhaps it would have been a different story.



by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 12:54pm
"and the ratepayers have to pay for all the foolish tree trimming that results." - fredo

don't forget (healthcare!) all the medical bills that your neighbor has!

yes, I know fredo, we've all read a christmas carol, and you can get all scroogy when it's not your fault that your neighbor gets cancer but...well that's not how Americans do things. When Katrina hits, we take care of each other. When a terrorist flies a plane into your city, we go find who's responsible and kick their asses. We do things together all the time. So trimming trees for each other is a great thing. You couldn't be prouder.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 1:27pm
low bar: another illogical argument.

We can't cure cancer, and we can't prevent hurricanes so therefore we can't prevent people from planting trees where they don't belong.

do you even read your comments before posting?

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 1:45pm
  "So trimming trees for each other is a great thing. You couldn't be prouder."

A properly trimmed tree REMAINS a visual obstruction which could result in a bicyclists death. People who trim trees to help bicyclists are mitigating the danger caused by the street trees, they aren't eliminating the danger. If a child is killed I will take no pride in the fact that the tree which caused her death was properly trimmed.

by JesseHillFan on 8/13/2012 @ 1:45pm
Perhaps the street trees could be phased in in perhaps 20 years from now when very few motor vehicles will be on the roads (due to prohibitively expensive fuel costs,economic collapse of our unsustainable economy with worthless paper currency (hyperinflation) etc).This entire countries economic system will collapse in the coming decades and a strong likelihood of the country (the U.S.) dissolving itself as a nation.The streets could be made less wide since most travelers will be riding bicycles or velomobiles or even animal pulled vehicles and the street trees could be planted on the sides of the streets instead.My complaint is on the cities desired choice of street trees which are only useful for absorbing CO2 (too small for timber too ).In the future food will have to be grown locally due to massive food shortages (mid west crops and lands unusable in the future).I'd rather eat fruit or nuts from a street tree than starve or have a starving population (which would be conducive to rioting).  

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 1:58pm
good points JHF.

in the future people are going to be planting vegetable gardens in their yards. how productive will vegetable gardens be when the city is requiring an arborial canopy over almost everything?

how about all the teenage girls who like to lie in front of their houses on sunny days in skimpy bikinis? will they want to sunbathe under a big walnut tree?

all these problems with the city canopy initiative as well as the ones you mentioned, but for purposes of this thread, I'm only interested in discussing the diminished safety of our bicyclists and pedestrians.

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 2:03pm
"Bah! Humbug!" - fredo

"we can't prevent people from planting trees where they don't belong." - fredo

where they don't belong? and you fredo are in which way the expert on where trees belong? do you have environmental/urban/civil engineer credentials to make that statement hold? NO? then STFU

You already said it fredo, its not the child's death you are concerned with, its the:

"My utility bills are about $5000 per year so I don't appreciate the extra expense caused by all this trimming." - fredo

"and the ratepayers have to pay for all the foolish tree trimming that results." - fredo

"I'm afraid you've misread my posting." - fredo

No, there is no misreading fredo...you don't care about a child's death. You are only using the image of a child's death to further your argument on how you don't want to share your income. You, fredo, would use a child's death just to further an argument on not wanting to pay taxes? Really?

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 2:22pm
I believe I do know where trees don't belong.  

Tacoma Public Utilities informs the homeowners in the city not to plant trees under any power lines. They tell people this because a lot of people are stupid and can't foresee the problems which may occur in the future.

Planting trees where they prevent motorists from seeing little kids riding bicycles is equally stupid.

The street trees may increase folks utility bills for the reasons I've mentioned and they may contribute to the death and injury to pedestrians and bicyclists. I believe it's not inconsistant to want both lower utility bills and lower mortality rates.

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 2:26pm
This isn't about homeowners planting....this is about the grant funding experts planting. Not fredos to plant under powerlines.....experts to plant. Experts. Not fredos.

"I'm only interested in discussing the diminished safety of our bicyclists and pedestrians."- fredo

How is talking about a homeowners planting habits the same thing as discussing the planting around bicyclists and pedestrians? If you are only interesting in discussing the issue of bicyclists and pedestrians, then why are you switching the subject to homeowners?

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 2:32pm
you know I sunk your battleship like 20 comments ago fredo, yet you're still fighting from an illogical life saver, bobbing up and down in the muddy waters of frehetoric (fredo+rhetoric)....I guess its true that evil dies hardest of all...

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 2:40pm


  "evil dies hardest of all..."it's evil to express a concern for the safety of our pedestrians and bicyclists? I'd have to compare you to Ebenezer Scrooge low bar! 

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 2:43pm
it's evil to use the image of a child's death to scare people from supporting a plan to use tax dollars on experts to plant and construct a city to benefit the lives of Americans who get around in something other then a car. Yes sir it is evil.

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 2:50pm
 " a plan to use tax dollars on experts to plant and construct a city to benefit the lives of Americans"

there's been no demonstration that the 'plan' will yield any net benefit. It does some good things, it does some bad things. One of the bad things it does is lowering the visibility of bicyclists. I think that's important. Maybe you don't.  

by fredo on 8/13/2012 @ 3:04pm
 " it's evil to use the image of a child's death to scare people "

So when Mothers Against Drunk Driving uses imagery of children being killed to scare people that' s evil?

Another question: Is the truth evil if involves scary imagery?

by low bar on 8/13/2012 @ 3:25pm
"One of the bad things it does is lowering the visibility of bicyclists." - fredo

Show me in the plans where this is true. Can't? Then STFU

"So when Mothers Against Drunk Driving uses imagery of children being killed to scare people that' s evil?" - fredo

No it's not evil.

It is reasonable for MADD to use the images because of the statistics.

But fredo is not a MADD.

And it is there for unreasonable for fredo to use the images because his idea of not sharing his taxes isn't the same thing as a drunk driver.

Reason, logic, all forms of critical thinking skills have somehow escaped fredo's physiological development.

Its like I should begin charging fredo for showing him the things I paid for to learn in a college he was too lazy to attend.

Another question: is muting in a discussion a new form of democracy?

About

Although I have another home on the web I thought it might be nice to lead by example a bit and put this blog system up to the test myself.

So far, so good... Funny how I build web tools for other people that are far better than the one's I have setup over on KFnet.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Clear Channel, Clean Up Your Crap!

Advantage: Tacoma

Quick Bites

Recent Posts