Asheville moves to obtain parkland

Haw Creek residents say they like the "country in the city" feel of their valley. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Joe

Asheville, NC

#22 Dec 13, 2007
Thunder Pig wrote:
<quoted text>
And hope he doesn't get beat down by punks because he doesn't believe in "carrying superior fire power" in the form of a concealed weapon and the will to use it.
Also have you been to NYC?

I do not think Asheville has much room to talk with 8 murders in 4 weeks. Having lived here most of my life it saddens me that our police dept does not have a grip on this.

“Local Blogger Gets Involved”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of West Carolina

#23 Dec 13, 2007
You might be right about that! The fuel tax goes into the NC Highway Trust Fund, and the General Assembly then robs that to fund their pet projects instead of building and maintaining roads like it is supposed to.
Bicycles are a big concern. Moneys are being used to construct bike paths and lanes...then these idiots refuse to obey traffic laws, and are a hazard to traffic. I witnessed a bicycler drive right through a red light on Main Street in Sylva this morning, and the rider insisted that he didn't have to obey any traffic laws. Too bad there was no body coming the other way, now that would've been fun to see!

Operating parks is not the proper place of government on any level. Want to buy land for a park? Form a corporation, and do it yourself. I'll bet that a privately owned company would do a better job than the government anyday...and the thing would be funded by the money of interested users, not stolen from every one like a government funded park is!
For an example...which are better, municipal golf course, or privately owned golf courses?
By and large, the private golf courses are better.

Free Parks aren't free.
cooperwx

United States

#24 Dec 13, 2007
I think the city might get their investment in Haw Creek back in the form of higher property values. A park like this will make the area around it more desirable to live, and thus more valuable.
Joe

Asheville, NC

#25 Dec 13, 2007
I find it hard to follow your argument. Espically when you would enjoy seeing someone killed.(regardles if it is their fault)

Private golf corses are better but most of the public can not play them they are way to expensive. Tiger woods would have never played if not for a muni golf course.

Have you every played the asheville muni golf course?

Also most bike lane/path greenway projects are paid for by private dollars and not tax dollars.

“Local Blogger Gets Involved”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of West Carolina

#26 Dec 13, 2007
Joe wrote:
I find it hard to follow your argument. Espically when you would enjoy seeing someone killed.(regardles if it is their fault)
Private golf corses are better but most of the public can not play them they are way to expensive. Tiger woods would have never played if not for a muni golf course.
Have you every played the asheville muni golf course?
Also most bike lane/path greenway projects are paid for by private dollars and not tax dollars.
I have a very dark sense of humor, so yes, I do enjoy seeing people get what is coming to them, especially if it is from an unexpected direction.
Just like this is funny
&fe ature=related

Private Courses are better than public courses.
I'll try to remember that claim with all the tax money these groups pull down to subsidize their activities.
TerraBob

West Mansfield, OH

#27 Dec 13, 2007
City streets that are not state or federal highways are maintained, for the most part, with local general fund revenues (local property taxes).

I've seen the statistic (from reputable sources, but I can't find a source right now at work) that, overall, in the United States, 40% of road maintenance is covered by motor fuel taxes. The other 60% is covered by some other form of tax--i.e., some form of subsidy.

So, roadways are no different than public transit, the aviation system, and water-borne shipping.

Of course, if it's something you like or have an interest in, it's called incentives and investing in our future. Otherwise, you'd call it a boondoggle subsidy.
Jim Bob

Manteo, NC

#28 Dec 13, 2007
I have seen statistics indicating that if motorists were to pay for all of the burdens they impose on society (including congestion, road maintenance, road deaths, air pollution, etc) gas would be in the range of $11 per gallon for urban driving, somewhat less in rural areas.

Until that happens, motorists are basically getting a handout, and the least they can do is be polite to the cyclists and pedestrians who are subsidizing their transportation.

“Local Blogger Gets Involved”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of West Carolina

#29 Dec 13, 2007
Whatever, they still lose in an accident.
Jim Bob

Manteo, NC

#30 Dec 13, 2007
Thunder Pig wrote:
Whatever, they still lose in an accident.
"I'm bigger, therefore I'm right."

The battle cry of a bully.
TerraBob

West Mansfield, OH

#31 Dec 13, 2007
Jim Bob wrote:
I have seen statistics indicating that if motorists were to pay for all of the burdens they impose on society (including congestion, road maintenance, road deaths, air pollution, etc) gas would be in the range of $11 per gallon for urban driving, somewhat less in rural areas.
Until that happens, motorists are basically getting a handout, and the least they can do is be polite to the cyclists and pedestrians who are subsidizing their transportation.
Of course, if transit riders paid their full share of the total cost, fares would be about $5-6, plus all capital costs. So, where do you draw the line?
Jim Bob

Manteo, NC

#32 Dec 13, 2007
TerraBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, if transit riders paid their full share of the total cost, fares would be about $5-6, plus all capital costs. So, where do you draw the line?
I don't see why any form of transportation should be subsidized. I'm confident that if subsidies for cars were eliminated, the increased use of transit would drive price much lower and quality much higher. Streetcars and railroads were private businesses at one time, and did just fine before the government started pouring billions into roads.

“Local Blogger Gets Involved”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of West Carolina

#33 Dec 14, 2007
Jim Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see why any form of transportation should be subsidized. I'm confident that if subsidies for cars were eliminated, the increased use of transit would drive price much lower and quality much higher. Streetcars and railroads were private businesses at one time, and did just fine before the government started pouring billions into roads.
I am glad to hear you say that the government shouldn't be involved in road building, I agree, private businesses could do it much better, and allow them to build a private road network.

Those of us who live in rural areas will never use public transit unless we are in town for the day...most of the time, our time is money, and we can't be waiting around for buses, trolleys, or worrying about switching to another to get where we are going.
I live in Macon County and do work all over the western end of the state, so public transit won't work for me unless I am vacationing in an area with that choice...I do not like urban areas, so you won't be seeing me on a bus, or in an urban park, with it's fake country setting. I prefer the real thing.
Joe

Asheville, NC

#34 Dec 14, 2007
Thunder Pig wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad to hear you say that the government shouldn't be involved in road building, I agree, private businesses could do it much better, and allow them to build a private road network.
Those of us who live in rural areas will never use public transit unless we are in town for the day...most of the time, our time is money, and we can't be waiting around for buses, trolleys, or worrying about switching to another to get where we are going.
I live in Macon County and do work all over the western end of the state, so public transit won't work for me unless I am vacationing in an area with that choice...I do not like urban areas, so you won't be seeing me on a bus, or in an urban park, with it's fake country setting. I prefer the real thing.
Then you should be for uban transit even more. If the people that lived near the city took the bus, walked or rode a bike there would be a lot more parking for county folk to use when they come to town.
Many poeple are "trapped" in the urban area. Most county land is already owned. If not for national parks every hill top around would be covered with reynolds mountian type developments. The city shuold have some green space so these people might learn to love the real thing as you put it.

Lastly if you love the mountian views here. You know the beautiful tree covered hills. You can thank national parks for that. So you have enjoied parks more then you think.

“Local Blogger Gets Involved”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of West Carolina

#35 Dec 14, 2007
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should be for uban transit even more. If the people that lived near the city took the bus, walked or rode a bike there would be a lot more parking for county folk to use when they come to town.
Many poeple are "trapped" in the urban area. Most county land is already owned. If not for national parks every hill top around would be covered with reynolds mountian type developments. The city shuold have some green space so these people might learn to love the real thing as you put it.
Lastly if you love the mountian views here. You know the beautiful tree covered hills. You can thank national parks for that. So you have enjoied parks more then you think.
When I see a park where the resources aren't allowed to be harvested, I see a terrible waste.
Trees are a renewable resource that should be harvested.

Not to beg the point, but every square inch of land is already owned! I just think that the government shouldn't be owning land they aren't building on.
Most of the land here is vacant, check out this google map:
http://maps.google.com/maps...
All this crying about over development is pure hogwash.
When I go Asheville, I don't have as much trouble finding a parking spot as I do in downtown Sylva, Waynesville, or Franklin.

“Why do ya need to know that?”

Since: Feb 07

Leicester

#36 Dec 14, 2007
County folk who live out in the country hopefully will not sale their land to big developers. Urban is not my thing. The transportation system in this town is not my bag, either.

And that last statement is 50/50. I have tree covered hills. The national parks had nothing to do with it.
Bree

Weaverville, NC

#37 Dec 14, 2007
Dunnin wrote:
County folk who live out in the country hopefully will not sale their land to big developers. Urban is not my thing. The transportation system in this town is not my bag, either.
And that last statement is 50/50. I have tree covered hills. The national parks had nothing to do with it.
County folks do not want to sell their land but if the city keeps annexing them...... well they have to because of the much higher property taxes. If the city keeps wanting more parks to keep up then they are not generating property tax inside the city and feel the need to keep going out and annexing the county to add more money to keep up all the parks. Asheville has plenty of parks.
Joe

Asheville, NC

#38 Dec 14, 2007
Thunder Pig wrote:
<quoted text>
When I see a park where the resources aren't allowed to be harvested, I see a terrible waste.
Trees are a renewable resource that should be harvested.
Not to beg the point, but every square inch of land is already owned! I just think that the government shouldn't be owning land they aren't building on.
Most of the land here is vacant, check out this google map:
http://maps.google.com/maps...
All this crying about over development is pure hogwash.
When I go Asheville, I don't have as much trouble finding a parking spot as I do in downtown Sylva, Waynesville, or Franklin.
I did not say every square inch. Just because it is vacant does not mean it is not owned. A farmer ownes 650 arce farm. He ownes all 650 acre you can just put your house there to enjoy the greenery. I also bet he would not like you and your dog hopping the fence.
I also think the responsible harversting of trees is good. But if you cut hard woods plant hard woods not pines. Just like rotating your crops. If you grew tobacco every year in the same place the out put would drop. It takes hundreds of years to make an old growth forest. These make habitat for bears and deer and fish that can be harvested. Wood is not the only resource in the forest.

So from your argument is it safe to assume. You do not and have not used any national park. You have never been to MT mitchell, grand father, Pisgah, or cherokee. Gran canyon? Great smokies? Is it also safe to assume that you want every tree Harvested from every mountian side. Can we also strip mine the minerals? WHich of these is ok, which is not?

I am fine with you not wanting urban transport for you. But if city taxes go for city tranportation. Where is your beef?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chugiak Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lawmaker says 'trickery' slipped Common Core in... Nov '14 Tamworth 1
the music thread (Mar '12) Sep '14 Musikologist 19
4-year-old dies in blaze (Feb '08) Jan '14 Ashlee 5
Frank Adams sentenced to 102 years for murder o... (Jan '10) Jan '14 No name 3
Who do you support for U.S. House in Alaska (Di... (Oct '10) Apr '13 gee 6
GOP Senator 'Evolving' on Gay Marriage (Mar '13) Mar '13 Magadala 4
chugiak (Oct '12) Oct '12 claire anna 1
Chugiak Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chugiak People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chugiak News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chugiak

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:26 am PST