Strong disagree. Bike lanes are a necessary part of any city's infrastructure, providing a safe way for all cyclists to move from one point, to another. To anchor bike lanes to groups of people like techies and hipsters is absurd.
Like, yeah, totally agree that bike lanes are an important part of any city's street planning. The more absurd thing is that there have been people riding bikes through the streets of SF for decades, and it wasn't until parts of the city began to gentrify, and bike shares became popular amongst the wealthier residents, that anyone cared enough to fix the problem.
You don't think there's a small chance the previous residents _did_ advocate for change, but their advocacy wasn't effective because it wasn't backed by wealth?
For many poor and middle class people bikes were a sign you were poor and could not afford a car. So some people in the middle would avoid biking so as not to look poor.
Upper middle class, having some security and wealth didn't care about "looking poor". They could ride $5000 bikes to display wealth or could ride $50 used bikes, interchangeably. They already had status so bikes were neutral or even positive (I'm active, I'm pro environment, etc.)
Which is why people get upset. Its not that the changes aren't good, its the fact that the change doesn't happen until someone else asks for them.
But, unlike a lot of other schools in its position, its alumni network generally doesn't give back all that often (probably in part because first-gen college students are more-likely to have financial responsibilities to their families, and less-likely to be able to afford to give/prioritize giving back to their universities).
But I do specifically remember having to move off campus because my dorm had a mouse/mold problem (woke up multiple nights in a row to mice in my bed, and started having breathing problems because of the mold. Some students even had mushrooms growing out of their carpet). And when I brought it up to the director of residence life, he responded by saying that it wasn't a big enough deal to address, and that students always complain about these things and eventually stop pushing....So....
[1] https://www.howard.edu/assessment/documents/reports/Graduati...
When wealthier people move into a neighborhood, expecting bike lanes, they push for them. They probably have more power/influence, but they also have a higher since of entitlement that causes them to not give up, even if the city pushes back.
Completely agree. The phrase "this is why we can't have nice things" comes to mind. I can sort of understand the backlash against corporate shuttles or even Uber, since these roll in and only benefit a certain layer of society. However, that decidedly does not seem to be the case with these bikes. From the article:
> “When you look at the transportation privileges that have been provided for these techies, and when you now look at these bikes, it’s not for Juan. It ain’t for Pablo ... The feeling of people in this community is like we don’t exist.”
But then:
> Supporters [...] claimed it is one of the most accessible in the country, with a $5 annual membership for low-income people and options to sign up without a credit or debit card.
This just sounds like complaining about change for the sake of it. Then again, maybe this whole anti-gentrification story is overblown. It could just be bored kids with no larger agenda. After all, the article even mentions it's common for vandals to target bike sharing systems when they first appear.
You blame all maladies and shortcomings on the professionals, the middle class, the merchants, etc., who are taking your entitlements at every chance. It has the typical characteristics of incited class struggle.
Build, just build. It benefits everyone but entrenched interests (nimbys).
It's presented as us vs them. And that is so unfortunate, because it should be seen as progress.
edit: downvote? what's to downvote? seriously? don't be a coward, explain yourself!
Visiting a coffee shop (no matter what you buy) will always be seen as a luxury activity, even though people have been going to diners for coffee (or making their own) for years.
Diners (at least those where I live) have started offering more options (including cappuccino style concoctions) in response to the coffee house trend, and now tend to match the prices of those coffee houses.
edit: again with the downvotes? is this not largely true? I think you give most people too much credit if you disagree with this. please back up your down votes with some kind of argument.
I can understand the frustration from people who need to drive when new infrastructure geared towards biking seemingly comes at the expense of drivers. Ex. Market St, the main street in downtown SF, is scheduled to be closed to private vehicles and only used by bikes, taxis and buses.
That part of the article left a nasty taste in my mouth. The only reason anyone would make such a statement would be to backup their own shortsighted, backward-looking way of thinking.
I'm not sure at what age it's no longer safe. Even when you are young, riding around a busy city with traffic can be a bit dangerous. Coordination decreases as you age, and at certain point, one fall can yield broken bones. A broken hip, for example, when you are old can be the beginning of a permanent decline.
It's politics