Feb
29
Army Of Mumpower Against Cyclists
ByCarl Mumpower thinks that creating alternative transportation options in Asheville is “deluding people”. He says he can’t vote for cycling allowances because drug dealers and prostitutes are near children.
Not a big multitasker, is he?
As someone who’s in favor of paying police more for what they do and for improving our city through alternative transportation, I think Mumpower is unwilling to consider the possibility that both are good for the city. Carl wants all drug dealers and prostitutes gone before we can do anything else? Talk about deluding people…
(hat tip to BlogAsheville)
16 Comments
February 29th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I have to agree with the honorable council member Dr. Carl Mumpower. Providing basic city services should be the priority; and that these and any other non-essential projects entertained should be delivered sequentially, not simultaneously.
Yes, many things can be “good for the city.” And “many things” can be expensive and in some cases even inappropriate for government to address. Council should focus on its legitimate mandate: Delivering basic services and public safety. And until it has reached a satisfactory level of performance in those areas, it should remain focused on them and silent on others.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 8:31 am
What is a “satisfactory level of performance”, Tim?
I’ve lived here most recently for 8 years, and I’ve never locked my doors, never had a crime committed against me, always had water, sewer, garbage pickup, etc. (except during the floods in ’04, when the water was akimbo for a week). I understand that others haven’t been as fortunate re: crime, but it’s not serious to say that until every drug dealer is locked up, no one should be able to ride their bikes safely.
Besides, I figured libertarians would be in favor of legalizing prostitution and substance use.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
No worries. They’ll just use the budget windfall money that they found…
wait, nevermind.
Relax, Gordon, Mumpower just being a fiscal conservative.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Bob,
Did anyone ever tell you how annoying it is to be told, “Relax”?
Mumpower is a candidate for Congress, and this kind of rigidity is indicative of his tenure on Council and therefore relevant to his potential as Congressman.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 9:16 am
How about chill out? Man, panties in a twist today or what?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 11:01 am
No, Bob. None of those things are happening.
I’m not sure how posting this constitutes some sort of panic or hysteria… You’re attributing to me a feeling I’m not having.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
My brain is interpreting this in two ways. Either:
1) He’d rather use the city coffers to combat drugs and prostitution, or
2) He thinks that children are the only ones who ride bikes, and enabling them to ride in bike lanes might put them in a situation where they’d ride past a pro?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Building bicycle infrastructure IS fiscally conservative. Consider the external costs of automotive traffic.
Military cost – self explanatory, I hope.
Health cost – see above
The flat out cost – roads are relatively cheap, but parking is not. Now that the price of oil is skyrocketing, the feasibility of parking decks evaporates. More than 50% of downtown traffic is people looking for a place to park.
National Security – Osama bin Laden gets his money from oil. Carl Mumpower was a friend to Osama when he made that despicable vote.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“Special thing?” “Elite community?” Wow. Improving our town’s bikeability is important to Regular People Who Ride Because They Don’t Have a Car, perhaps because they work in the service industry that feeds and rings up the wealthy folks who come spend money here – and buy condos, and swell the need for parking (excellent point, David.) Or, maybe that is their choice.
That’s absurd to think cycling infrastructure is a “special thing.” Cyclists are out there for other reasons than recreation. It is a part of life and should be enabled just like auto travel.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Gordon, I know. Like you’ve said, that jokey tone doesn’t translate too well in the written word. It’s Friday!
David, it’s not when you’re spending money you don’t have.
Of course, they haven’t spent anything yet, so I’ll reserve judgement for now.
As an aside, surely you jest with that last line.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
bobaloo,
bike lanes move people more cheaply than roads. cheaper for the city. cheaper for the people. this cannot be refuted. when one considers all of the savings, one can only conclude that bike lanes are an INVESTMENT.
Not really kidding with the last line. Where do you thing Osama gets his money?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I’m with the majority. Build the bike lanes. It will encourage less use of fossil fuel burning transportation. Carl, I respect your individuality, but you are wrong on this one.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
From many, many sources David.
But your intellectual leap that Mumpy assists OBL by being a fiscal conservative objecting to spending money Asheville doesn’t have is one of, let’s say, Rovian proportions.
I’m not objecting to your overall point, per se (aside from the fact that not everybody can ride a bike for all their needs), simply the propaganda within.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
February 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Gordon, you’re right, libertarians are in favor of legalizing prostitution and substance use. And as a libertarian, and (I suppose, in this context) a fiscal conservative, I am for the bike lanes. They’re foolish, but at least its a foolishness that will harm very few people, and might give a little extra joy to some. The ideal solution would be for the City to simply give the money back to the taxpayers, perhaps with a little note apologizing for being a bunch of thieving jackasses. But that’s never going to happen. So, if my choice is between bike lanes, or more money to a corrupt and violent police department, and the enforcement of more inane and truly harmful regulations, I’ll take bike lanes every time.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
March 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am
bobaloo,
are you really saying that you don’t believe that our dependence on Saudi Oil doesn’t fund terrorism?
Lemuria,
the proposed bike lanes are designed for transportation, not recreation. Of course, they can be used for recreation, but the location of a bike lane is chosen for its ability to connect residential and business corridors and not for scenic purposes.
oh, and these bike lanes are going to save us a lot more than they are going to cost.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
March 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Certainly these two projects (reducing crime and promoting healthier/cleaner transportation options) can be pursued simultaneously. No, of course there’s not a magic bucket of money. There’s a budget. This can be done.
More bike lanes will be good for the city. I know plenty of part-time cyclists who will benefit from safer riding conditions. They will save money by purchasing less gasoline. Less traffic on the roads improves our lives in many ways. It also means less idling for those people still driving cars. I think more children will ride bikes to school. There are a lot of car-trips that can be replaced with bike-trips, and making the roads safer for bikes is a step in the right direction.
Rate this comment:
0 
0