Wow. Citizens voicing an opinion on the airwaves contrary to to opinion of elected officials--lets get out the fairness doctrine and banish them all. While we're at it, lets get rid of that whole free speech problem too.
Perhaps it these politicians could make a convincing argument on why the mass transit authority, light rail, and the dysfunctional-from-its-plan milwaukee to Kenosha rail paroject the right wing conspiracy wouldn't have to speak up. But, I'm sure that's too hard, so lets just call out the censors.
I completely agree with Mayor Nelson that transit needs to be pitched in terms of economic development, but no one seems to be talking about the economic benefits of transit investment.
So, hear are some (albeit outdated) tidbits about the economic benefits of light rail, from Dr Marc Levine's 1992 study:
• Construction of a light rail system will generate 6,041 jobs, and the Milwaukee region will see an increase of $365 million (in 1990 dollars) in total output. State and local governments will receive an additional $44 million in taxes.
Not bad, heh? Not to mention SEWRPC says rail would reduce freeway travel times!
Now, given the evidence, tell me who could be opposed to that? And why the the heck aren't our elected officials touting these figures instead of prattling banalities?
We need to update Dr Levine's 1992 findings, and start discussing real benefits of transit.
Patrick also seems to miss the fact that conservative business leaders and conservative consultants are recommending at least giving KRM serious study.
Look, I'd love to see all those jobs too, but the studies still would need to address a couple of concerns I have. Fisrt, large scale employers usually make stuff, so they want to be located by the highway to move stuff in and out. Secondly, it is unlikely that people will walk more than a mile from train stations to jobs--even on the nicest days. So what we are really talking is a train, and at least more busses at both ends--home and work. Thirdly, I've taken the train to Chicago and note few new businesses near the Sturtevant station--have I missed the economic development there--or it the price of the Amtrack ticket still keeping that service out of reach? Finally, since Kenosha is already served by the METRA, has the station prompted new development there? Are there any figures to back that up? Studies on what might be are nce, but lets take a look at realistic history.
Negative talk radio is anti First Amendment. The host controls the on-off button and will turn off a caller once the caller has said enough to be used by the host. The point of the exercise is Entertainment, not news; this is entertainment for many listeners who may truly believe in the host's point of view, but who are protected from any real discussion of issues.
One of the failures of our polarized media (not just talk radio) is that it is not journalism as much as catering services, delivering up what the audience wants to consume, skipping anything that they think cannot be chewed.
Censor? No, Never. But put a bright light on what they say and you will be accused of wanting censorship. Just saw that here, didn't we?
This item is rather interesting, but I would have hoped to see the names of others besides government leaders such as people in business.
ReplyDeleteBelling will have a field day with the way this piece is written.
Wow. Citizens voicing an opinion on the airwaves contrary to to opinion of elected officials--lets get out the fairness doctrine and banish them all. While we're at it, lets get rid of that whole free speech problem too.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it these politicians could make a convincing argument on why the mass transit authority, light rail, and the dysfunctional-from-its-plan milwaukee to Kenosha rail paroject the right wing conspiracy wouldn't have to speak up. But, I'm sure that's too hard, so lets just call out the censors.
To Patrick;
ReplyDeleteI said nothing about the fairness doctrine. I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment.
Limit your arguments to the issues, and stop that paranoid catastrophizing.
I completely agree with Mayor Nelson that transit needs to be pitched in terms of economic development, but no one seems to be talking about the economic benefits of transit investment.
ReplyDeleteSo, hear are some (albeit outdated) tidbits about the economic benefits of light rail, from Dr Marc Levine's 1992 study:
• Construction of a light rail system will generate 6,041 jobs, and the Milwaukee region will see an increase of $365 million (in 1990 dollars) in total output. State and local governments will receive an additional $44 million in taxes.
Not bad, heh? Not to mention SEWRPC says rail would reduce freeway travel times!
Now, given the evidence, tell me who could be opposed to that? And why the the heck aren't our elected officials touting these figures instead of prattling banalities?
We need to update Dr Levine's 1992 findings, and start discussing real benefits of transit.
Patrick also seems to miss the fact that conservative business leaders and conservative consultants are recommending at least giving KRM serious study.
ReplyDeleteLook, I'd love to see all those jobs too, but the studies still would need to address a couple of concerns I have. Fisrt, large scale employers usually make stuff, so they want to be located by the highway to move stuff in and out. Secondly, it is unlikely that people will walk more than a mile from train stations to jobs--even on the nicest days. So what we are really talking is a train, and at least more busses at both ends--home and work. Thirdly, I've taken the train to Chicago and note few new businesses near the Sturtevant station--have I missed the economic development there--or it the price of the Amtrack ticket still keeping that service out of reach? Finally, since Kenosha is already served by the METRA, has the station prompted new development there? Are there any figures to back that up? Studies on what might be are nce, but lets take a look at realistic history.
ReplyDeleteNegative talk radio is anti First Amendment. The host controls the on-off button and will turn off a caller once the caller has said enough to be used by the host. The point of the exercise is Entertainment, not news; this is entertainment for many listeners who may truly believe in the host's point of view, but who are protected from any real discussion of issues.
ReplyDeleteOne of the failures of our polarized media (not just talk radio) is that it is not journalism as much as catering services, delivering up what the audience wants to consume, skipping anything that they think cannot be chewed.
Censor? No, Never. But put a bright light on what they say and you will be accused of wanting censorship. Just saw that here, didn't we?