3 ms·

Maybe Colorado should implement some of what Hunter S. Thompson had in his platform for Sheriff of Aspen: 1. Rip up all city streets with jackhammers and sod t

by jrs95 9y ago

Maybe Colorado should implement some of what Hunter S. Thompson had in his platform for Sheriff of Aspen: 1. Rip up all city streets with jackhammers and sod the streets at once.... All public movement would be by foot and a fleet of bicycles, maintained by the city police force. 2. Change the name 'Aspen', by public referendum, to 'Fat City'. This would prevent greedheads, land-rapers and other human jackals from capitalizing on the name 'Aspen'.... These swine should be fucked, broken, and driven across the land. 3. Drug Sales must be controlled. My first act as Sheriff will be to install, on the courthouse lawn, a bastinado platform and a set of stocks in order to punish dishonest dope dealers in a proper public fashion. Each year these dealers cheat millions of people out of millions of dollars.... it will be the general philosophy of the Sheriff’s office that no drug worth taking should be sold for money. 4. Hunting and fishing should be forbidden to all non-residents, with the exception of those who can obtain the signed endorsement of a resident- who will then be legally responsible for any violation or abuse committed by the non-resident he has ‘signed for’…. By this approach-making hundreds or even thousands of individuals personally responsible for protecting the animals, fish and birds who live here-we would create a sort of de facto game preserve, without the harsh restrictions that will necessarily be forced on us if these blood-thirsty geeks keep swarming in here each autumn to shoot everything they see. 5. The Sheriff and his Deputies should never be armed in public. Every urban riot, shoot-out and blood-bath (involving guns) in recent memory has been set off by some trigger-happy cop in a fear frenzy. 6. It will be the policy of the Sheriff’s office savagely to harass all those engaged in any form of land-rape.

taurath 9y ago
I honestly think that a more modern version of "intentional communities" would really appeal to a lot of people. Cheap housing, walk able everything including grocery stores, a couple locally owned industries or two, and the support people to support them - it literally sounds like the dream to me. Suburbs are exclusion zones, and cities are so incredibly expensive and chaotic. I'm sure there's 1000 economic and social reasons they can't be done, but damn if it doesn't sound good.
- imtringued 9y ago
  I'm wondering if chinese planned cities are designed to be bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
- jngreenlee 9y ago
  You actually just described the modern approach to suburbs! Stapleton in Denver, Mueller in Austin are some examples. These basically become high priced, close in, suburbs.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Interestingly, this sort of planned suburb seems to end up a lot like what we used to get organically. Boston's inner suburbs are full of this sort of stuff - walkable stores, small business and light industry, 2-5 story buildings for housing. And it all feels a lot like the old quarters of many European cities. Part of the change is building materials and cars, I suppose - what was obvious in 1850 now has to be planned to outcompete highrises and cars-first layouts. But an awful lot of it is just not outlawing what people already do if you let them; Boston's livable old suburbs are basically all illegal today. http://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/
mulmen 9y ago
This has a strong appeal to my rural roots. It's certainly idealistic but strikes me as potentially workable.
Bartweiss 9y ago
I don't think Thompson and Ed Abbey ever met, but they'd have hit it off quite well. (Or killed each other, I suppose.) Points 1, 2, and 4 remind me of nothing so much as Abbey's stance on protecting the national parks: avoiding regulation via personal responsibility and barriers on idle, disinteresting consumption. As I remember, his plan for the Grand Canyon was to put the last parking lot 5+ miles from the Canyon, with a bus line and a fleet of bicycles. You bike in (or take the bus, iff you've got a health reason not to bike), see the Canyon, then take a bus back out. No Canyon-side parking, less litter, no tourists seeking 5 minutes of photos, and no hucksters selling tickets for glass bridges or anything else. And yes, I seem to remember he wanted to keep names like "Hell's Half Mile" on everything possible, the better to limit demand. A bit exclusionary, maybe, but sort of a nice vision given what we've got instead. (As far as I know, the park that came closest is Zion, and it's definitely better for having done so.)
- ghaff 9y ago
  Denali has also mostly prohibited private cars including for people staying deep in the park. (Unlike the Zion canyon where you can still drive to the lodge.) The park service has introduced shuttle buses in a number of places. It seems to be their general trend to at least stop building additional parking to meet increases in demand.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic but I think realistic option would be to implement a weighted voting system based on time spent as a resident of the area the vote is for. Want to move to our state, your vote is worth 1/10 when you arrive and gorws by +1/10 on the next calendar year eventually topping out at 1/1. Want to move towns within the state? You can keep your voting power in state elections but you're gonna restart from 1/10 for local elections. This would put a stop to hordes of new residents from trashing places because it would give the existing residents time to react before the newcomers dominate local politics. Experience/time considered in all sorts of contexts. The opinion of someone who's been doing something for years is more meaningful than that of someone who hasn't. Why don't we apply that to political representation. People who have been living somewhere for awhile probably have a better opinion on the future direction of that place than people who haven't.

by jrs95 9y ago

taurath 9y ago

I honestly think that a more modern version of "intentional communities" would really appeal to a lot of people. Cheap housing, walk able everything including grocery stores, a couple locally owned industries or two, and the support people to support them - it literally sounds like the dream to me. Suburbs are exclusion zones, and cities are so incredibly expensive and chaotic. I'm sure there's 1000 economic and social reasons they can't be done, but damn if it doesn't sound good.

imtringued 9y ago
I'm wondering if chinese planned cities are designed to be bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
jngreenlee 9y ago
You actually just described the modern approach to suburbs! Stapleton in Denver, Mueller in Austin are some examples. These basically become high priced, close in, suburbs.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Interestingly, this sort of planned suburb seems to end up a lot like what we used to get organically. Boston's inner suburbs are full of this sort of stuff - walkable stores, small business and light industry, 2-5 story buildings for housing. And it all feels a lot like the old quarters of many European cities. Part of the change is building materials and cars, I suppose - what was obvious in 1850 now has to be planned to outcompete highrises and cars-first layouts. But an awful lot of it is just not outlawing what people already do if you let them; Boston's livable old suburbs are basically all illegal today. http://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/ http://cityobservatory.org/the-illegal-city-of-somerville/

mulmen 9y ago

This has a strong appeal to my rural roots. It's certainly idealistic but strikes me as potentially workable.

Bartweiss 9y ago

I don't think Thompson and Ed Abbey ever met, but they'd have hit it off quite well. (Or killed each other, I suppose.) Points 1, 2, and 4 remind me of nothing so much as Abbey's stance on protecting the national parks: avoiding regulation via personal responsibility and barriers on idle, disinteresting consumption. As I remember, his plan for the Grand Canyon was to put the last parking lot 5+ miles from the Canyon, with a bus line and a fleet of bicycles. You bike in (or take the bus, iff you've got a health reason not to bike), see the Canyon, then take a bus back out. No Canyon-side parking, less litter, no tourists seeking 5 minutes of photos, and no hucksters selling tickets for glass bridges or anything else. And yes, I seem to remember he wanted to keep names like "Hell's Half Mile" on everything possible, the better to limit demand. A bit exclusionary, maybe, but sort of a nice vision given what we've got instead. (As far as I know, the park that came closest is Zion, and it's definitely better for having done so.)

ghaff 9y ago
Denali has also mostly prohibited private cars including for people staying deep in the park. (Unlike the Zion canyon where you can still drive to the lodge.) The park service has introduced shuttle buses in a number of places. It seems to be their general trend to at least stop building additional parking to meet increases in demand.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic but I think realistic option would be to implement a weighted voting system based on time spent as a resident of the area the vote is for. Want to move to our state, your vote is worth 1/10 when you arrive and gorws by +1/10 on the next calendar year eventually topping out at 1/1. Want to move towns within the state? You can keep your voting power in state elections but you're gonna restart from 1/10 for local elections. This would put a stop to hordes of new residents from trashing places because it would give the existing residents time to react before the newcomers dominate local politics. Experience/time considered in all sorts of contexts. The opinion of someone who's been doing something for years is more meaningful than that of someone who hasn't. Why don't we apply that to political representation. People who have been living somewhere for awhile probably have a better opinion on the future direction of that place than people who haven't.