"Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids"

"Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids"

It's my personal belief, based on observations of my own and those in
my neighborhood, that kids don't get outside to play enough, and
certainly not as much as when I was a kid back in the late 50s and
early 60s.

This week (Apr 3-9) happens to be National Public Health Week:
"Designing Healthy Communities: Raising Healthy Kids":

One of the recommendations of NPHW is that communities consider adding
more bike paths and playgrounds as they design their outdoor spaces:

This sounds like an initiative that is worthy of support from both
Scouters and parents (even tho BSA is not listed as a partner).

Bill Baka...

I don't know where this cross post came from but I would put part of the
blame on real estate developers. There are about 1,500 new homes being
built in my area, about 1 mile away, that I ride through to get
somewhere. Over 100 are finished and people are living in them. The

George Conklin...

Good comment Pat. I purchased the house I now have because there were
trails and common land. But the current residents refuse to pay for keeping
these amenities up, and want to abandon them. Even a $25 dues increase is
'too much' for the more vocal people with about $25 a month also decried as
'too much money.' Planners can force developers to put in trails, but I
don't see that most buyers will pay fifty cents a month for upkeep since 'I
don't use them' seems to be the current thought pattern.

George Conklin...

You don't understand development rules. By law, for Durham, NC, for
example, such trails must be owned by a non-profit homeowner association,
which then does NOT have to keep the trails up, paved or anything. It is a
way of making new developments pay for de facto parks, while the taxes the
new developments pay go to keeping up public parks established before 1960.

Erik Sandblom...

snip

Erik Sandblom...

I see where you're coming from and disagree. Anyone who sells anything has
the power to move things in the direction they want it to go. In your case,
as a property developer, you don't just have to follow trends, you can set

Mike Kruger...

Wrong. "Who pays for replacement" is often an interesting political battle
for upgraded water lines, sewage lines, and roads. For example, if upgraded
storm sewers are needed to prevent storm flooding, should this cost be borne
by all the taxpayers in the district, those who live along the line to be

George Conklin...

What about horse trails for mules?

rebuilt, or only that subset who have flooding problems? There are no right
or wrong answers, just hard questions.

As for roads: why are some expressways in the Chicago area toll roads paid
for by those who use them , while others are free and paid for by general
taxes? In the end, it was who had (a) more money and (b) less political
clout.

Erik Sandblom...

Okay, I didn't know that. Sometimes I think democracy can get a little
excessive. Why not just pay your tax and leave things like sewage to the
experts? Do you have arguments about what colour to paint the stripes on the

Jeanne...

Money. There's not enough of it, so arguments arise over who will pay.

Erik Sandblom...

Arguments cost money too. Sometimes directly in the form of ad campaigns,
but always indirectly in time unusable for other purposes.

So this kind of direct democracy, where you argue over sewage costs, is
quite expensive compared to representative democracy, where you elect a guy
or some guys who quietly take care of it.

George Conklin...

Yes, and when homeowners get to vote on whether they will raise their
dues to take care of worn-out trails, they always say NO.

road too?

Jeanne...

Maybe. There have been arguments over *where* to paint the stripes
(e.g., should the roads be striped to allow bike lanes?).

them! If you think bike paths would make your developments fetch a higher

George Conklin...

And why should a developer appeal to your special interests? If you want
a safe community, you do not need trails and bike paths, and who is going to
maintain them? More homeowner dues? I can tell you from experience that
there is strong resistance from homeowners to pay for even trails already
provided by the developer. They would rather abandon them.

George Conklin...

have

George Conklin...

Well, right now we are in a fight with the younger members of the
homeowner association who want nothing to do with maintaining paths. It is
a real situation and your imagination fails to deal with the reality we
face.

price, then it's your responsibility to put them in. You have to decide
where they go, what people might use them for, and hence what they should
look like.

Next, you make it a selling point. Tell people your dwellings are better
because they have bike paths that are a pleasure to use and connect each
dwelling with the school, grocery store etc. Tell them the car roads/bike
paths are social meeting points and make life in your development fun and
secure.

You are absolutely not a slave to your potential customers. You have the
power to sell them great stuff they didn't even know they needed, at a high
price, because it improves their lives.

Haven't you read any marketing literature, Philip Kotler? You anticipate
needs and wants. You create new ones. "Principles of Marketing":
83155

Realtor put up sighs at the beginning saying "Proposed park" and
"Proposed school", neither of which has happened yet. The kids have
nowhere to play and are forced to go to an old and already overcrowded
school. Forget about bike paths. The developer knew they would take up
space (and profit) from his development. He also cut down 3 old growth
trees that were landmarks to make room for 3 more houses. Now that
people are seeing how the neighborhood is just wall to wall houses
without any outdoor facilities, sales have dropped though the floor.
Poetic justice? Only if the developer goes bankrupt.
Bill Baka
From rec.bicycles.misc

Now please quit cross posting.