Paul Parma said:
>OKay this is serious. Really. A few extremists (like myself) are not
>going to get the concept into America's lexicon. Ok, getting Smart
>Growth and New Urbanism into it has helped get us nearer to being
>accepted, but carfree isn't yet even being OFFERED for acceptance;
>If you don't see it on network TV, it ain't topical in the main stream
>right? Well how do you get it in the main streams' eye sight enough
>for networks to feel compelled to cover it a bit if nothing else just
>to show the main stream that the networks are hip to new main stream
>trends? And if the network's start touching on the concept, the
>parties, first the democrats and then the republicans in reaction will
>bring it up, and then you got yourself some potential boys.
I agree. I've been thinking the past few weeks about the agenda for
the next Car-Free Cities conference, in Prague. This one is sponsored
by Car Busters and is scheduled for March. I've recently said on that
list that we need to think about becoming a thousand times more
effective in terms of results than we have been. After all, things are
still getting worse--more cars, more oil, more pollution, more death,
more intrusion into the public realm. We're not yet have any effect.
I'm starting to thing that, much as I hate it, we're going to have to
resort to TV to get the message across to millions. This is actually
"good" televison, because the issue is very graphic. If we could put
together some good programs that contrast auto-centric cities with
carfree areas, I think people might: 1) be exposed to the idea, and
2) begin to understand just how much cars are costing us.
My personal problem in this is that I don't do television--I do stills.
I know that with the advent of DV camcorders, it's possible to make
TV on a shoe-string budget, but you have to know what you're doing.
And even at that we'd need a few thousand bucks for cameras, hard disks,
and editing software.
So, back to where we started: we need money.
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities