Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hi, Im back

Expand Messages
  • Mateus de Oliveira Fechino
    Hello everyone who remembers me ( and who doesnt !). I used to participate in this group some months ago and expressed some of my opinions on the issue
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello everyone who remembers me ( and who doesnt !). I used to
      participate in this group some months ago and expressed some of my
      opinions on the issue (carfree cities). I was pretty sure about what
      was right at the time and to me Joel Crawford's site was a bible .
      Cars should be off the streets imediately and so.
      But since then Ive been thinking a lot about it and got to a
      conclusion to myself, which may not and most probably will not be
      suitable to most of this groups' participants.
      I will tell what I think. Lots of people in Brazil ( where I live )
      used to say some years ago ,when the country was beginning to open
      its boundaries to imported products of all kind ( that was in the
      beginning of the 90's ), that they were AGAINST that phenomenon that
      was being called "globalization" and that was said to cause
      unemployment and so . As time went by and people got to know a little
      bit what was that to live in a more open economy ( and that includes
      the pros and the cons ), such complaint about globalization began to
      vanish from the press , and the focus since then is much more over
      how the government deals with globalization, and not with the
      phenomenon itself.
      Well , my point is : globalization is there whether you want it or
      not. Youve got lots of ways to deal with it, from keeping your
      country shutdown to foreign investments to the slowly( or fast if you
      wish ) opening of your boarders to make commerce flow naturaly,
      helping everyone grow.
      So what do cars have to do with it? Its the same story ! Cars are
      there and there's actually very little that you can do about it. To
      my humble point of view , forcing the close of a city to car traffic
      would be like closing a country's boarders to trades . Cars are there
      and they've got pros and cons just as globalization. What we gotta to
      is make the best use of its pros, and try to minimize the cons .
      Im not a new urbanistic( because Im not even an urbanist or
      architect , Im a economics college student ) , nor do I live in a
      fairy tale where global business help all everytime . What I think is
      that dreaming about an ideal carfree world is a little bit a waste of
      time when even Cuba , North Corea and China are already aware that
      some freedom of choice may be of more use to all.
      To finish, Ill tell you that, people must have options, and cars ,
      like buses, subway , cycling or walking , is certainly one of them .
      One behalf of what people might have saw me posting in this egroup
      before , that is my true point of view.

      What do you think of that ? Ill be looking forward to comments from
      all :)

      its only the first of many I hope

      Mateus O. Fechino
    • Roy Preston
      ... Ha ha ha. Like a rapist in a nunnery! Roy P
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Mateus threw open the doors with a flourish and pronounced:
        >Hi, Im back!

        Ha ha ha. Like a rapist in a nunnery!

        Roy P
      • Guy Berliner
        I object to your juxtaposing North Korea or Cuba as the only alternatives to the US (none other than Henry Kissinger defined globalization as another word
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 8, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I object to your juxtaposing North Korea or Cuba as the only
          alternatives to the US (none other than Henry Kissinger defined
          "globalization" as "another word for the dominant role of the US
          in the post Cold War world order.") I doubt most people on this
          list would favor replacing one kind of antidemocratic regime with
          another. And surely that is what we have in my country, sadly. As
          to "choice," where is it my country? The choice is sorely lacking.
          There may exist an artificial choice of different brands of
          consumer goods. But try to find so much as one city, or even
          one neighborhood in one city, in this country where you can
          walk without the constant menace of high speed auto traffic.
          What is so natural about being subjected to such an ever present
          danger against your will? How come we get some choices (a thousand
          brands of toothpaste), and not others (a choice of affordable
          neighborhoods at least some of which are free of the more egregious
          effects of automotive tyranny)? I suggest that the choices we are
          faced with by our economy are not an act of God, but of men. And any
          act of men can be changed by them.

          On 8 Apr 2001 Mateus de Oliveira Fechino" <fechino@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hello everyone who remembers me ( and who doesnt !). I used to
          > participate in this group some months ago and expressed some of my
          > opinions on the issue (carfree cities). I was pretty sure about what
          > was right at the time and to me Joel Crawford's site was a bible .
          > Cars should be off the streets imediately and so.
          > But since then Ive been thinking a lot about it and got to a
          > conclusion to myself, which may not and most probably will not be
          > suitable to most of this groups' participants.
          > I will tell what I think. Lots of people in Brazil ( where I live )
          > used to say some years ago ,when the country was beginning to open
          > its boundaries to imported products of all kind ( that was in the
          > beginning of the 90's ), that they were AGAINST that phenomenon that
          > was being called "globalization" and that was said to cause
          > unemployment and so . As time went by and people got to know a little
          > bit what was that to live in a more open economy ( and that includes
          > the pros and the cons ), such complaint about globalization began to
          > vanish from the press , and the focus since then is much more over
          > how the government deals with globalization, and not with the
          > phenomenon itself.
          > Well , my point is : globalization is there whether you want it or
          > not. Youve got lots of ways to deal with it, from keeping your
          > country shutdown to foreign investments to the slowly( or fast if you
          > wish ) opening of your boarders to make commerce flow naturaly,
          > helping everyone grow.
          > So what do cars have to do with it? Its the same story ! Cars are
          > there and there's actually very little that you can do about it. To
          > my humble point of view , forcing the close of a city to car traffic
          > would be like closing a country's boarders to trades . Cars are there
          > and they've got pros and cons just as globalization. What we gotta to
          > is make the best use of its pros, and try to minimize the cons .
          > Im not a new urbanistic( because Im not even an urbanist or
          > architect , Im a economics college student ) , nor do I live in a
          > fairy tale where global business help all everytime . What I think is
          > that dreaming about an ideal carfree world is a little bit a waste of
          > time when even Cuba , North Corea and China are already aware that
          > some freedom of choice may be of more use to all.
          > To finish, Ill tell you that, people must have options, and cars ,
          > like buses, subway , cycling or walking , is certainly one of them .
          > One behalf of what people might have saw me posting in this egroup
          > before , that is my true point of view.
          >
          > What do you think of that ? Ill be looking forward to comments from
          > all :)
          >
          > its only the first of many I hope
          >
          > Mateus O. Fechino
        • Mateus de Oliveira Fechino
          Hi, Guy You mentioned lots of negative points about cars in the city. I ll tell you, I agree with all of them . I also have to pay high attention at every
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 8, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Guy

            You mentioned lots of negative points about cars in the city.
            I'll tell you, I agree with all of them . I also have to pay high
            attention at every corner not to be knocked down by a car. I have to
            live with noise all day long too . When I go downtown this beautiful
            500.000 inhabitants city I live in, I have to hold my breath not to
            inhale that *&ยจ%$ smoke that trucks leave behind.

            But on the other hand , look at me, I dont know about you, but I have
            ever been completely dependent on cars ( and that includes buses I
            believe, according to Joel Crawford's model of a carfree city ) .
            Wherever I go, I go by car or bus. That is the point about freedom of
            choice I was refering to . I wish I could live in downtown
            Amsterdam , or Venice, or wherever place where I could hear the birds
            and people's footsteps and walk relaxed( I really do ) . And you know
            why I keep living here in this town where youve got a car for every
            two people ?? Because I cant afford living in Venice ! Id have to
            begin a hole new life , leave college and my family and friends, get
            a job as a clown at Piazza San Marco , become an italian citizen and
            so .

            Would you do that ? Why not if youre up to all those challenges ? I
            wouldnt, thats a high price to pay for me. I chose to battle to
            concentrate on study against noise from cars, and to watch out every
            street corner not to die at 18 on the streets. In the other hand I
            can live in a big city and still have relatively fast access to all
            different different parts of it ( even by bus ). Maybe when I retire
            I can hopelly buy a small apartment and spend my last days in Venice.
            Or I could just ( once again , if I could afford ) buy a house on
            these new suburbs and go even to the grocery store three blocks away
            by car, I dont know, and then having very little traffic to deal with
            near home ( which I agree would be quite a paradox). But thats the
            problem , Guy, I cant, today.

            Should we make it a law that no car is no longer allowed in this
            world of ours ( which I think is not Joel's idea at all ) ? Well, if
            we could do that...anyone has got an idea of how ?

            Look Guy, in a society I believe we all struggle to live together in
            harmony , right? Think about car drivers: wouldnt it be better if
            they could wipe out all pedestrians and all other car traffic from
            the streets , the same way pedestrians want to get rid of all cars ?
            Thats social life, right ? You really cant get all you want.Thats my
            opinion.

            Mateus Fechino

            --- In carfree_cities@y..., Guy Berliner <guy@s...> wrote:
            > I object to your juxtaposing North Korea or Cuba as the only
            > alternatives to the US (none other than Henry Kissinger defined
            > "globalization" as "another word for the dominant role of the US
            > in the post Cold War world order.") I doubt most people on this
            > list would favor replacing one kind of antidemocratic regime with
            > another. And surely that is what we have in my country, sadly. As
            > to "choice," where is it my country? The choice is sorely lacking.
            > There may exist an artificial choice of different brands of
            > consumer goods. But try to find so much as one city, or even
            > one neighborhood in one city, in this country where you can
            > walk without the constant menace of high speed auto traffic.
            > What is so natural about being subjected to such an ever present
            > danger against your will? How come we get some choices (a thousand
            > brands of toothpaste), and not others (a choice of affordable
            > neighborhoods at least some of which are free of the more egregious
            > effects of automotive tyranny)? I suggest that the choices we are
            > faced with by our economy are not an act of God, but of men. And any
            > act of men can be changed by them.
            >
            > On 8 Apr 2001 Mateus de Oliveira Fechino" <fechino@y...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hello everyone who remembers me ( and who doesnt !). I used to
            > > participate in this group some months ago and expressed some of
            my
            > > opinions on the issue (carfree cities). I was pretty sure about
            what
            > > was right at the time and to me Joel Crawford's site was a
            bible .
            > > Cars should be off the streets imediately and so.
            > > But since then Ive been thinking a lot about it and got to a
            > > conclusion to myself, which may not and most probably will not be
            > > suitable to most of this groups' participants.
            > > I will tell what I think. Lots of people in Brazil ( where I
            live )
            > > used to say some years ago ,when the country was beginning to
            open
            > > its boundaries to imported products of all kind ( that was in the
            > > beginning of the 90's ), that they were AGAINST that phenomenon
            that
            > > was being called "globalization" and that was said to cause
            > > unemployment and so . As time went by and people got to know a
            little
            > > bit what was that to live in a more open economy ( and that
            includes
            > > the pros and the cons ), such complaint about globalization began
            to
            > > vanish from the press , and the focus since then is much more
            over
            > > how the government deals with globalization, and not with the
            > > phenomenon itself.
            > > Well , my point is : globalization is there whether you want it
            or
            > > not. Youve got lots of ways to deal with it, from keeping your
            > > country shutdown to foreign investments to the slowly( or fast if
            you
            > > wish ) opening of your boarders to make commerce flow naturaly,
            > > helping everyone grow.
            > > So what do cars have to do with it? Its the same story ! Cars are
            > > there and there's actually very little that you can do about it.
            To
            > > my humble point of view , forcing the close of a city to car
            traffic
            > > would be like closing a country's boarders to trades . Cars are
            there
            > > and they've got pros and cons just as globalization. What we
            gotta to
            > > is make the best use of its pros, and try to minimize the cons .
            > > Im not a new urbanistic( because Im not even an urbanist or
            > > architect , Im a economics college student ) , nor do I live in a
            > > fairy tale where global business help all everytime . What I
            think is
            > > that dreaming about an ideal carfree world is a little bit a
            waste of
            > > time when even Cuba , North Corea and China are already aware
            that
            > > some freedom of choice may be of more use to all.
            > > To finish, Ill tell you that, people must have options, and
            cars ,
            > > like buses, subway , cycling or walking , is certainly one of
            them .
            > > One behalf of what people might have saw me posting in this
            egroup
            > > before , that is my true point of view.
            > >
            > > What do you think of that ? Ill be looking forward to comments
            from
            > > all :)
            > >
            > > its only the first of many I hope
            > >
            > > Mateus O. Fechino
          • Philip D Riggs
            On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:00:50 -0000 Mateus de Oliveira Fechino ... If we used your logic we would still be under a feudal system of goverment. Times change,
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 8, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:00:50 -0000 "Mateus de Oliveira Fechino"
              <fechino@...> writes:
              >
              > Should we make it a law that no car is no longer allowed in this
              > world of ours ( which I think is not Joel's idea at all ) ? Well, if
              > we could do that...anyone has got an idea of how ?
              >
              > Look Guy, in a society I believe we all struggle to live together in
              > harmony , right? Think about car drivers: wouldnt it be better if
              > they could wipe out all pedestrians and all other car traffic from
              > the streets , the same way pedestrians want to get rid of all cars ?
              >
              > Thats social life, right ? You really cant get all you want.Thats my
              > opinion.

              If we used your logic we would still be under a feudal system of
              goverment. Times change, values change, and social norms, laws, etc. also
              change. Environmentalists are overcoming these problems through education
              and demonstrating the positive advantages of change. Pollution once was
              thought of as a normal byproduct of industrial production. Now we know
              better. Change does come with a cost, but the benefits far outweigh
              thoses costs in my opinion. How can you place a price on a human life and
              their health? And for what reason? Profits and stock values? As for
              societal harmony, by the very nature of imposition it is up to those who
              cause problems and harms to relinquish (hopefully voluntarily) the cause
              of imposition, in this case the automobile, for the greater societal
              good. Pedestrians don't kill people by hitting other people, drivers do.
              The cost of the automobile in road construction and maintenance is a huge
              drain on economies. Its cost in pollution and health degradation is
              enormous. For all the attention at least cigarette health related
              problems are for the most part voluntary. Auto exhaust affects everybody
              and there is no getting away from it. In my opinion it is
              incomprehensible that the transportation industry is so heavily
              subsidized, but we can't afford even a minimum government supported
              health care provision. You are right, we can't get all we want. But Guy
              is right, we are denied a basic choice in life when an industry imposes a
              destructive force in society and we are forced to live with it. If a
              person kills with a gun it is murder. We accept the fact a gun is a
              dangerous and hold people accountable for proper careful use. An
              automobile is treated differently. If somebody dies it is an "accident"
              generally nobody is held accountable as seen by minimum punishment of
              most people involved in the most dangerous or horrendous acts involving
              the auto. You don't have the right to endanger my life and health.

              *******************************
              Philip Riggs
              Colorado State University
              Fort Collins, Colorado
            • Chris Bradshaw
              Mateus, Your turnaround in your opinion suggests that further flip-flops are probably just around the corner. However, you do raise some serious challenge to
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 8, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Mateus,

                Your turnaround in your opinion suggests that further flip-flops are
                probably just
                around the corner.

                However, you do raise some serious challenge to the premise of this
                list.

                Globalism and car-use are both "choices" that reduce choice for those
                who try to
                use their "alternatives."

                Globalism is not just about adding more choice to your daily shopping,
                but about
                reducing local alternatives, as large companies tap official subsidies
                for
                petroleum for the transportation of its goods, and skewing zoning bylaws
                and
                property tax laws to favour their large big-box retail outlets, while
                soaking
                traditional shops on main streets that have a much smaller
                municipal-service
                footprint than their global "competitors."

                And the use of the automobile is, as another subscriber pointed out,
                fraught with
                open intimidation (and other deteriorations of non-car alternatives) of
                non-car
                travelers, not to mention the aforementioned subsidies and other
                sanctions.
                Car-use is a form of addiction, or at least dependence. The "hard
                drive" article
                is a good example of the kind of thinking it stimulates.

                Chris Bradshaw
              • Ronald Dawson
                ... Welcome back to the list. ... That s fine. ... A lot of Canadians had the same thoughts as well over NAFTA and some times it s hard to tell what has really
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 8, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mateus de Oliveira Fechino wrote:
                  >Hello everyone who remembers me ( and who doesnt !).

                  Welcome back to the list.

                  >I used to
                  >participate in this group some months ago and expressed some of my
                  >opinions on the issue (carfree cities). I was pretty sure about what
                  >was right at the time and to me Joel Crawford's site was a bible .
                  >Cars should be off the streets imediately and so.
                  >But since then Ive been thinking a lot about it and got to a
                  >conclusion to myself, which may not and most probably will not be
                  >suitable to most of this groups' participants.

                  That's fine.

                  >I will tell what I think. Lots of people in Brazil ( where I live )
                  >used to say some years ago ,when the country was beginning to open
                  >its boundaries to imported products of all kind ( that was in the
                  >beginning of the 90's ), that they were AGAINST that phenomenon that
                  >was being called "globalization" and that was said to cause
                  >unemployment and so . As time went by and people got to know a little
                  >bit what was that to live in a more open economy ( and that includes
                  >the pros and the cons ), such complaint about globalization began to
                  >vanish from the press , and the focus since then is much more over
                  >how the government deals with globalization, and not with the
                  >phenomenon itself.

                  A lot of Canadians had the same thoughts as well over NAFTA and some times
                  it's hard to tell what has really changed.
                  Though there are situations where it has failed, like a Canadian company
                  suing a US state (California) over the banning of MBTE (a gasoline
                  additive), because it was contaminating ground water.

                  >Well , my point is : globalization is there whether you want it or
                  >not. You've got lots of ways to deal with it, from keeping your
                  >country shutdown to foreign investments to the slowly( or fast if you
                  >wish ) opening of your boarders to make commerce flow naturaly,
                  >helping everyone grow.

                  Also, remember Canada and Brazil almost started a trade war over aircraft
                  and beef not to long ago. It was petty, but so what else is new.

                  >So what do cars have to do with it? Its the same story ! Cars are
                  >there and there's actually very little that you can do about it. To
                  >my humble point of view , forcing the close of a city to car traffic
                  >would be like closing a country's boarders to trades . Cars are there
                  >and they've got pros and cons just as globalization. What we gotta to
                  >is make the best use of its pros, and try to minimize the cons .
                  >Im not a new urbanistic( because Im not even an urbanist or
                  >architect , Im a economics college student ) , nor do I live in a
                  >fairy tale where global business help all everytime . What I think is
                  >that dreaming about an ideal carfree world is a little bit a waste of
                  >time when even Cuba , North Korea and China are already aware that
                  >some freedom of choice may be of more use to all.

                  A friend of mine once said "Being free only means choosing whose chains you
                  want to wear". Dawson
                • 3L
                  ... Welcome back, Mateus. First point is freedom. Freedom of movement means mobility. And mobility means moving your body using your own energy to go where you
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 8, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Should we make it a law that no car is no longer allowed in this
                    > world of ours ( which I think is not Joel's idea at all ) ? Well, if
                    > we could do that...anyone has got an idea of how ?
                    >
                    > Look Guy, in a society I believe we all struggle to live together in
                    > harmony , right? Think about car drivers: wouldnt it be better if
                    > they could wipe out all pedestrians and all other car traffic from
                    > the streets , the same way pedestrians want to get rid of all cars ?
                    > Thats social life, right ? You really cant get all you want.Thats my
                    > opinion.
                    >
                    > Mateus Fechino
                    Welcome back, Mateus.

                    First point is freedom. Freedom of movement means mobility. And mobility
                    means moving your body using your own energy to go where you want to go
                    WITHOUT any excessive danger. If you feel threatened at every street corner,
                    than the danger frequency is way too high. Imagine someone aims a gun at you
                    at each street corner, and shoots if you move the way the shooter doesn't
                    want you to. Cars show the same problem, and create a social injustice,
                    that's unacceptable because they threaten the overall public security if not
                    driven properly. There are 2 ways to fix that.

                    1. Make sure all (say at least 99.9%) of motor vehicle are driven properly.
                    That means all rules are followed and no one is threatened at any street
                    corner at any time. That is if a driver violates a rule, then his license is
                    immediately suspended for a significantly long period of time, and/or the
                    vehicle is taken back by the police. The result is that if people really
                    love their car, they will drive it correctly not to lose access to it.

                    2. Make some or all parts of a city carfree. There can still be car traffic
                    in the surroundings, except that to gain access to a carfree place drivers
                    must park their vehicle in a garage and access the carfree area by various
                    other modes Joel talks about in his book.

                    All of this to say that the basic needs of human beings is to breathe
                    without being tubed to an oxygen tank, eat by ourself, grasp objects with
                    our natural hands, and move (or pedal) around with our legs. Look at
                    yourself in the mirror and you'll feel if you can't perform all of these
                    activities peacefully, alone or with others, and with no stress or danger,
                    then you have a handicap you want to eliminate (Well, I feel this way when I
                    look in the mirror). And it's truly possible to eliminate this handicap if
                    your body can perform the actions. Bad car drivers create a handicap to
                    everyone (motorists or not) in the community, and we don't need medical
                    research to eliminate them.

                    Some friends of mine drive sometimes or often, and they tell me they dislike
                    driving because they have to drive for bad drivers, and some of them would
                    sacrifice their driving if it would also eliminate bad drivers from their
                    way.

                    Louis-Luc
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.