Arlington Transit - Critical May Vote...

[RadicalBender]

^Exactly. Deep Ellum has ridiculously high levels of auto burglary and no rail.

[RobertB]

I don't make any conclusions based on this information. I just report the facts in this case. That's what happened and that's what the officer said. So DART can have some impact on local crime, at least according to one officer who was in a position to know based on his experience.
Based on his experience, or on his biases?

How many crooks has he chased and then lost on the DART train? How many crooks has he chased and then lost when they jumped in their buddy's car? How many crooks has he chased and then lost when they threw a donut as a distraction?

Oops, sorry... looks like I'm not one to talk about biases and jumping to conclusions. :)

[Jack Flack]

Citing transit as a cause for crime is absurb, especially in Arlington's case. How do the city leaders explain what goes on in that town since they don't have transit to bring the evil-doers to there fair city? How do they explain the ever growing Bum Town and Red Light District along SH 360 around Six Flags Drive and Lamar? What about the woman who was attacked at 10 am on a weekday in our parking lot? It couldn't have been transit that brought them all there.

Can transit bring unsavory people from one part of town to the other? Of course. But so do cars and I do not hear anyone trying to outlaw them.

[jdwillis]

Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption, but it seems an officer who has been in an area for a while might notice changes in where and how these kinds of incidents happen. One might reasonably conclude that if auto burglaries go up after something like a passenger rail line goes in that the two may, just may, be related. This conclusion might be sustained if the officers in the PD notice, when they catch or finger a burglar, that the individual lives near a rail line in another, distant, part of town.

These officers have far more experience with this sort of thing than I do. Granted, these officers might be making incorrect assessments. They might.

But I doubt it.

[RobertB]

Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption, but it seems an officer who has been in an area for a while might notice changes in where and how these kinds of incidents happen. One might reasonably conclude that if auto burglaries go up after something like a passenger rail line goes in that the two may, just may, be related. This conclusion might be sustained if the officers in the PD notice, when they catch or finger a burglar, that the individual lives near a rail line in another, distant, part of town.

These officers have far more experience with this sort of thing than I do. Granted, these officers might be making incorrect assessments. They might.

But I doubt it.
In the same way, widening a highway or patching potholes in a road could lead to an increase in crime.

As for the Northpark area, it would be a fallacy to assign blame for increased crime (if there even has been an increase) to the DART line. The apartment complexes in the area were falling apart 15-20 years ago when I lived there, and reports on this board are that they've entered the final stages of decay ahead of their inevitable teardown and phoenix-like rebirth. DART rail is going to be a catalyst for the improvement of the area, not its downfall.

I shouldn't really lay in too hard on the cop. He's just trying to calm a distraught victim with whatever will make them settle down enough to give him useful information. If it helps to tell the victim that it's all DART's fault, he's just doing his job. Just remember, anecdotes != facts. Otherwise, we'd rip out all the freeways because of the rare but well-publicized incidents of road rage.

[Jack Flack]

It is just in the case of Arlington I find it amusing that they would act so aloof and reject mass transit considering the demographics of Arlington. Through my observations from working out there for over seven years, the majority of the city seemed lower to middle income and could probably benefit from transit. I know there are nicer parts of town, some quite nice actually, but again most of the city seemed lower to middle income. Again, just my observations.

I think their "fear" of increased crime due to the introduction of mass transit is overblown.

[jdwillis]

Jack is probably right that the fears in Arlington are overblown. If rail causes any change in crime, it is probably only a localized problem in the immediate vicinity of the lines. After all, these kinds of property crimes are opportunistic in nature.

[FCDallas96]

Jack is probably right that the fears in Arlington are overblown. If rail causes any change in crime, it is probably only a localized problem in the immediate vicinity of the lines. After all, these kinds of property crimes are opportunistic in nature.

Just from a common sense standpoint, I don't think rail would be a good transportation method for a would-be property thief. There is only so much you can carry on a train and still remain inconspicuous. Also, you're in the public eye for so much longer. If your crime is reported fairly quickly, a simple radio call to all DART cops alerts them to your presence and they may take a closer look at your duffel bag filled with car stereos as they're checking for tickets. Then there's the cameras at most of the stations that tape you walking up shortly after the incident.

Now, all of this doesn't necessarily mean thieves who use DART won't be able to get away. But I know, if I'm going to jack a car radio, I want my car there, so I can be gone in less than 60 seconds.

[staplesla]

I'm with you FC. I don't see a mass of criminals from Dallas or FW heading on rail to Arlington to engage in criminal activities. Most criminals act out where they are comfortable in their surroundings (within 15 or so miles from their homes).

[FoUTASportscaster]

Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption, but it seems an officer who has been in an area for a while might notice changes in where and how these kinds of incidents happen. One might reasonably conclude that if auto burglaries go up after something like a passenger rail line goes in that the two may, just may, be related. This conclusion might be sustained if the officers in the PD notice, when they catch or finger a burglar, that the individual lives near a rail line in another, distant, part of town.

These officers have far more experience with this sort of thing than I do. Granted, these officers might be making incorrect assessments. They might.

But I doubt it.


I don't trust a single thing you say in the transit threads, as I have seen nothing but negative posts from you.

[jdwillis]

All I've done is report what I've seen or in this case what happened to my wife, and I've stated some of the conclusions I've drawn from the experience. I apologize if those conslusions don't square with your opinions. But, as Dave Barry is fond of saying, I'm not making any of this up (with the exclusion of those items where I've stated I'm dreaming up a scenario.)

Fact of the matter is, the stereo and personal items were stolen out of that lot and the police officer did say pretty much what I've stated here. I don't know if his conclusions were correct or not, as I said time and again, but I, for one, am more inclined to trust the opinion of the professional law enforcement officer who is in his element, in his region, who knows the patterns of the area, and can see when things may (again, see I'm not stating a fact here, just a possibility) be connected or related in some way. He may, in fact, have been mistaken. I'll allow for that possibility. I know the difference between anecdotal stories and statistical evidence and I understand how one may be true on a personal level, yet false when taken as a part of an entire picture. That being said, I also know it would be far from the best interest of DART if there were a correlation between the rails and localized property crimes and even if it were true they would deny it. Here's another disclaimer for you: I'm not saying this is what is, just what a government agency might do in that kind of situation, namely deny.

Is this a wrong thing to conclude? Is this a wrong way of looking at the world?

Again, I apologize if you don't like what I've said as it is not my intention to irritate as that is counterproductive.

If you want in on a little secret, one of the reasons I sometimes point out what may be seen as negatives (again, do you notice the way I'm not necessarily claiming ownership of the point of view?) is occasionally what I see is a group all agreeing with themselves. Someone needs to reflect a different point of view on occasion.

I think you will recall I've said I've used mass transit when it was the correct tool for the job. I'll temper that statement with this, even while using that tool, I was aware of the limitations and down-sides.

[FoUTASportscaster]

All I've done is report what I've seen or in this case what happened to my wife, and I've stated some of the conclusions I've drawn from the experience. I apologize if those conslusions don't square with your opinions. But, as Dave Barry is fond of saying, I'm not making any of this up (with the exclusion of those items where I've stated I'm dreaming up a scenario.)

So you've only seen the downside, like the need for DART to plan an intersection around a loaded dump truck getting on the tracks in front of a train, to save deaf children.


If you want in on a little secret, one of the reasons I sometimes point out what may be seen as negatives (again, do you notice the way I'm not necessarily claiming ownership of the point of view?) is occasionally what I see is a group all agreeing with themselves. Someone needs to reflect a different point of view on occasion.

So you are doing a bit?

[gc]

Can you two argue via email or pm or something...please?

[RobertB]

Can you two argue via email or pm or something...please?
I wholeheartedly agree. However, the tit-for-tat arguing is indicative of the problem facing transit proponents in Arlington and other transit deprived jurisdictions. It's a war of anecdotes vs. hard-to-quantify facts, and emotions generate more votes than pie charts (just ask Ross Perot).

[jdwillis]

Lol!:~)

[mdunlap1]

It's a war of anecdotes vs. hard-to-quantify facts, and emotions generate more votes than pie charts (just ask Ross Perot).

When attempting to take people's money via force, you should expect that at least some of them won't let you do that without at least showing a little emotion.

If this was merely a pitch to freely raise money for a project to be built by free individuals, I doubt you'd run into as much emotion or resistance.

[mdunlap1]

could just as easily drive over with some friends and break into cars. I'd call that the "traditional" method.

Well, not "just as" easily, fwiw. Your version would involve spending their own money, having to conceal their own car, etc.

DART drives the getaway car for them in this case, so that's at least somewhat easier than if they had to do so themselves.

[FoUTASportscaster]

When attempting to take people's money via force, you should expect that at least some of them won't let you do that without at least showing a little emotion.

If this was merely a pitch to freely raise money for a project to be built by free individuals, I doubt you'd run into as much emotion or resistance.

Their money is being taken one or another, so it doesn't have relevance to the debate. Instead of paying for transit, they are paying an economicla development sales tax. They are also paying for the new stadium, so the arguement that they don't want to lose their money isn't accurate, since they are losing it anyway.

And I have a question, if you are so against government "taking" your money, why are you in New York, where taxes are pretty high.

[rantanamo]

that's what I'm trying to figure out

[darkblood]

Their money is being taken one or another, so it doesn't have relevance to the debate. Instead of paying for transit, they are paying an economicla development sales tax. They are also paying for the new stadium, so the arguement that they don't want to lose their money isn't accurate, since they are losing it anyway.

And I have a question, if you are so against government "taking" your money, why are you in New York, where taxes are pretty high.

That's so he has the authority to sing the "New York, New York" that people are tired of hearing.

Darkblood
*"Start spreadin' the news..."*
-2k6

[mdunlap1]

Their money is being taken one or another, so it doesn't have relevance to the debate. Instead of paying for transit, they are paying an economicla development sales tax. They are also paying for the new stadium, so the arguement that they don't want to lose their money isn't accurate, since they are losing it anyway.

Why can't they be opposed to having their money forcibly taken for all of those things as well? I'm sure many are.

You can try to spin the fact that the money is being coerced from them, but it would be more honest to simply argue why it is moral and efficacious to do so, as opposed to pretending that isn't what's happening.


And I have a question, if you are so against government "taking" your money, why are you in New York, where taxes are pretty high.

There's a lot more that make up a life than just taxes.

(That doesn't make state coercion morally justifiable and something we shouldn't oppose though.)

[mdunlap1]

that's what I'm trying to figure out

See my answer to FoUTA above this one.

New York is a phenomenal city, one that is a testament to what human beings can do when freely working together. It was a virtually empty spot on the map until a few hundred years ago (a blink in time, fwiw) when human beings, mostly seeking to escape state coercion and oppression, began moving here. The place was so free from state coercion that simply by getting on a boat and making it here alive they were welcomed as equal neighbors and free to live their lives, contributing with their own abilities to the great project being built, and being rewarded for doing so by their community members freely choosing to pay them for their contribution. (Compare that to now where our government agents first physically threaten you and me (even if it only need be implied at this point) in order to make us hand over our money to them, after which they then turn around and give billions of dollars to thousands of other agents they've chosen to reward with our money in order for these people to go build walls and surveillance systems just to keep new immigrants from freely coming to participate in building our cities and communities as they were able to do for so long before such insanity became popular. But, hey, I'm sure that's What Jesus Would Do, and so on... :rolleyes: )

Anyway, New York boomed for well over a century before the early 1900s when Marxism began sweeping the globe. That's when such ideas as strong state restrictions on human migration, heavy taxation and state restrictions on human interaction (the kind of interaction that builds communities; go look at the 20th Century Marxist states to see communities completely destroyed and turned against themselves as only the state can do), and all the rest of it became so popular in America and New York. Fortunately, the state is always slower to move than free people working together, so the immigrants still were able to pour in for another 2-3 decades, bringing a continuation of the strong economic growth that additional people in a free environment will always bring. But the state caught up to it eventually, put the clamps firmly into place, and for nearly half a century now, economic and population growth in New York has been virtually stagnant, lagging far behind the national averages. (New York was greatly outpacing the national averages in both of these categories in the 19th Century, long after it had become much more heavily populated than other parts of the country.)

These clamps were put into place by people who believe that physically threatening their neighbors to give them (or their agents) their money is moral and serves some "greater good." Once they had their power machine in place and had full control over it, they then told their neighbors that if they didn't agree with such immorality that they could "just leave." So, millions of their neighbors did (and continue to do so). They moved off to build new projects and cities that have grown much more quickly, have been much more welcoming, and have greatly outperformed the economy being hindered by the agents back in New York. Really no different than the entire history of human migration which has always been away from and not towards such repulsive coercion.

Anyway, I love New York for what it once was and could be again. It's the greatest city in the world and was built by free people from all over the world that shared a desire to escape control of their lives by tyrannical neighbors. Working together (if only for the incentive of making money they could use to better themselves, their families, their friends, their churches, synagogues, etc.) they built the greatest city in human history and did it all entirely in spite of the fact that many people in the mode of those same tyrants they were fleeing later moved in and began attempting to reestablish control over the lives of their neighbors, yet again.

So basically, I'm sick of people having to move simply because their neighbors can't live without controlling the lives of others, even if that means their having to physically threaten and steal from normal, productive, good people. Yeah, I could move to some new place and let you take even less money from me than your counterparts in New York take from me, but like I say, there is more to life than just protecting as much as I can from thieves far more powerful than I am. I could move to some deserted island (as FoUTA has already suggested I do), but I enjoy people and community and the great things they produce (which no one could by themselves on an island) for me to enjoy are currently only found in places that are also sadly littered with powerful thieves. So I resign myself to this... it's not a perfect world unfortunately (it's moving that way though, imho). But that doesn't mean we should condone what is morally wrong. Jesus of Nazareth didn't, so I don't see why I should.

[FoUTASportscaster]

There's a lot more that make up a life than just taxes.


I wouldn't know it by reading your posts.

[B-chan]

Dear fellow readers:

In keeping with my previous post, I think those of us who want rail transit in Arlington should join forces and coordinate our efforts to promote our vision. Two questions in this regard:

1. Does a pro-transit organization exist in Arlington?

2. If not, would any of you be interested in creating one?

Thanks.

[mdunlap1]

1. Does a pro-transit organization exist in Arlington?

Not sure.


2. If not, would any of you be interested in creating one?

I'd definitely be willing to contribute to one seeking to build a rail without stealing money from people. With some hard work, a sound business model, and a good marketing campaign, I bet you'd find many people in the DFW area wanting in as well.

I've long wished there was a rail option from Dallas to the Rangers games.

[RobertB]

Dear fellow readers:

In keeping with my previous post, I think those of us who want rail transit in Arlington should join forces and coordinate our efforts to promote our vision. Two questions in this regard:

1. Does a pro-transit organization exist in Arlington?

2. If not, would any of you be interested in creating one?

Thanks.
When I lived in Grand Prairie, I spent some time looking at the options for starting a grassroots effort to bring transit to the area -- it was part of why I started a run for Texas Senate, district 9, on the Green Party ticket. I wasn't able to complete the run due to family issues, and now I'm living in the middle of nowhere, so I'm way out of the loop for Arlington/GP issues.

But one place to start would be the folks who are already involved in public transit in the area: the paratransit authorities. If anyone knows about the existing need, it's the folks who already transport seniors and other special-needs folks around town. I would (read: was going to) also contact the churches and other nonprofits who help the poor -- they'll tell you that transportation is a major issue that makes the difference between sit-on-the-sofa welfare and get-up-in-the-morning work. That's an issue that should motivate the mdunlap's of the world (though I wouldn't know for sure -- he's still on my ignore list).

[FCDallas96]

... But that doesn't mean we should condone what is morally wrong. Jesus of Nazareth didn't, so I don't see why I should.

Uh, Matthew 22:21?

[mdunlap1]

Uh, Matthew 22:21?

What is Caesar's? What is God's?

Jesus also said to give your cloak to someone stealing your tunic (Luke 6:29). He wasn't condoning theft there either, fwiw.

[FCDallas96]

What is Caesar's? What is God's?

Obviously, everything belongs to God. And Romans 13:1-7 clearly illustrates His expectations for us with regards to government and taxes.


Jesus also said to give your cloak to someone stealing your tunic (Luke 6:29). He wasn't condoning theft there either, fwiw.

No, what He actually was speaking of in Luke 6:27-35 was how His followers should treat their enemies. As opposed to the "eye for an eye" theme of the Old Law, He taught to "do to others as you would have them do to you."

[mdunlap1]

Obviously, everything belongs to God.

So then citing Matthew 22:21 in response to my comment doesn't make much sense.


No, what He actually was speaking of in Luke 6:27-35 was how His followers should treat their enemies. As opposed to the "eye for an eye" theme of the Old Law, He taught to "do to others as you would have them do to you."

I understand that. That doesn't refute the point that he wasn't condoning stealing.


And Romans 13:1-7 clearly illustrates His expectations for us with regards to government and taxes.

Let's look at Romans 13:1-7 then...

1-5) Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves...

Were MLK, Jr. and his followers wrong to not submit to the state agents during their protests? Was Paul wrong to repeatedly disobey the Roman state agents and break their laws? Were these people breaking God's commandments? Or were the state agents in each case no morally legitimate "governing authorities (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/authority.html)" at all? By your implication, you would have to condemn, MLK, Jr., Paul, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christians living under Marxist governments, scores of other Christian martyrs, and even Jesus himself. I doubt you wish to do that, but maybe you do.

The mistake here is in thinking that someone is your "governing authority" simply because he says he is. Pharaoh was in control of a state (by God's ordination, of course), yet God condemned him and rejected him as governing authority over the Israelites. Because he wasn't their governing authority, even though he had declared himself as such. God was. Well, just because GWB or anyone else says he's your governing authority does not make him or them so, anymore than Pharaoh's doing so made him authority over the Israelites.

6-7) This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: [b]If you owe taxes[b], pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

What do you "owe" to the state? After all, by your own admission, "everything belongs to God." If "everything" belongs to God and you are commanded to give him what is his, then you cannot possibly, by definition, "owe" anything to the state (or, "Caesar").

It's unfortunate that Christians have so long used Jesus's and Paul's responses about taxes to justify submission and contribution to all the evils committed by the state. I understand the fear and power-lust that drive such an interpretation, and I'm no more inherently immune to such vices than anyone else, but it's still sad because it is morally wrong and completely out-of-line with all the other Biblical passages that condemn the behaviors necessary to form a state, as well as so many of every state's actions. (Try 1 Samuel 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20samuel%208&version=31) for just one example.)

[B-chan]

You do realize that the whole libertarian Ayn Rand thing doesn't work in Real Life, right?

Just checking.

[tamtagon]

Maybe you guys can find in the Bible an answer to this quesiton:

Does Jesus want public transportation in Arlington, TX?

[freewaytincan]

Does Jesus want public transportation in Arlington, TX?

Well, there is the standpoint of those that need public transportation, in this case, the poor. In Deuteronomy 15:11, it is written, "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Considering the needs of those who are in need, I'd say He does. Then there's also the issue of it being done for His glory, which all things should be. Let's look at Matthew 25:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Just something to think about.

[mdunlap1]

You do realize that the whole libertarian Ayn Rand thing doesn't work in Real Life, right?

Just checking.

LOL. Good argument.

[mdunlap1]

"Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Considering the needs of those who are in need, I'd say He does.

Nowhere does he say that violence and coercion should be used to help the poor. In fact, Jesus and the rest of the Bible are pretty opposed to such behavior.

Good churches help the poor all over the world... without resorting to such immoral behavior.

[brb1081]

Nowhere does he say that violence and coercion should be used to help the poor. In fact, Jesus and the rest of the Bible are pretty opposed to such behavior.

Good churches help the poor all over the world... without resorting to such immoral behavior.

As an atheist, I'm scared if I have to rely on churches to provide me with things I need, like transportation.

"Our selection for this morning's commute will come from ... "

To look at another area:
If churches are so great at freely providing services to the homeless, why is there such a huge need for a shelter run by the city?

According to your definition, churches DO participate in such immoral behavior by coercing the homeless to listen to a sermon (or whatever) in exchange for a meal/bed.

[mdunlap1]

As an atheist, I'm scared if I have to rely on churches to provide me with things I need, like transportation.

Who said you'd have to? Can you not transport yourself or pay some private company to do so? (I guarantee you that without the government monopolizing the industry by force, many free people would pop up to offer you and others such a service for the right price.) How do you fly from one city to another?

You would be absolutely free to use whatever transportation you'd like. I don't believe any church should force their morals on you by forcing you to pay for their services. But neither should you force yours on me by forcing me to pay for what you want.


According to your definition, churches DO participate in such immoral behavior by coercing the homeless to listen to a sermon (or whatever) in exchange for a meal/bed.

You must not understand what the word "coercion (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/coercion.html)" means.

Offering a service (i.e. bed/meal) in return for some form of payment (i.e. church attendance) leaves both parties completely free to enter into that transaction or leave it at any time. There is no violence or physical threat (requirements to meet the definition of coercion) present in a "no church attendance, no bed" policy.

But if the church did choose to use violence or physical threats to compel payment (as some have in the past), that would be an act of coercion. To do so would be evil, and I have no doubt you would condemn the church's behavior as immoral. Just as you should when the state does the same.

[mikedsjr]

Matt 25:54-60
You shall have public transportation. You shall provide stops for public transportation. When a brother or sister comes to you and asks where is the public transportation, point him in the right direction. If they are crippled, then carry them or wheel them to the stop. You are the public transportation of the world. When men come to you take them wherever they desire to go. Give them comfort in their travels. For few will now the way to eternal life without the proper transportation.

[mdunlap1]

Matt 25:54-60
You shall have public transportation. You shall provide stops for public transportation. When a brother or sister comes to you and asks where is the public transportation, point him in the right direction. If they are crippled, then carry them or wheel them to the stop. You are the public transportation of the world. When men come to you take them wherever they desire to go. Give them comfort in their travels. For few will now the way to eternal life without the proper transportation.

LOL!!! Classic.

Great work.

[AndyIvey]

why is there such a huge need for a shelter run by the city?
I hesitate to do it again, but I get a kick out of making this point all over the forum. We do not run a shelter and we have no plans to begin running one. The recent election approved a Homeless Assistance Center to replace our Day Resource Center. The very same Day Resource Center we once used misused as a shelter before the facility’s property owner threatened to not renew the lease. Our region does a horrible job providing homeless services and unless we take some tips from those that do a good job, transit in Arlington will be the least of our concerns.

The organizations based on the very religion some chose to belittle here are all that is standing between us and a homeless problem turned epidemic. We can rely on the private sector to provide a broad range of services like transportation and homeless assistance. Faith-based and community initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/) are legal. Why not take advantage of them? One can do so, as evidenced by the outcome of Bush’s initiatives, without violating the separation of church and state.

Isn’t this thread about mass transit in Arlington?

[warlock55]

Offering a service (i.e. bed/meal) in return for some form of payment (i.e. church attendance) leaves both parties completely free to enter into that transaction or leave it at any time.

Offering a service (i.e. a civilized society) in return for some form of payment (i.e. taxes, submission to the society's laws and government) leaves both parties completely free to enter into that transaction or leave it at any time. If you do not like the society provided, you are free to emigrate to another one, or choose the "state of nature" and live in the woods somewhere. No one is forcing you to continue to live in a civilized society.

[mdunlap1]

Offering a service (i.e. a civilized society) in return for some form of payment (i.e. taxes, submission to the society's laws and government) leaves both parties completely free to enter into that transaction or leave it at any time.

Ignoring how extremely Orwellian this argument is...

If I choose not to purchase that "service" from the government (as I believe it provides no such thing), it will send agents to my home to physically threaten me to either leave or face violent punishment.

No church will ever do that to a homeless person who asks nothing but to be left alone by the church. And I'm sure you'd instantly label "evil" one that did.

[FCDallas96]

So then citing Matthew 22:21 in response to my comment doesn't make much sense.......

... just one example.)

I'm taking this one offline as it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread.

[warlock55]

Ignoring how extremely Orwellian this argument is...

If I choose not to purchase that "service" from the government (as I believe it provides no such thing), it will send agents to my home to physically threaten me to either leave or face violent punishment.

That particular argument predates Orwell by several hundred years. Merely by living in a society, you enter into an implied contract with it. You admit yourself that the government influences everyday life, which means that it is an inherent part of the society we live in. If you truly were exempting yourself from society (not "purchasing it"), you would completely cut yourself off from it. The U.S. government is not going to hunt you down if you go live in the woods or another country. Since you refuse to do so, you have pay the price.

[tamtagon]

I'm taking this one offline as it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread.

Thank you.

[mdunlap1]

Since you refuse to do so, you have pay the price.

LOL!

Classic. Thanks.

[mdunlap1]

I'm taking this one offline as it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread.

Is there a forum here where a discussion of the more philosophical roots of urban policy can be held?

I ask because I too do not wish to derail threads but would also like to be able to point out fundamental and specific problems that come to the area via socialist policies, especially when I see many here calling for the enforcement of such policies.

[tamtagon]

Is there a forum here where a discussion of the more philosophical roots of urban policy can be held?

Pegasus Place

[brb1081]

I hesitate to do it again, but I get a kick out of making this point all over the forum. We do not run a shelter and we have no plans to begin running one. The recent election approved a Homeless Assistance Center to replace our Day Resource Center. The very same Day Resource Center we once used misused as a shelter before the facility’s property owner threatened to not renew the lease. Our region does a horrible job providing homeless services and unless we take some tips from those that do a good job, transit in Arlington will be the least of our concerns.

The organizations based on the very religion some chose to belittle here are all that is standing between us and a homeless problem turned epidemic. We can rely on the private sector to provide a broad range of services like transportation and homeless assistance. Faith-based and community initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/) are legal. Why not take advantage of them? One can do so, as evidenced by the outcome of Bush’s initiatives, without violating the separation of church and state.

Isn’t this thread about mass transit in Arlington?

I'm not trying to belittle faith-based programs...I was using them to try to make a point that one cannot rely on such organizations alone to combat various societal problems. I agree that faith-based homeless programs do provide a very important service to our community, but have also heard many times of people who refuse to use them because of the religious requirements involved.

I have mixed feelings about Bush's faith based initiative. The idea with that is to funnel tax money to private organizations, and I was trying to make arguments (something I'm not very good at) against mdunlap's vision of a tax-free society.

I'm evidently confused about the future homeless center, as I thought it involved bedding both indoors and outdoors (which in my mind makes it a shelter). That's all I'll say on the subject on this thread.

To bring this post back to mass transit:
I remember hearing about a ministry in Arlington that provides transit services (and much m ore) for the poor people of the city. I applaud their providing such an important service to their community. They might be a good ally in the fight for public mass transit, since they have firsthand experience.

[mdunlap1]

Pegasus Place

Gracias. Did not know that.