After detailing all the luxurious new features at the renovated Ramsey County Library in Roseville -- fire places, terazzo floors, computers galore -- the article casually dropped this little tidbit:
"Pavement murals adorn parking spots reserved for carpools and fuel-efficient vehicles near the front door."
Since when should librarians and libraries decide what is fuel efficient? And implement what amounts to a preferred clientele program to boot.
In a followup comment on the blog, Force50 went over there and reports further:
Worse than I thought. Checked out the parking lot and nearly the entire convenient south lot is designated for compact cars. In front of the west side entrance are the spots designated for fuel-efficient cars. This is a lefty utopian dream whereby they can send an SUV driver or a Crown Victoria driver to the north lot to take a long walk. They know who their second class citizens are. Ironically those are likely the most taxed.
Classy, Ramsey County. Real classy. It does beg the question, though -- if I bring my kids to the library, which I generally do, do I count as a carpool? And who decides that? Are we going to have library staff/traffic control officers?
This won't last and they'll have to repaint the parking lot, which will waste more tax money. Genius!
13 comments:
I would like to see them prove which cars are "fuel efficient" and which aren't. Usually it has more to do with the age of the car than anything else. Unless they specifically say "hybrids only" it's just a propaganda stunt. Although I have seen those a time or two in Minneapolis.
When I got to a library, it is usually full of minivans.
When I got to a library, it is usually full of minivans.
Often the case in Roseville, too, Margaret. That and '87 Volvos with "Coexist" bumper stickers. Bet my evil 2007 Santa Fe gets better mileage than '87 Volvo does.
So in order to serve their core clientele--families--better, they're striping the parking lot to discriminate against minivans? Did I get that one right?
And MURALS on the parking lot? Hopefully the Legislature notices this waste of money when it's time to discuss the budget for the next biennium.
Can they even legally enforce this? Sure the Handicap spaces are mandated by law and ticketable, but is a business's (or public accommodation's) preference enforceable with fines? Can the "public" library ask you to leave the lot or the premises for parking your Hummer in the "Save the Planet" section? Can you be charged with trespass if you refuse to move?
I know that Joel, our Conceal/Carry instructor, repeatedly emphasized that "test cases are for other people" but this case might require some patriotic civil disobedience.
Lots of businesses have started to do the fuel efficient/carpool parking spaces things - I noticed this was a big deal at the New Belgium brewery in Fort Collins. As for government buildings, if they can legally provide tax incentives for ownership of fuel efficient vehicles, they can designate parking spaces, I guess. I wouldn't argue with anyone that it's unfair to people who can't purchase something more fuel efficient (and actually, why shouldnt a car full of kids be considered a carpool? - makes sense to me!), but overall, I think it's great that the government is recognizing this as a priority, even in little ways.
I don't think this kerfuffle would happen in CA. Even w/o fuel efficient designated areas, the spaces, especially in SoCal, are much narrower than you see in the Midwest, and people seem to cram their SUVs in there anyway.
Argh, I meant to "wouldn't argue with anyone that it's *not* unfair."
Lots of businesses have started to do the fuel efficient/carpool parking spaces things - I noticed this was a big deal at the New Belgium brewery in Fort Collins.
And I support that -- if a private business wants to alienate part of its potential customer base, that's none of my concern.
As for government buildings, if they can legally provide tax incentives for ownership of fuel efficient vehicles, they can designate parking spaces, I guess. I wouldn't argue with anyone that it's unfair to people who can't purchase something more fuel efficient (and actually, why shouldnt a car full of kids be considered a carpool? - makes sense to me!), but overall, I think it's great that the government is recognizing this as a priority, even in little ways.
Okay, let's posit a hypothetical government that forces the '87 Volvo with the "Coexist" bumper sticker to park in the hinterlands. Okay with that? After all, it's not unfair to expect people to have a more fuel-efficient car than an old rattle trap, right?
And how do you enforce it? Tow the offending SUV away? Give the rat bastard driving the SUV a look of stern approbation?
I remember when liberalism was all about equality before the law. I miss those days.
I wonder if there are any Korean War vets with bad - but not handicapped - hips driving their Gran Marquises to the Roseville Public library?
When government gets into the business of choosing winners and losers we've got a problem.
What's that you say? Oh crap.
Maybe they don't really enforce it? Just assume people will self-govern? At this point, I do admit that it's elitist if they're talking about hybrids specifically - usually more affluent people being able to afford them.
Maybe they don't really enforce it? Just assume people will self-govern?
Then what's the point? We'll be going over to the library over the weekend and I'll blog about what I see.
It's just like our immigration laws. Maybe we don't enforce them.
It's just like our immigration laws. Maybe we don't enforce them.
I'll admit it -- I laughed out loud when I read this, anon. But it was a really uncomfortable sort of laugh. Well played.
Post a Comment