That is a crappy thing to say. I’d be tempted to ask, “so you think using public space to store some people’s private property (for free) is more important than giving people safe space to travel and keeping everyone safer?”
It is taking the use of the spaces from them without their consent, so akin to stealing and a valid argument. But it is a role of government to manage the conflicting uses and users of public land.
Their consent is not required. They are not entitled to that parking space, or even to use of any particular street. Government has privileged drivers' needs over those of all other street users for nearly a century. I can only imagine the tantrum they'd throw waiting at a beg button intersection.
They don't own an exclusive property right like private land. But the granting of usage right over public land to a sub group of the public is giving that group an implied ownership of a property right. If the sidewalk was removed to widen a road, pedestrians would claim it is being stolen.
I also love how they can say that but never realize that what they’re saying is more true of free parking spaces giving drivers an implied ownership of public land
This is simply incorrect. No ownership is "implied" and no "property right" is granted by designating part of a public street for parking. So, nothing is "stolen" if that designation changes.
"But the granting of usage right over public land to a sub group of the public is giving that group an implied ownership..." no it's not. that's not true.
Part of the irony, of course, is that that car-optional cities are great for taxi drivers. A cab/Uber/Lyft driver should want people to get rid of their cars - not to be forced to own one.
Comments
He immediately ranted about how those cyclists are asking to be run down on this specific road (probably he drives it).
It’s a windy 1-2 lane road. I ride my bike there sometimes…
Foul moods …
Was he thick?🤔