Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought you said that the Lightrail was for the suburbs, had more stops and connected more suburbs then in Minneapolis .
I don't want to live in the city, I like having my car and being able to go where I want, when I want and not having to worry about catching a bus. I like that my kids can hop in the car and drive to their friends' house, haul all their band stuff to and from school, etc. Most of what our kids participate in they would never be able to living in the city and especially never if they had to depend on a bus to get them around. I like having a yard and not having to listen to my neighbor's tv because their house is 5" away from my house. Thanks anyway. You city dwellers are the ones complaining....
What do your kids participate in that they couldn't do in the cities?
I am le confused.
Golfgal, you're getting commuter heavy rail and light rail confused.
I thought you said that the Lightrail was for the suburbs, had more stops and connected more suburbs then in Minneapolis .
I don't want to live in the city, I like having my car and being able to go where I want, when I want and not having to worry about catching a bus. I like that my kids can hop in the car and drive to their friends' house, haul all their band stuff to and from school, etc. Most of what our kids participate in they would never be able to living in the city and especially never if they had to depend on a bus to get them around. I like having a yard and not having to listen to my neighbor's tv because their house is 5" away from my house. Thanks anyway. You city dwellers are the ones complaining....
RE: light rail, I had pointed out that there are more suburban stops than city stops on the planned Southwest Corridor, but it's a line that originates in the suburbs and ends in downtown Minneapolis, and travels through very little of the city. It's very much a suburban line, albeit one that also connects to downtown. That's a very different route than the one you've proposed, which would be a "loop" around the city.
What kind of things can your kids do in the suburbs that they can't do in the city? I can't for the life of me think of anything that can be done in the suburbs but not in Minneapolis or St. Paul. And having to serve as a private chauffeur for my kid just so that he can get around as a teenager? No thanks. But to each his own. (and given that most people in both suburbs AND city own cars, I'm not sure what the argument is there -- the difference is that kids in Minneapolis, unlike in Rosemount, can also get places on the bus)
I don't care if you like your exurban lifestyle. I don't believe it's to the benefit of society as a whole to create policies and incentives to encourage others to make lifestyle decisions that waste our money and our resources. If you want to live out in exurbia and be auto-dependent (and all the general costs that are passed along to all of us as a result) you should have to pick up more of the tab to do so. And I certainly don't think we should be building rail to transport maybe a couple of hundred people from Apple Valley to Rosemount or to Burnsville or Eagan. It's simply not realistic, at least not at this point in time. Maybe in 50 years things will be different, but if it IS, then I think you'd be upset because those areas would have greater population density than what you seem to prefer. And given how you're stating that you're HAPPY that you don't have to take the bus, happy that your kids don't take the bus, then -- if you were typical of the average Rosemount resident -- would we waste our efforts building extensive public transportation options in your town that few people would use? What would be the point?
Remember we're talking about the Twin Cities here. The core cities are Minneapolis and St. Paul -- we're not talking Midtown Manhattan. This is not a dense metro area. The core cities are not very dense. The suburbs are even less dense, although of course density levels vary by location. The stereotypes about concrete jungles and tight living quarters don't fit for most areas of the Twin Cities, including most urban neighborhoods. (For better or for worse -- personally I wish we had more truly dense, urban neighborhoods to choose from, but that's simply not the norm around here.)
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 12-23-2011 at 03:06 PM..
RE: light rail, I had pointed out that there are more suburban stops than city stops on the planned Southwest Corridor, but it's a line that originates in the suburbs and ends in downtown Minneapolis, and travels through very little of the city. It's very much a suburban line, albeit one that also connects to downtown. That's a very different route than the one you've proposed, which would be a "loop" around the city.
What kind of things can your kids do in the suburbs that they can't do in the city? I can't for the life of me think of anything that can be done in the suburbs but not in Minneapolis or St. Paul. And having to serve as a private chauffeur for my kid just so that he can get around as a teenager? No thanks. But to each his own. (and given that most people in both suburbs AND city own cars, I'm not sure what the argument is there -- the difference is that kids in Minneapolis, unlike in Rosemount, can also get places on the bus)
I don't care if you like your exurban lifestyle. I don't believe it's to the benefit of society as a whole to create policies and incentives to encourage others to make lifestyle decisions that waste our money and our resources. If you want to live out in exurbia and be auto-dependent (and all the general costs that are passed along to all of us as a result) you should have to pick up more of the tab to do so. And I certainly don't think we should be building rail to transport maybe a couple of hundred people from Apple Valley to Rosemount or to Burnsville or Eagan. It's simply not realistic, at least not at this point in time. Maybe in 50 years things will be different, but if it IS, then I think you'd be upset because those areas would have greater population density than what you seem to prefer. And given how you're stating that you're HAPPY that you don't have to take the bus, happy that your kids don't take the bus, then -- if you were typical of the average Rosemount resident -- would we waste our efforts building extensive public transportation options in your town that few people would use? What would be the point?
Remember we're talking about the Twin Cities here. The core cities are Minneapolis and St. Paul -- we're not talking Midtown Manhattan. This is not a dense metro area. The core cities are not very dense. The suburbs are even less dense, although of course density levels vary by location. The stereotypes about concrete jungles and tight living quarters don't fit for most areas of the Twin Cities, including most urban neighborhoods. (For better or for worse -- personally I wish we had more truly dense, urban neighborhoods to choose from, but that's simply not the norm around here.)
Well, when you start paying my bills you can have a say in where we live and how we live our life.
What do your kids participate in that they couldn't do in the cities?
I am le confused.
Golfgal, you're getting commuter heavy rail and light rail confused.
Pretty much everything they do, marching band, jazz band and golf. No city school has a marching band and none of the city schools have a music program even close to what we have nor do any of the city schools have golf programs like we have here.
Well, when you start paying my bills you can have a say in where we live and how we live our life.
You're missing the point -- we ALL pay your bills through larger public policies that have, since WWII, promoted suburban sprawl. We're now starting to see some of the problems -- and costs -- of those decisions. These are broader public policy issues, and are not about just you.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 12-23-2011 at 04:19 PM..
Pretty much everything they do, marching band, jazz band and golf. No city school has a marching band and none of the city schools have a music program even close to what we have nor do any of the city schools have golf programs like we have here.
You're talking about schools, not city versus suburb. City kids can certainly play golf. Maybe our local high school golf program isn't as good as yours (no idea), but that's not a city versus suburb issue, but rather a "does this school offer the extracurricular we're looking for" issue. And unless your kids stay entirely within Rosemount city limits at all times, I don't see how them traveling to get to a golf course is any different than a city kid traveling to go to a different golf course.
My former high school also has a marching band. I don't know where you're getting your (mis) information. The music program is also quite good, although again, no idea how it compares to Rosemount. Kids can participate in marching band, pep band, string orchestra, concert band, various choirs, etc., and every year some kids go on to professional music programs. It may not be the right school for you, but obviously the city is not a barren desert when it comes to marching band, jazz band, or music.
Obviously when it comes down to your specific school priorities, some schools are going to be better fits than others, as all schools have their own individual strengths. That is related to specific school, not municipal boundaries. And thanks to open enrollment, it's even less of an issue. Most of us pick our homes before we know what our kids interests and strengths will be, so this is a nice perk about MN.
You're talking about schools, not city versus suburb. City kids can certainly play golf. Maybe our local high school golf program isn't as good as yours (no idea), but that's not a city versus suburb issue, but rather a "does this school offer the extracurricular we're looking for" issue. And unless your kids stay entirely within Rosemount city limits at all times, I don't see how them traveling to get to a golf course is any different than a city kid traveling to go to a different golf course.
My former high school also has a marching band. I don't know where you're getting your (mis) information. The music program is also quite good, although again, no idea how it compares to Rosemount. Kids can participate in marching band, pep band, string orchestra, concert band, various choirs, etc., and every year some kids go on to professional music programs. It may not be the right school for you, but obviously the city is not a barren desert when it comes to marching band, jazz band, or music.
Obviously when it comes down to your specific school priorities, some schools are going to be better fits than others, as all schools have their own individual strengths. That is related to specific school, not municipal boundaries. And thanks to open enrollment, it's even less of an issue. Most of us pick our homes before we know what our kids interests and strengths will be, so this is a nice perk about MN.
Southwest does not have a field show marching band that is ranked one of the top bands in the nation-they don't even have a field show marching band. They also don't have a state champion parade marching band. Try schlepping very large band instruments along with a back pack and golf bag on a bus...it doesn't work.
So, now you are advocating that we move to Minneapolis to stop sprawl but then open enroll our kids at Rosemount so they can take part in the activities there??
Southwest does not have a field show marching band that is ranked one of the top bands in the nation-they don't even have a field show marching band. They also don't have a state champion parade marching band. Try schlepping very large band instruments along with a back pack and golf bag on a bus...it doesn't work.
So, now you are advocating that we move to Minneapolis to stop sprawl but then open enroll our kids at Rosemount so they can take part in the activities there??
Never said they did.... you said that no city school had a marching band. Southwest does have a marching band. You also seem to be under the impression that city kids never get into cars. Or play instruments, or play golf. Living in a city doesn't preclude ANY of that.
You certainly enjoy twisting words. No, I never said you should move to Minneapolis, but I DO think we should stop encouraging more people to move far out.
As far as schools, in some cases, where a kid develops a passion for a specific activity or academic offering not available in the district where they live, open enrollment has its benefits. The average kid isn't going to need to be in a state championship-level band. It's a bonus if you have access to it, but no school offers the best of everything. Unless you're moving or relocating during or right before high school, you're not going to know if your child has a special need that goes above and beyond what they can get in school X versus school Y. For the few kids where it really does matter (and where their highly specific needs aren't better met through, say, easy access to programs or classes outside of school), open enrollment is a nice benefit and means that they have options above and beyond wherever their parents happen to live. That's not a suburban versus city issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
