There's an AP story circulating about Governor Butch Otter's plans to spend Idaho's $1.24 billion slice of the Stimulus Pie. (Anybody who's paying attention has seen that Otter gathered several past governors to sit on the committee making the decision.)
Apparently when the notion of spending some $ on bicycle paths came up, Otter's budget man, Wayne Hammon, said, "The future of Idaho is not contained in the North End." Instead of bike paths, Otter wants to go with landscaping on I-84.
The story can be seen HERE, or several other places.
For readers not familiar, the North End is widely viewed as an "island of blue" in an otherwise red state. The Liberals (or as they prefer, "progressives") have holed up in the North End, an old, well-established neighborhood with narrow streets, big trees, and no visible garage doors. (Obviously that's mostly stereotype. People of all political persuasions are scattered through the city, and the state. But the North End definitely votes Democrat in the elections.)
I don't really understand Hammon's remark. And was it scripted that way? Are those Otter's words, or Hammon's?
I wonder because... the North End is not a part of town you think of, when you think of bike paths. It's a grid of 20mph narrow neighborhood streets, and few of them have bike paths. North enders probably ride bikes more than people in far-off neighborhoods, but that's likely because their destinations are nearby, relatively speaking. They are fortunate enough to live close to where they work, shop, seek entertainment, etc. (I'd say "go to church," but I'm sure Otter figures they're all Commie atheists. When in reality, only about 75% of them are that way. hahaha - a joke.)
Is "the future of Idaho" a place where everybody lives so far from their daily destinations that the only way to get there is by car? (Too far on a bike, nonexistent public transportation - just the way we like it!) If that's the way it's gonna be, then freeway landscaping will be nice - very nice!