ann arbor is overrated. » Blog Archive

Oxbridge

Another summer, another chance to pass whatever anti-student legislation the neighborhoods can dream up before fall term starts again. This time, it’s parking. Some North Burns Park and Oxbridge NITWITs (Not In the Thoroughfare When I’m There) are having trouble finding spots for their friends and contractors, and it’s all the students’ fault. One “college-aged woman” left her car in an illegal spot and didn’t realize it for 10 days. Those college-aged people. When they’re not driving their cars everywhere and snarling traffic, they’re not driving them anywhere and making it really tough for the guy who installs the marble flooring to find a spot.

The article doesn’t make it clear whether residents who rent their homes would be considered “residents” under this ordinance, but if you go to the city council’s current packet, you can see that renters would be allowed to have permits, but only if their landlords apply for them. (Unlike cities like Cambridge, in which residents who rent and residents who own are treated equally, and you can get a permit for whatever the address on your drivers’ license says.) However, a friend of a neighborhood resident would get priority over a resident of a neighborhood a block away.

And while we’re at it, what kind of a name is “Oxbridge”? It’s almost a parody of a pseudo-British, pseudo-intellectual college town neighborhood. If this were fiction, the writer would be accused of too-broad satire, but A2 surpasses parody.

76 Responses to “Oxbridge”

Oxbridge is a widely used term in the UK to refer to the English elite who graduated from Oxford or Cambridge.
posted by Mike on May 24th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
You know, you just can’t script this any better.

One group jumps up and down and complains that they need more parking in their neighborhoods, and a few blocks away another group swears that we have *too much* parking. And to top it off, each group insists that they aren’t NIMBY’s. I Yeah, one things for sure: you aren’t just looking after your own interests.

It’s like these people have a team of comedy writers working around the clock on this stuff….
posted by todd on May 24th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
It’s the Oxbridge neighborhood because of two streets: Oxford and Cambridge. A lot of early university presidents lived in the area so maybe they were thinking of where they’d rather be than Michigan.
posted by BlogLurker on May 24th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
well, Todd, I don’t think that these people want to construct new parking. They just want students to stop having cars. It’s like that Onion article about how people overwhelmingly support public transportation for everyone else, except these NIMBYs actually have a chance of enacting their demands into law.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on May 24th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
In the early 20th century, thousands of streets all over the country, not just in Ann Arbor, were named for elite universities. See my history of street naming at http://potifos.com/streetname.html
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 24th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Interesting. The thing about “Oxbridge,” though, is that it’s this compound word. They couldn’t just pick one of the streets and be Cambridge or Oxford - they had to pick the word with the highest possible density of eliteness.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on May 24th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Would I be so far off in saying that not only are the residents trying to curb (pardon the pun) student access to on-street parking, but people in that neighborhood also have the pleasure of those UM employees who use the on-street parking, as well.

Isn’t this the same thing that happened on the Old West Side?

As one who volunteered for the Tenant’s Union for many years, I can see the horrors involved with students having to rely on their landlords to kindly apply for permits.

Doesn’t City Council have a budget to balance, or something?

Lifer
posted by Lifer on May 24th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
whoever made this site is a huge fag
posted by Anonymous on May 24th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Oh, THAT was impressive, homophobic jackass. I usually try not to respond by calling names, but I’m in a really prickish mood today.

And stuff like what’s described makes me really glad I don’t have a car in this town. I’m not a student, a homeowner, a “professional,” or a “native,” so God only knows what might happen if I actually did own a car. I’d probably be prevented from owning one just because the nimbys couldn’t figure out my social status (or lack thereof).
posted by Lazaro on May 24th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
I’m reminded of a series of scribblings I saw on a bathroom wall some time ago.

The first entry didn’t make much impression on me, but apparently it offended the author of the second entry, who wrote “Anyone who quotes Uriah Heep lyrics should be shot!”

Then a third person wrote: “Anyone who RECOGNIZES Uriah Heep lyrics should be shot.”
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on May 24th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
The Kerrytown deal is that the car must be in your name, with all insurance and licensing and everything tied to your rental address. Then, my dear child, you may have your precious residential parking pass.

I second Lifer on the “they think the landlords are gonna do anything?” call. Mine last year could never be bothered with the flooding that happened everytime we did laundry. At least it killed some of the ants, though.

Anyhow, I’m sure someone’s thought that if they put it in the landlord’s hands, it’ll never happen. And they’d probably be right.
posted by Jen on May 24th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Why, how civilized and neighborly and live-and-let-live. All these homeowners have garages and driveways, right? So what’s the stink about street parking? I also love the juxtaposition of the stories about the homeowner who blocked the sidewalk (perfectly OK) and the student who allegedly “encroached” on a driveway and was immediately nailed by homeowners who had her towed. Nice.
posted by tree frog on May 24th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Actually not all of the houses have garages, or even driveways, so they have to find parking on the street. And even if they do have a small driveway, there is still not enough room to put the four vehicles they own. These are THEIR streets, after all - give them a break!
posted by PerhapsNot on May 24th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
I’d like to see renters explicitly mobilize as stakeholders in this town, seeing as many renters pay a much larger proportion of their income to live in Ann Arbor than do, say OxBridge residents.

The ongoing fights about managing common spaces serve as a great example of why Ann Arbor needs effective and noisy neighborhood renter organizations. The streets of “North Burns Park” belong to everyone who legally lives there, no matter how they manage to do so. It makes no sense that area’s owner-occupant organization acts unchallenged against the interests of other people who live in their midst. The same goes for the streets of the Old Fourth Ward, where I live. Parking here is often legitimately threatened by owners, yet the area is largely occupied by renters!

Maybe if renters started appearing en masse at neighborhood association meetings then things would be different, though I suspect organizing independently would spare everyone a great deal of sighing and grumbling and angry meeting minutes-taking.
posted by Anonymous on May 24th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Didn’t mean to post that as Anon.
posted by Dan Faichney on May 24th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
the old fourth ward did street cleaning this morning at like 8 am and it was hilarious to see about 4 blocks of student cars get towed because they ignored the signs
posted by Anonymous on May 24th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Dan — take the small room at 106 W. Madison and you can get started on the OWS with the renters’ union.
posted by Dale on May 24th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
106 W. Madison? I hear that’s like some loser blog house.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on May 24th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
I hear that 106 W. Madison likes massive, terrifying buildings!

You’re right about the need to get things started in the OWS, Dale. Angry OWS homeowners certainly have been big in the news lately.
posted by Dan Faichney on May 24th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
Hmm. It seems to me that anyone who is a resident of the city pays taxes that pay for those streets. Even renters. It doesnt seem fair to limit parking to just those people who happen to live on a particular street.
posted by Lynne on May 24th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
How about some god damn public transportation or is that too much to ask? Maybe then parking wouldn’t be such a problem.
posted by Andrew on May 25th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Um, there is public transportation? Perhaps you’ve seen all of those buses everywhere? There are plenty of things to complain about in A2, but the bus system isn’t one of them.
posted by Mike on May 25th, 2005 at 12:43 am
Ok, since we are on this public transportation kick, does anyone know why there are not more bike lanes in town? (Huron, State, Main, Liberty, etc, etc)
posted by Peter on May 25th, 2005 at 12:57 am
Could be worse. When we go to visit my in-laws in Stevens Point Wisconsin (pop. 25,000 or so) they have to call city hall to get permission for me to park on the street overnight. There’s no overnight parking allowed at all it seems without calling in. Freakiest damn thing I heard of especially in a town so small with pretty wide roads (or maybe they seem wide since they’re empty of parked cars).
posted by Thomas Cook on May 25th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Here I sit,
gruntin and a fartin,
Just gave birth,
to another baby Spartan
posted by Anonymous on May 25th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Ok, since we’re offtopic, why do people think bikes in streets is a good idea? Why would you chose to ride your bike with cars instead of on the sidewalk? The amount of damage done hitting a person (OW!) is nothing compared to hitting a car (where’s my leg?). I have never understood that. It seems to be completely the wrong decision. Oh, and a waste of money.

I second Oxbridge residents getting after 5 permits at the structures on First that are supposedly so empty at night and on the weekends. That should shut SOMEONE up.
posted by Ryan on May 25th, 2005 at 10:38 am
In many places in Michigan, bicyclists are required to use the streets, except in places where the sidewalk is marked as a bike lane or shared lane. Also, it is actually the safer place to be, especially at intersections; a cyclist is more visible to motorists in the street.

http://www.lmb.org/michcode.htm
http://www.lmb.org/tools/bikeguide.pdf
posted by Sarah on May 25th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Ok, since we’re offtopic, why do people think bikes in streets is a good idea? Why would you chose to ride your bike with cars instead of on the sidewalk?

Because riding on a sidewalk is dangerous not just for pedestrians, but cyclists also. The problem is cars turning in and out of driveways without expecting (or seeing) 15 mph traffic on the sidewalks. Marked bike paths with good visibility and few driveway crossings (say along Huron Pkwy or Fuller are fine), but riding on narrow sidewalks along Packard, with visibility obstructed by vegetation and driveway crossings every 60 feet or so is dangerous–a bike lane is needed.
posted by mw on May 25th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Well, if Ann Arbor wants to start making resident permits policy, they should start on North State Street where there are two side-by-side co-ops and another one, right around the corner). Remember, co-op occupants are owners, and, well, there are usually around 20 of them in each house. So, AA can start by doling out sixty resident parking permits to students for the surrounding streets (N. Main, Ann, Catherine). Let’s see how the OFW feels about that.
posted by Anna on May 25th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
“106 W. Madison? I hear that’s like some loser blog house.”

Oh, you’ll pay — don’t think you won’t pay.
posted by Dale on May 25th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
i hate it when bikes come barreling down the sidewalk, hell bent for leather. keep them things in the street, please!

i work on the OWS, so i suffer the parking regulations there. but i have to concede that before the two-hour limit was put in place, it was basically impossible to find a place to park on the street throughout the day, which would be pretty inconvenient for the plumber or locksmith or whatever.

really, i am not very sympathetic to students needing a place to park their cars. what the hell do they need cars for, anyway? i say let them park their lincoln navigators in mommy and daddy’s driveway.

i hate my car.
posted by peter honeyman on May 25th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
No seriously folks, I was wondering if there is some reason why bike lanes don’t exist here. I think everyone would be happier if they existed, does anyone know of past efforts to get them in that have been derailed for some reason? More wondering than preaching.
posted by peter on May 25th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
Do you mean there are no bike lanes in the central Ann Arbor area? I seem to recall there being one on part of Liberty as well as on part of Jackson. Some of the other main roads heading radially out of central Ann Arbor also have bike lanes. Maybe the streets downtown are too narrow to support another lane? Although I would like to, I don’t ride a bike in Ann Arbor, as I think the drivers here are not predictable (this coming from someone who used to inline skate in Manhattan). In fact, as the proportion of SUV’s and pickup trucks seems pretty high in Michigan, I’ve traded in my compact car (bought for NYC driving) for a midsize SUV in order to increase my odds of survival in an accident. I’m pretty sure that in Hummer vs Schwinn, Hummer always wins.
posted by JCP2 on May 25th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Bike lanes are being added to roads in AA as they are repaired and widened. A good example of this is Liberty Street, which now has a lane from 1st to Stadium. Except at the intersection of 7th, where I guess all the bikes are either supposed to run over the pedestrians or take their chances in the turn lanes. Bike lanes are also being included in the Stadium repairs.

Streets in the downtown area like Maynard and State have been designated “bike routes” - look for the icon of the cylist with two chevrons below it painted on the street. I doubt any driver even knows what that symbol means.

On the subject of parking - how long before the OWS gets its panties in a knot over the congestion caused by the new Y? Traffic on Washington is 10,000 times worse than it ever was when the evil Technology Center was there.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on May 25th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
“really, i am not very sympathetic to students needing a place to park their cars. what the hell do they need cars for, anyway?”

Peter — what do YOU need a car for? Students have the same needs as non-students — shopping, working, travelling.
posted by Dale on May 25th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
Peter- You can’t fuck in the back of a bicycle.
posted by js on May 26th, 2005 at 2:35 am
dale, i *don’t* need a car. (i HATE owning a car!)

my situation is not too different from students’ — my home and work are walking/biking distance, there are plenty of places to shop in the neighborhood, and i am well served by AATA when i need to get to ann arbor’s nether reaches.

so, dale, please tell me: why does a typical student — one who lives on or near campus — need a car to get to work? or to shop? and if she chooses to own a car so she can travel when school is out, please tell me why she must store her lexus on ann arbor streets (instead of mommy and daddy’s three-car garage in w. bloomfield)?

js, what makes you so sure that you can’t fuck in the back of a bicycle? hmmmmm????????
posted by peter honeyman on May 26th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Well, the closest grocery store to campus is more than two miles away. Ann Arbor is pretty much set up like a suburb. Please don’t try to tell me that the little overpriced convenience stores are equivalent for anyone who needs to buy food and cook.

I’m not sure where this dismissive attitude about “Mommy and Daddy’s driveway” comes from, when students, especially grad students, are independent adults, and it’s your Old West Side neighbors who are always complaining about how they need parking spots for their high-school-aged kids SUVs. You must need your car for something, or you wouldn’t have it. I’m an employee of the university who happens to be a grad student as well, and I need my car too.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on May 26th, 2005 at 10:05 am
I almost hit a biker last night turning into Leopold’s parking lot. The fucking bastard was speeding at 30 miles an hour down that hill, wearing all back and had no reflectors on his bike, which I think is illegal.

Let me tell you - the only reason I would have felt sorry for killing him is because my insurance would have gone up and I’d probably have had to have gone to court for manslaughter or something. Killing another Ann Arbor resident doesn’t bother me so much - you can all die and go to hell.

But before you do, why don’t you do the rest of us a favor and IF YOU’RE GONNA BIKE AT 11:30 PM, PUT SOME FUCKING REFLECTORS ON YOUR BIKE, WEAR FUCKING BRIGHT COLORED CLOTHES, AND DON’T GO RIDING DOWN THE FUCKING SIDEWALK AT 30 MPH, YOU DIPSHIT.
posted by DrMandrake on May 26th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Lehigh Valley is right on target with the New Y. Talked to someone who works there. There are about 60 parking spots, and are available to members only. It won’t be bad ’til next winter hits, and nobody gives a tinker’s damn about whether there are bike lanes or not near the new Y.

And speaking of bike lanes, there are TONS. Liberty, Huron Parkway, Miller, Pontiac Trail, Packard, State Street. I can bike with my seven-year-old from our home near Northside School to the Ann Arbor Airport using a combination of sidewalks and bike lanes.

As for students and their cars, going down to one car was the best thing we ever did, but anyone who thinks students don’t have the right to have cars, or don’t need their cars (especially if they live off campus) is crazy. The buses are great. But until you have done your grocery shopping by regularly taking the bus to Krogers in the middle of January, you should really put a sock in it.

Ann Arbor is a part of metro-Detroit. The automakers paid cities like Ann Arbor to rip out their tram lines and cut back on public transportation. That way, EVERYONE could see the USA in his Chevrolet.

The students pay taxes, vote and are a part of the citizenry. If they are forced to get parking permits, EVERYONE should be forced to apply for parking permits.

Lifer
posted by Anonymous on May 26th, 2005 at 11:18 am
See, that’s the thing that really sucks about the Y traffic - Washington never needed a bike lane - it was the perfect bike route parallel to Huron - a wide, quiet street. Now, I’m lucky if I can bike down the hill from 1st street without some idiot pulling a U turn in front of me, blindly backing out of a driveway, or slamming on the brakes because they thought they saw a parking space.

The homeowners around there must be pissed. On the other hand, the AATA bus drivers are probably rejoicing that the chaos around the transit center has been lessened.
posted by Lehigh Valley Refugee on May 26th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Lifer — that line about the auto companies and rail lines has largely be debunked by urban historians. In a few cases, auto companies subsidized a transition to buses, but the conspiracy theory is more or less a myth.
posted by Dale on May 26th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
_But until you have done your grocery shopping by regularly taking the bus to Krogers in the middle of January, you should really put a sock in it._

Amen, Lifer! I couldn’t agree more.
posted by KGS on May 26th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
I would add that the way students use cars (park them most of the time, take them to do laundry or shop for groceries) is one of the more environmentally-friendly uses for cars. So why the complaint about the student who didn’t notice for ten days that her car had been towed? I say, good for her. Those of you who live in Ann Arbor and commute to work 45 minutes away have a lot more to answer for, in my opinion.
posted by Anna on May 26th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Mandrake:

calm it down there, chachi! I’m sure it’s not so bad.
posted by Real Big on May 26th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Well, I’ve done my grocery shopping via bus in the middle of January (or it might have been December, and it wasn’t Kroger, it was Meijer on Carpenter), but I don’t necessarily think that makes me morally superior. Until there’s widescale public transportation in this country, people are going to need cars, including students. I could certainly use one to escape this place on weekends, even if it’s only to Detroit or somewhere. I’m fortunate enough to be able to walk to work and overpriced convenience stores like Village Corner (where expiration dates are frequently ignored, by the way–I’m lazy, I can’t help it), but many aren’t.
posted by Lazaro on May 26th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
“the closest grocery store to campus is more than two miles away.”

kerrytown is not two miles away from campus.

“You must need your car for something, or you wouldn’t have it.”

i have my car because i have it, not because i need it. i admit that it’s handy on weekends, when AATA service is spotty.

“anyone who thinks students don’t have the right to have cars”

who me? i can’t find anyone sugggesting that students don’t have the right to have cars, so i guess you mean me. i agree that students have the right to have cars.

“or don’t need their cars (especially if they live off campus)”

i can’t find anyone discussing students who live off campus, so i guess you mean me. but i wasn’t discussing students who live off campus, either.

“is crazy”

now i KNOW you mean me!

Anna’s “environmentally friendly” comment resonates …. but there is a practical matter of where to store these steel hulks when idle. westgate mall or the orange lot on fuller or what have you makes more sense to me than a curbside on olivia.
posted by peter honeyman on May 26th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
I don’t know, Peter, if it’s so silly to want to park near where you live so that getting to your car isn’t a huge hassle, why don’t you park out at the Westgate Mall? Esp. if you have a car just because you have it. If it’s really all that unnecessary, and if you really think that Kerrytown is a reasonable (and reasonably-priced) stand-in for a full-service grocery store, why don’t you live what you preach, get rid of your car, and shop exclusively at Kerrytown? Oh, and try doing it on a $8/hour.
posted by Anna on May 26th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
anna, i do.
posted by peter honeyman on May 26th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
No, no, no — 6.50 an hour. Peter — yeah, right.
posted by Dale on May 26th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
ok, all but the $8/hr. part.

this discussion has veered pretty far from the topic, which had to do with privileged students dumping cars they seem neither to use nor need on residential streets ringing campus, creating strife and backlash. it was not about the transportation needs of minimum wage workers, and it would be a mistake to construe my comments as such.

… just trying to stay on topic …
posted by peter honeyman on May 26th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
So is a GSI who makes the standard GSI salary and rents a house on a residential street a “privileged student”? And then would another worker who makes the same salary be a “privileged non-student”? Just trying to get the terms straight.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on May 26th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
we started out talking about students who neither use nor need a car, who permanently occupy residential curbs ringing campus, irritating and inconveniencing affected home owners.

those students — who own cars that they rarely if ever use — are privileged. is that such a dirty word?
posted by peter honeyman on May 27th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Peter, As an undergrad, I was living on around $500/month (granted, this was ten years ago, so double the figure if you like for today’s dollars). I didn’t use my car very often; just for trips to the grocery store, laundromat, or the occasional impulsive jaunt to Liberty St. Video (from Baldwin). I do not think that made me priviledged. I also don’t think that means I didn’t need a car. Well, in the strictest sense that nobody *needs* a car (given that they could, say, change their entire life and do without one), so I guess I didn’t need it, but I don’t see anything wrong with having one. I paid taxes, I walked most of the time, and I drove occasionally. I just don’t see your point, or why students should be considered any different than the priviledged people who live around Burns Park. If anything, my use of a car was much more responsible than most of the non-students’ who live in Ann Arbor.
posted by Anna on May 27th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Students with cars parking in residential areas close to campus, that’s the tradeoff with living in any college town, I guess. I suppose you could move to another town like Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, Brighton, or Howell, but then you’d be in Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, Brighton, or Howell. The one place I’ve been where students didn’t park on residential streets and bother homeowners is New York University.
posted by JCP2 on May 27th, 2005 at 7:48 am
priveledged students, as opposed to the poor, downtrodden homeowners who have no priveledges whatsoever - who can afford to drink only lukewarm water and eat only rocks for dinner. It breaks my heart that they, the venerable, christ-like homeowners should not be able to park wherever they want, whenever they want - while the evil, wealthy students joyfully park each of their 9 cars in the middle of the street, laughing hysterically at their ability to incovenience the less fortunate.

Once when I was living in that area I parked my auto - the one I used to get to *work*, as I was not a student, and was immediately accosted by some mean-ass old biddy, who assured me that if I left my car for more than 2 days I would get it towed, as students such as myself were wont to leave cars in front of her house. I was certain that this woman hadn’t driven in quite some time, and was surprised that she refered to my auto as a “car” rather than a “horseless carriage,” but engaged her in a conversation about how I wasn’t *actually* a student. She seemed crestfallen, left with nothing to gripe about, and no doubt died shortly thereafter.
posted by Real Big on May 27th, 2005 at 10:52 am
Peter,

The students are making use of on-street parking near where they live. Just like you can leave your car parked on-street, so can they. Abandoned cars are towed (Please don’t get me started on that little source of city revenue….) and the owners fined.

Is tight parking a pain in the muffler? Sure. I hate looking for parking on and around campus. I take the bus or ride my bike whenever I can. The rest of the time I rely on my excellent parking Karma, pay my tickets promptly, and look forward to summer, when there are fewer students.

What I don’t think is that simply by virtue of the fact that they are students, that they have less of a right to own a car and park it, or that car ownership signifies any modicum of great priviledge.

Maybe if they were parking their six-seater jets all over the Burns Park and Oxbridge neighborhoods, I might be sympathetic to your argument…..

Lifer
posted by Anonymous on May 27th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Peter,

The students are making use of on-street parking near where they live. Just like you can leave your car parked on-street, so can they. Abandoned cars are towed (Please don’t get me started on that little source of city revenue….) and the owners fined.

Is tight parking a pain in the muffler? Sure. I hate looking for parking on and around campus. I take the bus or ride my bike whenever I can. The rest of the time I rely on my excellent parking Karma, pay my tickets promptly, and look forward to summer, when there are fewer students.

What I don’t think is that simply by virtue of the fact that they are students, that they have less of a right to own a car and park it, or that car ownership signifies any modicum of great priviledge.

Maybe if they were parking their six-seater jets all over the Burns Park and Oxbridge neighborhoods, I might be sympathetic to your argument…..

Lifer
posted by Anonymous on May 27th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Lazaro,

My comment concerning winter shopping sprees to Kroger made possible by the fine folks at AATA in no way indicates moral superiority.

It indicates either a deep commitment to the environment, or a someone who knows what life without a car is really like in a city designed for the convenience of drivers.

Having a car and professing to HATE it, while making the choice to either ride the bus or a bike, is not even close to waiting the wait of the person who rides the bus because s/he has no choice.

It’s like saying you HATE having money, or are embarrassed by having a nice place to live. Hubris comes to mind.

Lifer
posted by Anonymous on May 27th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
So, Peter, it’s been a few days. Have you gotten rid of your car yet? Or is it still parked out at Westgate? Given that you hate it so much and all, I’d hate to see you burdened. You could then donate the money from the sale of that lexus to the environmental defense fund, since you have such a deep committment to the environment. Let me know if you need an address, I’ll be happy to dig it up.
posted by Anna on May 27th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
anna: chuckle. my “lexus” is a 10-year old honda accord that evokes comments like “nice duct tape job”

and since you asked … to tell the truth, i don’t know where my car is, i haven’t seen it in days: my son, home from college, relieved me of that burden. (please forgive him if he’s parked in your spot

ps: i gave my last three cars to grad students who couldn’t afford to buy their own. (no, i did not ask where they would park them. heh.) the environmental defense fund will have to wait.

pps: i think you have me confused for someone else — i made no claims about a commitment to the environment, deep or shallow.
posted by peter honeyman on May 27th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Funny, I thought that college students didn’t need cars.
posted by Anna on May 28th, 2005 at 12:04 am
anna, i agree!
posted by peter honeyman on May 28th, 2005 at 3:42 am
Man, I haven’t been here in a while…So if they didn’t need cars, why give them?
posted by Kozzie_13 on May 29th, 2005 at 12:31 am
there’s a strange logic at work here …

when i said i didn’t need a car, i was challenged with “you must need one or you wouldn’t have one.”

when i said i gave worthless old junkers to grad students, i was challenged with (if i understand Kozzle_13) “they must need them or they wouldn’t take them.”

in this strange logic, i manage to transform someone who doesn’t need a car into one who does through the act of giving him one.

now consider clues: if you have a clue, then you don’t need one, but if you don’t have a clue then you do need one.

strange logic, indeed. it’s like … a car is an anti-clue!

i’m gonna put my tinfoil-covered hat back on, now.
posted by peter honeyman on May 29th, 2005 at 8:26 am
You were the one who said that students didn’t need cars, but then you give junkers to them, so obviously they do or you wouldn’t give one to them. So which is it?
posted by Kozzie_13 on May 29th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Sorry, Peter, I didn’t realize these concepts were so difficult for you. Let me put it another way: You are a hypocrite. www.dictionary.com will enlighten you if you don’t understand the word. Love, Anna
posted by Anna on May 29th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
kozzie_13, thanks for writing. i can’t say as i follow your reasoning … but i do follow your rhetoric
posted by peter honeyman on May 29th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
sweet anna, finally, you realize that these concepts are so difficult for me! and thank you for the classification! some people might be offended by your ad hominem; i assure you that i am not.

but pray tell: what beliefs do i profess that i do not hold? (dictionary.com definition). maybe “hypocrite” is not the best word to fling in this case. or perhaps the dictionary.com defintion is in error.

good to know you.
posted by peter honeyman on May 29th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
My reasoning is this:
You state that students don’t need cars.
Then you give students clunkers and they take them. Which follows that they do need them.

So which is it?

Anyways, if you live in the dorms and get a meal plan, it is probably possible to not need a car. Otherwise, forget it.
posted by Kozzie_13 on May 29th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
look again at that “which follows” part.

lemme ask you: do you have a tv? do you need a tv?
posted by peter honeyman on May 29th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Yes, I have a TV, but I don’t need it.

Of course you are right, they don’t need the car but then again who really does? But why fuel the addiction?
posted by Kozzie_13 on May 30th, 2005 at 12:23 am
You might need a car and be a student if:

1. You have to work two jobs while going to school because tuition is so darn expensive.
2. You live outside of Ann Arbor where there is no bus service because rent is so darn expensive.
3. You go to another college besides U of M but work in Ann Arbor because money falls of of trees on Main Street and the tips are really good (see 1 and 2).
4. You feel like going somewhere else on the little free time you have between taking classes, studying, and working, because your feeling about Ann Arbor is the same as most people reading this blog (and you don’t feel like blowing that time waiting at a bus stop).
5. You’ve been too good to take mass transit, but just because you didn’t get into an Ivy doesn’t mean you’re going to start now.
posted by JCP2 on May 30th, 2005 at 8:29 am
kozzle_13, i confess! guilty as charged!

i’ve been kind of backed into a corner here, so lemme just out and say it: some students *do* need cars.

there. i said it.

jeez, this blog is like a living, breathing 12-step program! hi, my name is peter … “hi, peter!” … and i’m a blogoholic.
posted by peter honeyman on May 30th, 2005 at 10:02 am
Wow. Missed the pile-on. Was in Chicago.
Couple things: First off, it’s funny to see the two competing stereotypes here. You’ve got your wealthy, obnoxious students, and you’ve got your wealthy, obnoxious homeowners. Chances are the former will become the latter if given time. Second, you don’t really need a car to live in Ann Arbor, if you live within the vague confines of the downtown area. I’ve done it. It can really suck in the winter, but it’s possible. Third, the attacks on Peter are pretty hilariously wacked. I mean, c’mon, Anna, I know you like to beat a straw man, but did you bother to read what he was saying? Perhaps something in New Haven has irked you, and you felt like visiting your ire back upon your old town, but jeez. Take a deep breath. Unclench your sphincter.
(And for Kozzie: Taking the autos implied that the students wanted cars. I should hope that I don’t need to explain the subtle difference between want and need to an adult.)
posted by js on May 31st, 2005 at 11:54 am
Clever, as ever, JS. Yawn.
posted by Anna on June 3rd, 2005 at 11:51 pm