Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Bike Shares: NAMs Want Some SWPL Loot

It is not just school districts and government jobs that the government representatives of oppressed minorities will agitate for access to for their constituents. Bike sharing programs are now in the fire zone in deep blue Boston. The wonderful SWPLs of Boston expressed their love of bicycling with a bike share program. This served the purposes of working out, saving the environmet, and staying off of the public transportation system (the T) to get to and from their gentrification safe zones and their places of work or school. SWPLs do love to share and perform acts of kindness, as well as be a part of the collective program for transportation to reduce costs of living in the city (like Philly's car sharing program). They thought they had their racist, I mean, bike use optimization tracks covered. Not well enough, and now the viability of the program may come into trouble if they do give in and quickly expand the bike share program into underserved markets.

The bike share program like most operations is trying to serve a market that can sustain it. They need people who ride bikes often and are good about returning shared property. There is a reason the bike share program has contracts with specific spots of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline. Those areas are where the college students and SWPLs live. Boston has a huge student population and the areas the bike share program serves are those areas. The above locations contain many colleges with Simmons, Northeastern, BU, Harvard, MIT and Tufts the first six I can name. The politicians representing the poor, underserved areas smell the money and "jobs" that these bike share stations would provide. They don't give a shit about actually having bikes available for their people. After all, what is the ratio of SWPL to non-asian minority (NAM) bike riders? Maybe 1000:1 or is it undefined because you can't divide by zero?

If you read the link, the SWPLs are using nice words to explain why it takes time to expand. They intend to get there, but they just can't get there right now. They even offer subsidized rides in certain stations near the poor (probably for early colonial gentrifiers) out of a concern for equity. Equity for what? No one to use the bikes but steal them. It will become a money pit, just like the subway system is because they have to keep the fares low to subsidize the poor while maintaining high operating costs for the idiot employees. The cost drag here will be higher bike replacement costs + stations in rougher areas. Same problem as the T, just on a smaller scale. It is odd that the whiners aren't calling the bike share program racist. Must be because of the overwhelming Democrat presence in the SWPL bike program in Massachusetts. Anyone else operating in this manner would be denounced as a racist.

Are there racial factors at play in the station expansion pattern? We can determine that by looking at the NY Times 2010 Census Maps for the areas that aren't being "served". The areas without service (Jamaica Plain, Mattapan, Roslindale, Hyde Park, Forest Hills) track well along the orange line on the T going down to Forest Hills. If you are on the orange line after dark south of the Back Bay stop, good luck + carry a club (and purell). It is common sense why they didn't put bike share stations there. Some of those areas listed above on the NY Times census map are over 90% NAM, and the others that are not will be as white flight is happening in those census tracts. CSI Boston is usually mopping up blood from drug deals gone bad in those neighborhoods. That is why there are no bike share stations in those areas. Those areas are high NAM and there is disparate impact, so why isn't it racist? SWPLs in Boston escape the racist smear because they are on the same Democrat team.

SWPLs can wave their flags and hug their NAM coalition partners when their politicians get elected. The SWPL programs like bike sharing will start to slow down or suddenly feel a drag on their progress the moment the NAM hand reaches out not for utilization of the program and its benefits for the community and world, but for a portion of the loot, the spoils and the patronage possibilities. It is a shame if SWPLs cave on this one as it will prevent them from expanding the program where they see best for long term viability. Even if I dislike SWPLs, I dislike the government and the organized victim groups demanding 'equity' from any group just to get their hands on some loot. If the SWPLs keep it up, they'll be doing all the hard work of keeping the machines running while their voting partners do their best not to gum up the works but to make sure their wheels get the oil can, too.

2 comments:

peterike said...

Who sets sued when a NAM rapes a white girl and gets away on a shared bike?

Just one of the many questions yet to be answered. Councilor Yancy's interest is very clear when you see there is a $300,000 grant to expand the program. As government programs go, that's a pittance. But still, that's not a bad bit of graft.

Apparently, Yancy is also causing a stink about the racial makeup of Boston city departments. He's a non-stop shakedown machine. If you look at the guy, he looks like a darker skinned white guy. No surprise.

http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/councillors/yancey.asp

Anyway, the bike sharing program will be ruined if it enters NAM areas, because as you say, the bikes will all be stolen. Immediately. And then they'll figure out that once they are "members" they can easily go steal the bikes in other neighborhoods.

A pity, because a bike sharing program is a very good thing to have. It will fail in the end, proving once again that DIVERSITY RUINS EVERYTHING!

Son of Brock Landers said...

It's a shame too because sure the SWPLs are poseurs but the program is pretty cool. I have plenty of friends in old Boston that use the bike share because they cant afford a gym membership or dont trust the subways.

How NAM representatives view everything: where is my cut? Disgusting.