This post is inspired by this post: https://greatawakening.win/p/17r9ILnZcn/somebody-in-maui-did-there-resea/c/
...where a gentlemen confronted a Maui public council meeting about their intentions for 15 minute cities. I was just going to comment, but it turned into something a little too big for a comment. So if you haven't watched the video yet, go there first.
.
I went and researched it a little myself. This guy didn't just read "we are building smart cities by 2040" on the Maui planning site. He read their plans and put 2 + 2 together. For the record, he is saying "Hele Mai Maui 2040".
I'm really impressed with this guy and consider him an honorary frog!
This plan is VERY deceptive. Some of the best modern commie propaganda I've seen. The artwork is a modern take of "socialist realism". Ideas are hidden behind twisted words. Statistics are completely misrepresented.
This is only about a few hour's worth of research by me, so if someone finds an error or additional import facts, let us know below.
You can find the plan here: https://mauimpo.org/hele-mai-maui-2040-long-range-transportation-plan
.
First Major Deception - The What
"Hele Mai Maui 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan"
The name implies that this is merely a road works project. "CALM DOWN YOU ULTRA-MAGA FAGGOT!!"
The "transportation" part of the plan is merely the launching point of a complete redesign of entire communities. They could have just said that, but they chose not to. Why? (anons know why)
Second Major Deception - The Why
Did you know that 20% of pedestrians killed on Maui roads are over 60 years of age?
Over 20% of collisions involving people walking and biking on Maui are with people over the age of 60... (page 57)
Gee, really? Seniors need to jump out in front of cars more, they are under represented!! According to the latest US Census, 65 and older represents 20.7% of their population. So 60 and up... 🤔
So how many TOTAL (not just seniors) people are getting killed by cars, that they need a major redesign of all their communities? Found an answer on page 42:
Maui police data show that between 2012 and 2017 there were about 11 fatalities annually due to crashes involving vehicles only.
Yep, tear it all down and start over.
It gets better. They go on to say that 75% of those vehicle related fatalities are due to drugs and alcohol (page 42 of the factbook). Meaning they have nothing to do with infrastructure.
Third Major Deception - The How
So what is the actual goal? Here's one:
Vision Zero - Implements a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. (page 11 of the executive summary)
Just zero traffic related deaths. Zero. If they said, "we just want gun ownership to be safe, and will implement new policies to achieve zero gun deaths", you would know exactly what that means. Apply the same logic.
They break that down into 6 objectives for the plan (page 72 of the detailed plan):
1 - Eliminate traffic-related fatalities and reduce serious injuries from traffic collisions
2 - Increase the amount of safe facilities for people walking and biking
3 - Increase physical activity by making walking and biking preferred modes of travel
4 - Improve climate resilience and adaptability of infrastructure
5 - Reduce transportation-related air emissions
6 - Protect or enhance cultural resources
But what about muh 15 minute cities?!?
I have not seen where "15 minute city" is ever mentioned in the plan. But it is an exercise in "can you say 15 minute city, without saying 15 minute city".
Above, you can see there is a clear intention to make as many people bike and walk as much as possible. Not just say, a 10 or even 20% increase, but "the preferred mode of travel". Right now, and by there own statistics, cars are the preferred mode of travel by 72%. This would be a monumental change.
But if people are too spread out, you'll never get them to walk and bike most of the time. So how do you fix that. The short answer is, 15 minute cities. The long answer is, you increase the cost of living astronomically (well under way, we all see it), maybe you destroy some existing neighborhoods, and...
...you build government housing for the masses:
- On page 34 of the Detailed Plan there is a a "ghost image" of a public housing building. Its clearly labeled in the photo and superimposed implying a future state. Is part of the plan to build government housing?
It would seems so:
- On page 52 of the Detailed Plan you'll find this little hidden nugget: "As a catalyst for walkable, mixed-use development, transit hubs can also contribute to displacement or gentrification if affordable housing is not included."
Very strong work, friend! We need more of this kind of high-quality post here.
I do want to say this though. We should evaluate any policy proposal on its merits. This model being described here is basically what towns used to look like before the automobile was invented. You'd have a downtown area. The shopkeepers would live on the second floor and open their shops on the first floor of the same building. You'd have enough local shops to buy what you need within walking distance. There were no big box retailers like Wallyworld or TarGay or Ikea. You'd know the baker, the butcher, the folks at the general store, etc. This idea, in and of itself, does work. If you live in a small town, you know this. If you live in a historical part of many major cities, you can see the echoes of this as well. The same idea worked at scale. They'd just add a few floors up. If you've ever been to Paris or the French Quarter of New Orleans or any of a dozen other places, you can see this.
So, why push this in the first place?
The reason is maintenance costs. Every city has a local government that has to figure out how to fund city services which include water, sewer, sanitation, and most importantly, the roads. Roads are expensive structures. And in the farther you go towards the poles, the more the fluctuations in the weather wear hard on roads. Anyone who's ever lived through winter knows what pothole season is where the expansion and contraction cycle of the road surface allows water to penetrate into microcracks and eventually, you get cracks and chunks of the road coming out that trash your car's suspension. The city has to fill them every year. If you're in the north, they have to salt the roads during snowstorms. If you live in a rainy part of the country, you have to have adequate drainage built into the system to keep the roads clear and avoid flooding, because no one wants see the sewer back up into the roads during a thunderstorm. It turns out that cities require an absolutely enormous amount of civil engineering to build well and maintain.
Now, if you're in a very densely packed urban environment, you can provide all of those services in a very cost-efficient way when measured in cost/taxpayer. That keeps politicians happy. But if you've got a county-wide government (like most major metro areas do), you now have to fund all of the roads and services running out to the suburbs as well. That's where things get expensive. And when you look at the models, suburbs ends up being net costs to the system. They're takers and freeloaders. They don't generate as much tax revenue as they require in order to maintain their services. They have to be supported by the denser parts of the city on a cost-per-taxpayer basis.
Ultimately, this is a cost-savings/efficiency initiative.
Of course, the communists use it as a Trojan horse. What they actually want is what they're doing in Britain which is to build the surveillance state right in, ban the cars, curtail your freedom, and put you in a position where to enjoy rights you have now, you have to ask the government for permission later. Utopia becomes dystopia when you let these tyrants have control. But just in terms of pure architecture and city planning, this isn't a totally off-base idea. The suburban Levittowns were a luxury that could only exist in the post-war era. We simply no longer have that kind of prosperity.