Everyone should have access to the night sky, because it puts one directly in touch with cosmic order. But in big cities such as Tucson and Phoenix, only a handful of stars can be seen through the light pollution and smog. Arcosanti, a model arcology (the fusion of ecology and architecture) is a way for all of us to experience the wondrous night sky, not just a few rich folks who can afford a home with a private observatory at places like Arizona Sky Village.
Urban sprawl and its car dependency are the reasons for light pollution. The solution is to build solar-powered arcologies. It's time now to plan one for a million people on Arizona state-trust land.
Imagine passing up a good job with great benefits because you could get there, but there was no bus late enough to take you home. Imagine being older than 30, and you have to be home by 7 p.m. on a Saturday night because you depend on the bus. I don't need to imagine these or other transportation woes, because I've experienced them.
While the routes still need some adjustments, the changes that have already been made have felt like a liberation to me.
He thinks he can itemize hourly expenditures for nighttime runs and use a "traditional rule of thumb" for fare-box receipts to determine, in his eyes, if the whole RTA-funded evening service is justified? And--even as he admits that about one-third of these routes have had late-evening service for less than three months--he thinks it's time to pass judgment on the viability of the expansion?
Let me tell you what I think a "traditional rule of thumb" is for NON-mass transit: highways, freeways, road-widening divided by more highways, road-widening divided by traffic congestion, air pollution and millions in tax dollars to pay for more highways, freeways and road-widening. Isn't Devine suggesting that a head count is the only determination of success?
It's narrow-minded simplicity to ignore the benefits of a bus service that runs later in this town. To name a few pluses: Employers can be attracted to Tucson if they know there's adequate transit service; tourism is facilitated when people read about Tucson's great bus service; locals can come home from a night on the town without worrying about driving with alcohol in their system; if your car breaks down at night, there is an alternative way to get home!
Give it time. And just what did you mean to imply by saying, as to who was riding the late-night bus, "most appeared to be simply poor"--they don't count; their jobs aren't important; their ridership rating is different from the non-poor?
Any hookup issue that isn't going to happen for 10 years doesn't really concern me, because the big boys will have plenty of time to work it out.
It appears that everybody agrees that the proposition definitely repeals the $14 garbage tax. Repealing that deceptive and unfair tax will save me $168 per year by getting rid of that nasty refuse fee on my water bill.
Unfortunately, Hoffman is dead wrong in his uneducated assumption. The United States of America, at least the last time I checked, is a member of the United Nations, and a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
As the United States is a signatory to this international treaty, it falls under the auspices of Article 6 of the United States Constitution, which reads, in part, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It would appear as if the government not only has the right to enforce these laws, but is also required to enforce them under international law.
As much as many millions of otherwise law-abiding, contributing members of society, including me, might want to just relax and smoke some harmless marijuana, we are prohibited from doing so. We are also angered because we can't change the law, and we refuse to respect those who have led us to believe we could.
Due to an incorrect date on a news release from the event promoter, the date of Mark Crispin Miller's talk was incorrect last week in both City Week and our lectures listings. The talk was slated for Friday, Oct. 26, not Thursday, Oct. 25.
In "More Bulldozing?" (Currents, Oct. 25), according to the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection's Carolyn Campbell, the off-site acreage needed for conservation at the Mission Peaks development to adhere to the Sonoran Desert Protection Plan should be at least 8,000 acres, at an estimated cost of $50 million, for American Nevada--not the 3,500 acres quoted in the story.
We apologize for the mistakes.