[LMB] OT: Damned cars, was Okra, etc

Paula Lieberman paal at gis.net
Tue Jul 31 15:41:14 BST 2012

That can cause groundwater contamination.... aboveground, one can put solar 
panels ontop of the garage (as is being done in Lowell, 
Massachusetts--rather, the solar panel farm on the top of the transportation 
center is being expanded it's been so successful), and also filter the 
runoff.... and it's somewhat safer, because there is natural light...

-----Original Message----- 
From: fishman at panix.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:28 AM
To: Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.
Subject: Re: [LMB] OT: Damned cars, was Okra, etc

UNDERGROUND garages with the land above planted!!  Removes eyesores.


Sent from my iPad

On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:19, "Paula Lieberman" <paal at gis.net> wrote:

> Parking lots are environmentally destructive, they replace large areas 
> which could be full of green growing trees removing CO2 from the 
> atmosphere, with paved space contributing to global warming and 
> encouraging overuse of single occupant vehicles, which also contribute to 
> global warming.... it would be a lot more sensible to have parking garages 
> to minimize the land paved over area, and to make mass transit systems 
> more robust instead...
> -----Original Message----- From: Gwynne Powell
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 09:25 AM
> To: Lois Bujold List
> Subject: [LMB] ??[ OT:] Okra, etc
>> From: John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>
>> Meg Justus scripsit:
>> > Yes, please.  Large, free, *secure* parking lots.
>> Free, how?  Someone has to pay the property taxes and the salaries of
>> the security guards.  Why should that be paid out of general revenue,
>> or even the gasoline tax?
> Well, there'd be no taxes on them. I'd own them - why would I pay
> taxes to myself? And I'd be employing the workers - the public purse
> would be paying them anyway - either the dole if they're unemployed,
> or a wage for working in my car parks. No extra expense there. So, after
> the car  parks are built, running costs would be low. And there'd be huge
> savings from removing traffic from the city - less accidents and damage,
> less time lost, less illness from pollution, etc.
> And why shouldn't it be paid out of general revenue anyway? It's a huge
> improvement to the city, a benefit for all. 

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list