Damn, the quote function stopped working for me. I guess I'll have to do this the hard way.
People can read my post and determine whether I was simply noting the conspiracy theory stuff in an appropriate context, or claiming you had said it personally.
I do have a personality where, if I read someone say he wants car-free zones, I'm gonna think he wants to limit use of cars. To take one example. Simple, clear and logical. If someone says we can't wipe away whole cities at once, but can do it piece by piece, and we should do this to promote...fitness...I'm thinking that person wants to force a dramatic redesign of cities in a way different from their current makeup, and in a way different from what would happen if we simply let nature take its course. I.e., compulsion, be it taxes, zoning, other regulation, OR relocations small or large, or at the logical end of this more blunt types of compulsion. Simple, clear, and logical given the words. And, with the end goal of fitness, almost doomed to be both hugely wasteful, a source of great human misery, and an abject failure. "If you continue to build giant, spread-out cities, you'll continue to produce giant, spread-out people. Obviously, you can't wipe out entire cities and rebuild them in one fell swoop. But, you can work on it little by little...." [emphasis added] Your words, correct?
Now, if you really mean that you misspoke, and DON'T support car-free zones or trying to wipe away whole cities piece by piece in a great urban design experiment, hey, we all misspeak. If you really meant to say you support public transport where densities are sufficient already to make it economically rational, then I'm with you. I'll even throw you a bone and note that Oregon and CT are two good examples of PUBLIC investment in skateparks that are actually very good and heavily utilized, and it can be interesting to say, Why do some places get things right in terms of infrastructure investments that actually do directly relate to fitness, and why do others tend to waste money? Why are all the best skate spots in MSP private clubs, for instance?
This kind of dancing around words is an amusing thing. Car-free zones, yes or no? Huge redesign of cities to promote fitness, yes or no? What exactly are you claiming you didn't say?
Another great example of what I'm talking about. What I actually said was The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are thinking about city planning it would be a good idea to design areas to be more pedestrian oriented. That means putting buildings closer together, making car-free zones, and so on. If you continue to build giant, spread-out cities, you'll continue to produce giant, spread-out people. Obviously, you can't wipe out entire cities and rebuild them in one fell swoop. But, you can work on it little by little.
Notice how I'm talking about city planning. Who does city planning? City councils (notice how I never mentioned anything about the federal government). Also, notice that I never mentioned anything about policies being involuntary (i.e., forced on the population), and I even specifically said that you can't wipe out entire cities and rebuild them. I did that just so people wouldn't misinterpret my proposal as a call for cities to be wiped out. And yet you, and only you, interpreted my post as a proposal for the central government to take away freedoms, wipe out entire cities, and rebuild them in ways that nobody wants and nobody needs, using force if necessary. Everyone else managed to read that without assuming that I support tyrannical dictatorships that commit widespread atrocities.
So no, I didn't misspeak. You misread. You ignored the context of my previous posts and the other text in that post, took the last two sentences on their own, and misinterpreted the word "it" to mean mass destruction and tyranny. Everyone else assumed that I'm a fairly reasonable guy and, thus, interpreted the word "it" to mean urban redevelopment carried out by city governments with the people's interest in mind.
Now, I suspect that I might be misreading some things, so I'm going to ask for some help from you. In the other thread, you said "Public transit is ultimately a huge, impoverishing boondoggle that is good at providing union jobs." Now, you're saying "If you really meant to say you support public transport where densities are sufficient already to make it economically rational, then I'm with you." Am I misreading, or did you misspeak? (Notice how I ask for clarification rather than assuming that I have superior analytical skills and inventing my own interpretation that may or may not be correct.)