Foreshadowing the psychological effects of living in 15 minute cities..

originally posted by: knoxie
Do you think those cameras would be used as surveillance as well? Would that be good or bad?

Eeerrr, yes. The ULEZ cameras in London have facial recognition. Do you think they wont use them?

In reply to MOON:- A friend bought 2 containers. Placed them 15 apart and built a building around them. Living room in the middle, kitchen/diner in one container and bedroom/ en suite in the other. This was done on the island of Cyprus and local law stated that if he left the lifting hooks on the containers (even though they are built in) he didn't need any planning laws and pays no property tax. As technically it's classed as temporary.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68

Although tolls could be implemented for whatever reason. If you are going to use the roads often then said roads will need repairing more often, therefore those who use it most often should pay the larger portion for said repairs.

Should government set up tolls for soccer moms walking on the sidewalks to help pay repairs? Everyone pays a portion for taxes collected for infrastructure repair. Commercial traffic will cause more damage to a roadway than Joe Snuffy going to visit his elderly mother a couple times a week.

This is nothing more than a control play from those that consider themselves the betters of the average citizen.

I would propose walking surfaces not made of materials that would need constant maintenance. Our manmade materials have come a long way baby, so let's think long-term money savings and comfort for walking, biking and scootering.

Again, the point is missed. I find it fundamentally wrong for a government to determine a zone for people to live and fine those people if they try leaving that zone too much.

This isn't the f-ing Hunger Games..........yet.

It would depend on the reasoning behind the tolls/fines. Do you know what the reasoning may be?

This:

"The traffic filters are not physical barriers of any kind and will not be physical road closures. They are simply traffic cameras that can read number plates.
If a vehicle passes through the filter at certain times of the day, the camera will read the number plate and (if you do not have an exemption or a residents’ permit) you will receive a fine in the post.
Oxford residents (and residents of some surrounding villages) will be able to apply for a permit to drive through the filters on up to 100 days a year. Residents living in the rest of Oxfordshire will be able to apply for a permit to drive through the filter on up to 25 days a year."

This right here is bullsnip. I'm saying that, in the US, this would be deemed unconstitutional based on SCOTUS rulings going back to 1823.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

What the NWO seeks for humanity: Our Future Illustrated

i.redd.it...

a reply to: Moon68

It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68

It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?

Not in the least.

In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68

It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?

Not in the least.

In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

Then you have the freedom not to live there.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68

It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?

Not in the least.

In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

Then you have the freedom not to live there.

"Pay to live here or GTFO" Sounds like a wonderful society

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68

It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?

Not in the least.

In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

Then you have the freedom not to live there.

Which is the whole point of the OP. If it were to be a requirement to live there Foreshadowing the psychological effects of living in 15 minute cities..

originally posted by: PorkChop96

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Moon68

It won't be unconstitutional if they are classified as tolls. Those who want to use the road often should pay more for maintenance of said road. Reasonable?

Not in the least.

In a nutshell, that would be considered a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.

Then you have the freedom not to live there.

"Pay to live here or GTFO" Sounds like a wonderful society

We are all paying to live somewhere, be it to your landlord to pay his property taxes, or through your property taxes. Roads need maintenance and we are all paying for infrastructure one way or the other, it does not matter what you name it. Gas levy, carbon tax, road tolls...etc.

The same with the city's parks, which have to be maintained, who will pay for that? Everyone or just the people that use the park?

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I have more faith in America than you.

Sorry you've bought into the Nightmare instead of the Dream.

Be Prepared . Bugout Bag Ready . Lock and Load . Heads Up !

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Geez , that kind of Reminds me of Industrial Chicken Farms Only with People instead . That is a Bad Idea Doomed to Failure Indeed Unless it was Forced on you ..........

We're already a chicken farm, we are just free range at the moment, not yet caged.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment what’s your worry exactly? Having access to goods and services at a moments notice? Do you fear we will all be quarantined in our 15 minute cities?

Personally I left the city years ago and enjoy not relying on public transit. I’m not against having resources close by though

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Byrd

I think you may be missing the point Professor. Living someplace that has all the amenities one could ask for within 15 minutes is one thing. Being told you MUST live where everything the government thinks you need is within 15 minutes and you'll be fined if you leave the area too much is quite another.

You see, that's the problem with ATS in general reading Shocking Headlines and not researching.

The plan isn't for the US or for the globe. It turns out (if you read the original news and then look up the details) it's for ONE AREA IN ENGLAND. Only. Nobody else is considering it.

See for yourself. Original story, mentioning Oxfordshire city plans

If you go to the Oxfordshire City Council site, you will find even more details. The documents in question (associated with the Green Party - can't say much about this since I"m an American) but the gist is that It's to eliminate some existing traffic problems and deal with the influx of an expected 100,000 new homes in the area rather than burying their heads in the sand and looking surprised when the addition of 100,000 people suddenly causes problems with shopping and traffic. Here's the plan, as a PDF download

The howl seems to be over some extracted comments from a set of consultants - they seem to have taken local comments and are amending some of the items.

They want to create corridors and discourage people from other areas from using Oxfordshire as their personal pass-through area (driving through, creating traffic jams that are becoming heavier and more frequent)

It is not, as people seem to think, some sort of national or international movement and it's certainly not proposed in America (as some people seem to think. Nobody's being told they MUST live anywhere.

So the truth is far less sexy -- this is an attention catching headline for a local news item about future development in one specific area of the world (plans that the locals affected by it seem to think are fine) and the construction needed to implement the plan. That's not nearly as interesting as some of the alarming ideas presented here.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Moon68
a reply to: Byrd

I think you may be missing the point Professor. Living someplace that has all the amenities one could ask for within 15 minutes is one thing. Being told you MUST live where everything the government thinks you need is within 15 minutes and you'll be fined if you leave the area too much is quite another.

You see, that's the problem with ATS in general reading Shocking Headlines and not researching.

The plan isn't for the US or for the globe. It turns out (if you read the original news and then look up the details) it's for ONE AREA IN ENGLAND. Only. Nobody else is considering it.

See for yourself. Original story, mentioning Oxfordshire city plans

If you go to the Oxfordshire City Council site, you will find even more details. The documents in question (associated with the Green Party - can't say much about this since I"m an American) but the gist is that It's to eliminate some existing traffic problems and deal with the influx of an expected 100,000 new homes in the area rather than burying their heads in the sand and looking surprised when the addition of 100,000 people suddenly causes problems with shopping and traffic. Here's the plan, as a PDF download

The howl seems to be over some extracted comments from a set of consultants - they seem to have taken local comments and are amending some of the items.

They want to create corridors and discourage people from other areas from using Oxfordshire as their personal pass-through area (driving through, creating traffic jams that are becoming heavier and more frequent)

It is not, as people seem to think, some sort of national or international movement and it's certainly not proposed in America (as some people seem to think. Nobody's being told they MUST live anywhere.

So the truth is far less sexy -- this is an attention catching headline for a local news item about future development in one specific area of the world (plans that the locals affected by it seem to think are fine) and the construction needed to implement the plan. That's not nearly as interesting as some of the alarming ideas presented here.

I get all of that Byrd and am 100% in agreement with you. However, given the control complex many seem to have in elected positions, I could absolutely see something like this being a requirement in the not too distant future.

State sponsored inbreeding

originally posted by: Moon68

I get all of that Byrd and am 100% in agreement with you. However, given the control complex many seem to have in elected positions, I could absolutely see something like this being a requirement in the not too distant future.

Pause a moment and think out the logistics of this and you'll see how absurd the alarmist headline is (the writer needed something to hyperventilate about, IMHO).

Let's take the place where I live - Dallas - and say they're going to put in the "15 minute community" and somehow someone has bribed Ken Paxton (again) to make it a rule of law and Governor Greg Abbot is even going to send in the Texas National Guard over it.

It's doubtful he can actually get the buy-in of the Texas House and Texas Senate, so he can't just turn dictator and do it. He'll have to fight the House and the Senate (and the Democrats don't like either Paxton or Abbot). The ACLU will wade in, too, because it's property rights and that's civil liberties.

So he's got lawsuits and can't move till those are resolved.

Next up (assuming he buys off all the judges in Texas and wins on appeals, too and it even goes to the Supreme Court and he's managed to stack the Supremes... that's another 2-3 years to get it through the Supreme Court after the Texas courts have handled it. And that's if it's expedited.

So we're already talking about 5-6 years. But let's say they pull this off (which really isn't likely) - then they've got to buy the land. All of it. That's a total of 9,286 square miles and some of THAT is large industrial campuses and university campuses and then there's the vast and sprawling medical complexes like Baylor and Methodist which are virtually miniature cities in themselves. They can't be downsized because some medical procedures need a lot of on-site support (CT scanners, x-rays, etc, etc, plus hospital beds and labs for bloodwork and everything else)... so then you've got to come up with a plan to put all THAT in each 15 minute zone (which can't be done.)

Who gets the museums? Who gets the ball stadiums (they're huge)? How do you handle the hotels? And what about the big conference centers- who gets those? Conferences and sports are big here and hotels bring in a lot of income. How can Dallas keep that income in a 15 minute format?

But if somehow they solved all those probems, then they'd have to start tearing down all the houses and redo the streets because some of them are just horrible and full of potholes and the streets sort of 'evolved'. There's no master plan for how the streets are laid out. There's thousands of miles of street here...

hat means knocking down neighborhoods to redo the streets, put in the right kind of shops and services and add public transportation.... and they aren't going to get it done (even if everyone cooperated) within the next 50 years.

There's simply not that many workers or that much money for things such as construction materials or workers and there's no place to house all those displaced and angry people who just lost their homes to the redevelopment.

Generally if you think through the logistics of the Hysterical Headlines it comes out to a case of "do you know how the world works, dear?"

Most of 'em don't.

Something I truly love about ATS is finding people who are going through the same things as you. disability? check. chronic pain? check. Limited mobility? check. Since 2007 for me though it may have been more bearable for me becoming disabled at nearly 50 having lived much of life already. Still, I wasn't counting on it since I had always striven to stay healthy. It's remarkable how parallel our existences are FiTO though an ocean separates us.
The farthest I had gone in nearly a decade is about 2 hours drive - only to see doctors or get my wife to surgery. But I did manage to break up that routine last month by driving up to Washington DC to meet a friend visiting from the UK. 8 hours driving in a single day! woo! (funny but I used to do that 5 or 6 days a week as a job). It was liberating and so I've committed to buying myself an electric bike yesterday so I can pedal out of my own neighborhood where the hills are long and steep.
There is something to the human psyche that doesn't deal well with imposed limitations. We're a restless lot but as circumstance dictates you need to learn to be happy with what you have, not what you're preferences would be. In that regard 15 minute cities would teach people some good things but that is something that should never be imposed from above. Historically, it smacks too much of serfdom where you were told where to stay.
It's a damn good thing the mind is such a flexible and creative tool, we can learn to adjust to many less-than-perfect circumstances or else we should go mad. I think we've seen that madness peeking out during the covid lockdowns which i pray God we never are so foolish as to repeat.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: crayzeed

Wow how paranoid can you be?
I am afraid you'll have to show me your source for all of that?
Because the only thing I am aware of is a little fee? And after everything you saved on gas and nerves during the rest of the week every sunday with your mother will be that much sweeter.

Next thing you know they'll be calling for forced vaccinations and wearing of masks. So paranoid!

a reply to: Asktheanimals

There weren’t forced vaccinations. I know plenty of people who didn’t get the vaccination. Why do you lie?

wearing a mask - the horror!

a reply to: knoxie
Please wait for this new WHO ruling, which all governments seem determined to sign up for, forced, coming to a town near you.