On the Lansing side, even before the SWLP extends across Waverly, that bridge would do a lot to connect (the few) Delta Township residents near Anderson to the river trail. There's just a quarter mile or so along Waverly to navigate from Jolly to the pathway (and the greater trail system). But you're right, going the other direction, Anderson is a bit of a dead end coming from Lansing.
It's in the master plan to extend a shared use path down Old Lansing Rd east to the Waverly Pathway and to the future Carrier Creek Path to the west, so there is a plan there. I just don't see why Delta would make the Old Lansing route a priority over Carrier Creek or connecting Grand Woods to Delta Mills, both of which would serve far more residents. The Lansing Rd route would certainly be lower hanging fruit. I guess at the end of the day I'm just happy to see trails get improved and expanded, even if it's not exactly what I wanted.
I visited the Fish Ladder Music Theater yesterday and I found it very nice, there were really nice touches like the musical notes depicted in the fence around the amphitheater, nice brick work, beautiful murals around the bowl, lighting up the trees with ground level lights, and it looked like the fireplace has been used. The glider swings are also really nice for sitting and taking in the view of the river [there is a really huge cottonwood tree stuck on the dam]. Of course, one of the things one thinks when seeing such a nice public park is "how long before it is vandalized", so I happy to see the place before that happens. There was a police video pole set up but that looked like a temporary set up. I will concentrate on the positive, this is a really nice feature of the River Trail, it is one of those rare projects in Lansing, it is nicer than it had to be!
I will not be reading anymore articles from the Michigan Enjoyer. While the article was factually correct about some of the negative issues along the river trail, blaming Lansing Liberals for stuff like needles "filling" the fish ladder is overstating the problem, a half dozen needles floating around is not filling the water, however gross any needles floating there is, it was not caused by liberal governance "allowing" criminal behaver in our parks. I am maybe left of liberal, and I think giving everyone a minimum wage and access to safe lab tested heroin in a controlled atmosphere to those who need it, all of this nasty behavior would be greatly reduced and could even lead some addicts to seek help for their addiction. I have known people who self-medicated with heroin and they were not crazy out of control, every one of those people were employed and would take their shot and get on with the day not in pain. Homelessness, and addiction causes anxiety and anger in many and they take it out in many ways including vandalizing public places, shop lifting and theft to get money for their habit. Heroin is a very bad drug for the body, and usually leads to an early death, in might not be a bad idea to create a city and a society that provided a path to a happy and healthy life where people would not ever choose to use a drug like heroin. Here in East Lansing our student guests who are very well off and not heroin addicts cause a lot of damage vandalism graffiti, public urination and vomiting anywhere they please. Do liberals cause this behavior? I think maybe bad parenting is one of the causes of antisocial behavior among all classes of people, we need more liberal thought and ideas not less. Meanwhile we liberals will keep trying to build a better city, with sympathy and care for all out neighbors. Greater Lansing is not a money pit where funds are being wasted in an effort to save and unsavable city. I wonder what great conservative governance would offer as solutions to these problems. There were none offered in this offensive article.
While there's definitely some things in the article I agree with. I think it's written in a particularly unjournalistic tone (I get it's an editorial) with exaggerations and statements that seem unnecessary & unproductive. It's the kind of tone that is more likely to turn moderates against positions and causes that they actually support. Generally speaking, I find the frequent callouts of "Liberals" and "Conservatives" to be exhausting when tinted with disgust or contempt, even when I agree with the fundamental point.
That being said, I'm not for giving out free heroin to people along with a cozy place to partake. That's several bridges too far for me, and quite frankly, indicative of why the sort reactionary opinions found in the above article are gaining ground. btw If we want to talk about wholesale drug legalization (NOT the decriminalization, worst of all worlds, half-measure) and regulation that's another thing entirely but cannot be done locally. If we admit that government policies have an effect on all the things mentioned, then I think we have to admit that the two main political parties could be assigned "blame". Who's to blame for what is a complicated, many-layered issue that I don't want to tackle, but I think there's a lot of blame to go around among the politicians of both parties, some are more responsible for specific things.
I love to freely discuss issues, even the most controversial topics, but not so much within a partisan frame. Then I feel the need to jump into bridge builder mode.
I understand what you are saying about this article, and it was not written by anyone here, but I would have to point out that this is not a Dems. vs reps. or a both sides are to blame issue. I don't want to give addicts a cozy place to take drugs. The "war on drugs" was started by Nixon, that never considered that drug abuse as a medical/mental health issue rather than a criminal issue. The war on drugs never did anything but create the black market that funds the cartels and gangs that have ravaged people and countries around the world. If we remove the crime [legalized drugs] we might be able to help people with their problems rather than incarcerate them at great expense, where they find nothing but more pain. The legalization would defund the black market, as happened with cannabis. Maybe if we had a society that included everyone and offered a chance to thrive and live a good life fewer people would choose to abuse drugs. The homeless people who spend their days outside my building are annoying and aggressive at times, just yesterday one of the regulars who I see every day says to me "what the fuck are you looking at, I'll fuck you up". One day I am going to tell him to fuck off and do not talk to me that way I'm not scared of him. I don't know exactly what to do about this under the current situation of withdrawing even more support for people in need. I have sympathy for those folks and that is something that many right wingers would never have. I can remember this anti-Lansing attitude among out-staters since the '60s who think that any money spent in Lansing will be wasted, and this community doesn't care about the state of our city, parks, and resources. Perhaps if the libs return to power there would be funds provided for cities to create better communities. Somehow Lansing had money to take care of our rescores back in the day, [each park had a landscape/ maintenance crew] there were park rangers who policed the parks, and you know what, even then there were vandalism, littering, and homeless camps in our woods and parks. The difference these days is the problems are much larger, and we have less money to deal with them. Sorry for the political rant but this artical pissed me off.
One thing I'll push a bit for posterity's sake: The war on drugs started long before The War on Drugs, so the only point I'll stand on is yes, both sides are very much to blame for not only the broader problems we face, but also the drug issue specifically. Drug prohibition had, up until the medical/recreation marijuana legalization boom, been a one way street starting the late 1800's. Despite whatever rhetoric a few politicians may have spoken, laws, taxes and regulations almost always increased, even as political power shifted back and forth. The uniparty has reigned for a long time, its cracks are showing and we'll see if it recoalesces or a new paradigm emerges. I'm hoping for the latter.
imo The solution to cities getting better isn't political or money-related anyhow. We need people to be better, I'm sure I've said this before, but our society has a "No single raindrop believes itself responsible for the flood" mentality. If people don't pick up trash after themselves, or neighbors near a given park never organize to take on maintenance or improvements, or people can't even to manage to tune into local politics enough to ensure competency... Then garbage in, garbage out, as George Carlin would say of society.
Comments
https://enjoyer.com/lansing-fish-ladder-filled-with-heroin-needles/
While there's definitely some things in the article I agree with. I think it's written in a particularly unjournalistic tone (I get it's an editorial) with exaggerations and statements that seem unnecessary & unproductive. It's the kind of tone that is more likely to turn moderates against positions and causes that they actually support. Generally speaking, I find the frequent callouts of "Liberals" and "Conservatives" to be exhausting when tinted with disgust or contempt, even when I agree with the fundamental point.
That being said, I'm not for giving out free heroin to people along with a cozy place to partake. That's several bridges too far for me, and quite frankly, indicative of why the sort reactionary opinions found in the above article are gaining ground. btw If we want to talk about wholesale drug legalization (NOT the decriminalization, worst of all worlds, half-measure) and regulation that's another thing entirely but cannot be done locally. If we admit that government policies have an effect on all the things mentioned, then I think we have to admit that the two main political parties could be assigned "blame". Who's to blame for what is a complicated, many-layered issue that I don't want to tackle, but I think there's a lot of blame to go around among the politicians of both parties, some are more responsible for specific things.
I love to freely discuss issues, even the most controversial topics, but not so much within a partisan frame. Then I feel the need to jump into bridge builder mode.
One thing I'll push a bit for posterity's sake: The war on drugs started long before The War on Drugs, so the only point I'll stand on is yes, both sides are very much to blame for not only the broader problems we face, but also the drug issue specifically. Drug prohibition had, up until the medical/recreation marijuana legalization boom, been a one way street starting the late 1800's. Despite whatever rhetoric a few politicians may have spoken, laws, taxes and regulations almost always increased, even as political power shifted back and forth. The uniparty has reigned for a long time, its cracks are showing and we'll see if it recoalesces or a new paradigm emerges. I'm hoping for the latter.
imo The solution to cities getting better isn't political or money-related anyhow. We need people to be better, I'm sure I've said this before, but our society has a "No single raindrop believes itself responsible for the flood" mentality. If people don't pick up trash after themselves, or neighbors near a given park never organize to take on maintenance or improvements, or people can't even to manage to tune into local politics enough to ensure competency... Then garbage in, garbage out, as George Carlin would say of society.
...I really didn't intend to go on my own rant...