Could Someone Please Explain This To Me?

September 23, 2008 by
Filed under: Williamsburg 

From a distance I thought this was bus shelter. It isn’t. It is a BIKE shelter. This city cannot feed, clothe —much less house —it’s own citizens and it is outlaying money on things like this? Could someone please explain the logic at play here because quite frankly I’m not getting it.

Miss Heather


13 Comments on Could Someone Please Explain This To Me?

  1. Jay on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 11:22 am
  2. The city’s not paying anything for them — in fact they’re part of a program that’s supposedly going to generate over a billion dollars of income for the city. Like the famous automatic pay toilets and newfangled newstands, they’re being put up by Cemosa as part of the company’s 20-year “urban furniture” contract with NYC.

  3. missheather on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 11:24 am
  4. Thanks for enlightening me, Jay. I still think it is ridiculous. Cemosa should retrofit this item to be a homeless shelter— of course that won’t net the city “over a billion dollars of income”. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  5. Jay on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 11:25 am
  6. Typo in the above: the company name is Cemusa.

  7. Citizen Skein on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 11:53 am
  8. Hey, I noticed that too. I still think it might be a joke.

  9. ms nomer on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 12:01 pm
  10. Where is this located? Just wondering… haven’t seen any in the nabe yet.

  11. missheather on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 12:51 pm
  12. Go to Graham Avenue at Metropolitan. You can’t miss it.

  13. al oof on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 5:41 pm
  14. really? i mean, i know you’re pretty much anti-bike riding, but do you really think that the money it took to build this thing is so much that it could have housed a person for more than a night or two? because i doubt that. if you’re going to complain about the money the city spends on stupid shit we don’t need, there is stupider shit. not to mention bike riding = healthier city, less wear on roads and all that. granted, i don’t need to put my bike under a shelter, but more legal bike parking is a good thing. you can park a car pretty much anywhere, but legal bike parking is extremely few and far between.

    imagine all the homeless services we’d have in the city if they started taxing stock transactions. that is something worth complaining about.

  15. rowan on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 5:46 pm
  16. I used to see hundreds of these in Denmark. Much, much larger and longer than what is above because the Danes are a nation of bicycle riders. You would often see these bike shelters near train stations with something like 50-100 bicycles parked.

  17. missheather on Tue, 23rd Sep 2008 10:59 pm
  18. al oof: You misconstrued my suggestion. I think Cemusa should retrofit these “bike shelters” for homeless people to sleep in at night. Preferably with heat, running hot water and cable television. The previous is satire (although the more I think about it, this may very well be a good idea ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Why do bikes and their riders deserve this kind of treatment when we, as a city, treat our four legged and two-legged brethren like shit? On that note, I’m off to fire up my S.U.V.and drive it around for the hell of it! (Once again, satire: I hate New York City S.U.V. owners above all others.)

    What I am getting at here is a lack of priorities. I like bike racks— if for no other reason because it gives a people a place to park their bikes:

    a. Without scarring trees with their locks and chains
    b. Without pissing off landlords who do not want bikes locked to their gates. And
    c. It encourages the use of mass transit. John Doe rides his bike to the Graham Avenue stop of the L, locks it up and hops onto the subway.

    You wrote: imagine all the homeless services weรขโ‚ฌโ„ขd have in the city if they started taxing stock transactions.

    I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I think over-sized motor vehicles should be taxed (if someone wants to roll around the city in an all terrain gas guzzler, clearly they have the money to spare for someone’s room and board). Or conversely, BIG incentives should be given for buying fuel-efficient, hybrid, compact cars. I’m not anti-bike at all.

  19. mr. belvedere on Wed, 24th Sep 2008 2:07 am
  20. “stock transactions”, as you say, are indeed taxed.

  21. missheather on Wed, 24th Sep 2008 6:07 am
  22. Mr. Belvedere, you never cease to amaze me. What do you think of recent events? I’m curious.

  23. Jay on Wed, 24th Sep 2008 11:52 am
  24. “Why do bikes and their riders deserve this kind of treatment”

    I’m confused. What kind of treatment? A place to park bikes? You answer that yourself, giving some of the reasons in your next paragraph.

    So is the complaint that these shelters are too “luxurious?” I’m sure most cyclists in fact would be perfectly happy to have just bike racks with no useless roof overhead, but the structures aren’t there for them or for the bikes, they are there to pay for the bike racks and to return some income to the city.

    The structures are simply to hold the ads. Without them, installing and maintaining bike racks would cost the city money. By including bike racks in the “street furniture” (or more accurately, the “street advertising”, but that’s not the point) program, they make money. The whole thing looks the way it does in order to use the same components as the bus shelters Cemusa is putting up, to save money.

  25. al oof on Wed, 24th Sep 2008 9:14 pm
  26. sorry i misunderstood, ms. heather! but sometimes your posts come off as anti bike instead of specifically anti people who are jerks and ride bikes.

    mr. belvedere, i’m speaking specifically of the stock transfer tax that was eliminated in 1981.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.