I have literally never been inconvenienced by any of the increasingly frequent Tesla drivers.

Maybe I’m just lucky?

When you say they “act privileged” and “act like they own the road” what do you mean? Like….not letting you merge? Or what?

Edit: I guess is should say I have never been inconvenienced by Teslas in particular, like I don’t notice bad behavior from teslas any more than just what you expect from traffic in general.

I also dislike seeing an old historic home get demolished, but it's an unfortunate reality that the kind of the people with the money to buy and upkeep a big grand old Victorian in town aren't the kind of people who wanna live at the corner of two major road ways between across the street from a hospital and a half mile away from a bunch of partying college housing.

The people with that kind of money go buy some river front acreage south of town and build a McMansion.

​

And a house nobody wants to live in, especially old ones, well what else is gonna happen?

Screed? My first response was 3 sentences. Hardly a screed. The longer response was only cause you asked and I was trying to be respectful and give you a real answer instead of some dismissive one liner. And even my longer response would be difficult to accurately call a "screed".

But whatever, that really doesn't matter that much.

If you want to know why I made assumptions instead of asking probing questions, I thought I explained it quite well before. Because the statement was the kind of thing only someone with the confidence of only a little knowledge would say.

That's not the kind of person you go to for insights or to enlighten yourself. That's not the knee you sit at to gain wisdom. That's the kind of person you tease and then go about your day. I only engaged further cause you asked what I chose to interpret as a good faith question about WHY they got teased, and I tried to give you a decent answer.

Also, I have no idea if you're a redneck. I wasn't "picturing" a redneck in my head for what it's worth.

I will give you an honest and not snarky answer.

There are some things that a person can say that instantly lets you know that they have only enough knowledge to be confident in what they want to believe, and not enough knowledge to actually know what they are talking about or have to arrived at earnest insight. I will give some examples of things you and I probably (I hope) agree on.

​

Example: The earth is flat.

Example: Vaccines cause autism.

Example: The civil war was about state's rights not slavery.

​

There are many many others, but those are just three easy ones you hopefully agree with. The kind of thing someone says cause they have done some selective research of sources that already agree with them, enough, to feel confident and informed, but don't actually have a good understanding of the subject.

"You're only getting downvoted cause you're speaking the truth (implied: about how liberals ruin the area they live in and then invade other parts of the country)."

Is also a very good example of such a statement. Obviously you don't agree with me, otherwise you wouldn't have said it, but hey, all of the flat earthers out there have extreme confidence in their position too, that's why they say the things they do.

​

Also, while it's not quite the same as being in the Dunning-Kruger valley, as a general rule, any time someone applies a broad statement with a clear and distinct ideological angle to a large scale and complex scenario, they are probably an idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about. Not always, there are some rare exceptions, but generally that is the case.

​

So there ya go, that's why I said what I did. Cheers.

Ah, the confidence of a little knowledge. Not enough to actually know what you’re talking about, but just enough knowledge to feel confident you do.

The Dunning-Kruger is strong with you.

You are correct. But that’s also been a true statement at literally any given moment for the last 150 years. Springfield has never seen a sustained population decline, just slow steady growth over time.

I think the only time we ever saw a brief marked decline was back when Springfield went racism insane and lynched 3 black people in the square and ran almost the entire black population out of town.

.....I thought you were complaining about national being a "pseudo highway" due to poor urban planning, and fixing that is what we were speculating about.

How would putting a park on that corner help with that at all. In fact if that park were popular and drew addition traffic to that area it would make the problem worse.

And if you put a park in the footprint of that property, that wouldn't "buffer the neighborhood" it would buffer, let's see, taking a look at the assessor map, exactly zero additional houses. The house immediately to the north and the house immediately to the west would still be road front, and their back yards intersect behind that corner house, and there are no other adjacent properties.

So it would provide absolutely no additional buffering.

​

So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

And I'm not trying to be difficult, I just, I hear people make these complaints all the time, and to actually fix what they want fixed the city would have to imminent domain literally hundreds of houses across the city and substantially redo the traffic system in town. Which yeah, if the city gets big enough someday we'd likely have to do that, but I don't think it's there yet, and for every 1 person mad about the roads, you'd have 1000 people made about the aggressive property snatching and expense and several years of construction needed to make it happen.

It was, in like 1860. At one point Phelps grove park was considered inconveniently far out of town.

But the residential sprawl crept slowly outward over the years. It didn’t happen all at once. That area was “fully developed” as in most of the houses and lots were in place and built on as we see and know them today by about 1930.

However at that time battlefield was still the boonies and way out of town and basically farm land.

Most cities in the world aren’t centrally planned, they grow organically over time. Roads that originally catered to like a thousand people mostly on foot and in horse carriages were not laid out with hundreds of thousands of cars in mind, or with the intention of being major corridors between sections of regional hub city.

That’s all true, terrible city planning. But like…..duh. Of course it is. Who in like 1840 when national and sunshine were first laid out could possible have planned for the reality of 2022?

But of course road ways can be torn up and redone, homes can be placed under imminent Domain and demolished to re-do the transportation grid. That’s an option. But what are you proposing? If I gave you the city planner pen and guaranteed approval for whatever you propose, what are you proposing?

I mean you’re right that there wasn’t really “urban planning” regarding the home layout and street placement of national or sunshine.

But like…..man of those homes and all of those roads were laid out in like, ya know, 1890-1920 in that part of town.

So yeah, you are correct it wasn’t exactly urban planned for the needs of a modern city. But how could it have been?