That’s literally and unironically what they want you to do.
They want to destroy walkable cities because somehow, having financially-sustainable small towns featuring outdoor life and engaged communities is partisan. They do not want main streets to exist, only box stores from national brands on the edge of town. They do not want to have to know their neighbors because they believe all other human beings that life near them are potential hostiles, so the best way to live is permanently indoors, getting into your car to protect you from the outside even before opening the garage door to avoid ANY interactions with others.
They want everyone to be forced to only drive cars because being forced to comport with one very specific, expensive, unpleasant way of life that leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary annual deaths and unbelievable isolation and loneliness is “freedom”.
I’m going to simultaneously agree and disagree with you on this one - they do want to destroy the ability to plan and build walkable livable cities, and to prevent their constituents from building community ties with each other. The expectation they have, imo, is that this will be used to hamstring the efforts of people looking to make Arizona livable into the future.
But they absolutely don’t expect or want this bill to weaken their own grasp on legislative power in the state. Concerted grassroots efforts to use the (admittedly hamfisted) language in this bill to weaken conservative turnout, while absolutely not something I would normally advocate, seems like a way to involve the voting bloc they intended to protect from effects in realizing how truly stupid this bill is. I could readily see voting rights groups or other progressive orgs in the state finding opportunities to provide transportation to the polls and ways to include reasons to not reward the people who voted this into effect.
That’s literally and unironically what they want you to do.
They want to destroy walkable cities because somehow, having financially-sustainable small towns featuring outdoor life and engaged communities is partisan. They do not want main streets to exist, only box stores from national brands on the edge of town. They do not want to have to know their neighbors because they believe all other human beings that life near them are potential hostiles, so the best way to live is permanently indoors, getting into your car to protect you from the outside even before opening the garage door to avoid ANY interactions with others.
They want everyone to be forced to only drive cars because being forced to comport with one very specific, expensive, unpleasant way of life that leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary annual deaths and unbelievable isolation and loneliness is “freedom”.
I’m going to simultaneously agree and disagree with you on this one - they do want to destroy the ability to plan and build walkable livable cities, and to prevent their constituents from building community ties with each other. The expectation they have, imo, is that this will be used to hamstring the efforts of people looking to make Arizona livable into the future.
But they absolutely don’t expect or want this bill to weaken their own grasp on legislative power in the state. Concerted grassroots efforts to use the (admittedly hamfisted) language in this bill to weaken conservative turnout, while absolutely not something I would normally advocate, seems like a way to involve the voting bloc they intended to protect from effects in realizing how truly stupid this bill is. I could readily see voting rights groups or other progressive orgs in the state finding opportunities to provide transportation to the polls and ways to include reasons to not reward the people who voted this into effect.