It wasn't so much the questions, it was the conclusions that Chabot arrived at. It was as if he didn't grasp the simplest elements of the speech. I'm glad my friend and others (including Mr. Nenshi) were asked questions and given the chance to clarify things.
Here's a brief synopsis from my friend:
Quote:
|
I was really surprised at Chabot. My presentation was on lower-income households and how their expenditures on housing and transportation change based on residential location. Basically I was making the argument that suburban housing is in fact, more expensive than living in the inner city for low-income households, when transportation expenditures are taken into account, and that the cost of owning an automobile is a significant burden on lower-income households. I argued that creating a city with improved transit can lessen this burden. Chabot basically asked me a question so he could state that transit doesn't serve all the needs of lower income households and basically implied that automobile ownership was the solution. He completely missed the point. He basically suggested that the problem (automobile ownership) was the solution. I should sit him down one day and explain to him who his constituency is.
|