Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

[cjforumadmin]

http://www.bangshift.com/blog/Inside-Job-Historic-Speedway-Under-Fire-in-Oklahoma-By-Local-Pols.html

[ksj1]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

Please read the article and vote NO!! Probably wont change anything but at least they will see what the concensus thinks.

[NAS Backyard]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

This is the kind of story that happens all to often, AND another great reason people should talk about politics.(outside of this forum of course) I can understand why politics is censored in alot of internet forums. BUT, that censorship feeds the silence outside of them. That is exacly why our country is in the mess that it's it, because of the same people taking that track down. People need to wake up at all levels. And no disrespect to the ADA, but that organization goes a little bit over board also. The Good Ole boy network is alive and well....

[38P]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

What a waste!

How many cities have spent billions on ostentatious sports stadiums, but won't even allow racers of any stripe safe and legal places to race?

My guess is that most of the disabled racing fans (the ones who are actually buying tickets) would rather see racing continue in a less-than-optimal facility than have no local racing at all.

This is the kind of story that happens all to often, AND another great reason people should talk about politics.(outside of this forum of course) I can understand why politics is censored in alot of internet forums. BUT, that censorship feeds the silence outside of them. That is exacly why our country is in the mess that it's it, because of the same people taking that track down. People need to wake up at all levels. And no disrespect to the ADA, but that organization goes a little bit over board also. The Good Ole boy network is alive and well....

I can understand why most Bangshifters support the "no politics" rule. Many choose to get into cars and ignore politics on purpose. And in general, politicians are some of the least trusted people (as a group) in our country. Political discussions are often inherently about unverifiable opinion and hearsay, both of which can devolve into nastiness and incivility at the drop of racing flag. And most of us aren't very well trained to look at both sides of controversial issues.

It's a lot easier just to avoid the whole thing and focus on "nonpartisan" automotive topics.

BUT (you knew there would be one), issues that adversely affect our automotive liberties transcend politics. It doesn't matter where you place yourself on the partisan political spectrum, we've all got some common ground when it comes to defending the pro-automotive way of life.

You may not ever darken the gates of a dirt track, but a specious attack on a dirt tracker's freedom and ability to race hurts our larger automotive community just as much as an attack on a drag strip or other motorsports facility. And just as much as many regulations and programs aimed at preventing or overburdening "tampering" ("tampering" is what the enemies of automotive liberty often call hot rodding, tuning and racing activities).

At the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Benjamin Franklin reportedly said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

That's as true today for Bangshifters as it was for our founding patriots.

Before the 2006 elections, I blogged a column entitled "SHOULD AUTOMOBILE ENTHUSIASTS BE POLITICALLY ACTIVE?" Here are a few excepts:

Autoweek's Senior Editor for Special Projects, Kevin A Wilson, recently published an editorial entitled "Why We're Not Just A Car Magazine."

Wilson argues that "We can?t just play with our cars and ignore what?s going on, because cars sit right at the white-hot center of the way we live in this country." He laments that when Autoweek does venture into the "real world" where politics and automobility intersect, the magazine is shelled with negative letters. It seems that the vocal minority only want "cars" without all the pesky politics involved. Wilson caps off his editorial with a nonpartisan call to become "involved" in the political process.

The question isn't whether he's right. It's whether he went far enough.

I'm uncertain how anyone could be offended by Wilson's somewhat meek call to "get involved" in political issues affecting motoring. In fact, to suggest the need for defending our automotive freedoms in the political arena seems about as obvious as pointing out the sky generally appears blue.

* * * *
Perhaps the only thing American automotive magazines have done worse than rallying the political muscle of automobile enthusiasts has been providing support for the American automobile industry against the multiple attack of the consumer/safety/environmental interests. No magazine I'm aware of even attempts to put these issues into focus in such a way as to spur grassroots action, or even to correct the record in the public debate! Thus, with the exceptions of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, a few other trade groups, and the small organizations you mentioned in Wilson's editorial, the "pro-automotive liberty" forces are weak and disorganized.

But general calls to "get involved," without more direction, lack effectiveness. If the National Rifle Association merely suggested voting, without fully briefing the relevant issues and advising its members on exactly who is putting the our personal freedoms at risk, the political clout of the "gun owners lobby" would be greatly diminished. Wilson's tepid declaration that "We don?t care if your votes cancels ours" doesn't exhibit either leadership or any sense of how precariously balanced and fragile automotive liberty is. Yet it is an all too common viewpoint among automotive journalists.
* * * *

Imagine how much fun motoring will be in 10 or 20 years if:

--Fuel economy standards become so high that no V8s can be produced.

--The OEMs "can" all V8 crate engines and other performance parts out of fear of "carbon" litigation.

--Draconian "carbon use" taxes (sort of like the punitive cigarette taxes smokers now routinely pay under the various "tobacco lawsuit settlements") on gasoline, gasoline-burning equipment and the replacement parts for such equipment are enacted to curb "excess" emissions.

--Harsh "clunker" legislation is passed, aimed at clearing the roads of C02-emitting "old" cars and drying up parts supplies for them.

--Increased state- or industry-sponsored "crusher" programs (such as UNOCAL's infamous one) are instituted in settlement of the lawsuits.

--Increased restrictions on registering "kit" and "continuation" cars (such as the "new" 1969 Camaros built from Chinese uni-body stampings or even "new" 1932 Ford-based "street rods") are enacted to force people into state-approved, factory-built economy cars.

--Competition for the shrinking number of "collector" cars drives prices even higher than they already are today.

--Lawyers and regulators begin turning their focus on extorting payments from racing venues, tuners and aftermarket supply companies for "carbon pollution."

--More force-fed propaganda fills the public school curriculum about the harms that motorsports and "gas guzzlers" (i.e. performance cars and race-car tow vehicles) allegedly cause to the environment (as if it couldn't get any worse)

All of these scenarios are foreseeable if this sort of California/Kyoto CO2 madness takes hold.

* * * *

Without new performance cars (that someday become more affordable USED cars and create a trickle-down of parts in the aftermarket), the whole grassroots motorsports movement takes huge steps back to the days when the automakers didn't offer anything interesting or helpful to performance enthusiasts.

The anti-car forces understand all of this.

If you have any doubt, read some of the recent feedback to my post on "Click and Clack and the 500 Horsepower Ford Mustang." There are legions who will defend paternalistic nonsense, such as:

"Upwards of 200 horsepower is practically expected today. And there are cars with 300 h.p., 400 h.p. and more. In my humble opinion, that?s crazy. There?s not a car on the road that truly needs more than 200 h.p. Most cars would be fine with a lot less."? Tom Magliozzi, co-host of NPR?s "Car Talk."

"We?ve gone horsepower crazy." Ray Magliozzi, co-host of NPR?s "Car Talk."

This kind of "expert" talk resonates in the elite, bi-coastal "echo chamber" of anti-car hysteria . . . .

[And most of us have heard similar dismissive statements made about virtually every form of motorsports]

Many automobile enthusiasts see the carbon dioxide litigation and legislation as not a serious threat. Yet a look at the battles against tobacco and guns ought to suggest otherwise. The cigarette companies fought their battle in the courts for over twenty years, before they lost. And they started losing because public perceptions changed.

The gunmakers are still fighting their battle (although the early results have been mostly positive--as they were for the tobacco companies). And every year, legislative attempts are made to pass expensive, restrictive stuff, such as ammo "fingerprinting," ammo taxes, and ownership restrictions.

Although the case for automotive liberty is inherently much stronger than the argument in favor of tobacco use, the battle for public opinion can still be lost through neglect or inaction.

http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2006/...siasts-be.html

In many locales, municipal politics is non-partisan.

Get involved.

Let them hear our voices. Explain to them why our automotive liberties are central to our lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness. Educate them about the myths and empty strawmen they use to deny us our automotive freedoms.

Or be prepared to lose, bit-by-bit, the venues and machinery necessary to exercise our motorsports passions.

[Mr4Speed]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

Please read the article and vote NO!! Probably wont change anything but at least they will see what the concensus thinks.

Done.

Poll results? No votes-76%

[SpiderGearsMan]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

public perceptions didn't change on smoking - lawyers just found dumber people to sit on juries

[38P]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

public perceptions didn't change on smoking - lawyers just found dumber people to sit on juries

I've got to respectfully disagree, Spidey.

Back in the 1960s, smoking was allowed just about everywhere except when refueling your car and maybe at Church. Cig companies had doctors smoking in their ads! Nearly every school had a teachers lounge that was often as smoke-filled as any biker bar (that was shock to my system the first time I ever walked into the teachers' lair as a student and saw a half-dozen nicotine-addicted educators furiously puffling away like they were on Ken Kesey's "Magic Bus.")

Now there's a fairly large number of people who even oppose smoking outside in public parks. Polling data suggests that huge segments of the general public support smoking bans. See http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/...7411258420565/ & http://www.gallup.com/poll/17410/inc...ic-places.aspx

Moreover, as the Gallup polling organization found back in 2005:

"This change is not because Americans have suddenly become more concerned about second-hand smoke, which has been recognized by the vast majority of Americans as harmful at least since the mid-1990s. Instead, it is likely that as various state and local governments have acted to restrict smoking, the public culture has moved in the same direction."

Thus, I stand behind my smoking analogy. The same thing is slowly happening to many of our automotive liberties.

If you look at an aerial map of the Speedway in Oklahoma City**, it appears to be in an older part of town near a couple of interstate highways. In the 1950s, noise must not have been much of an issue. (According to Freiburger's "Hot Rod Deluxe", they even ran the 1957 and 1958 NHRA U.S. Nationals at a drag strip that used to be located next to the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds Grandstand.)

Now Oklahoma City's mayor apparently claims that noise is a deal breaker.

After a quick internet search, I found a 1949 Oklahoma court case about race track noise: SMILIE v. TAFT STADIUM BD. OF CONTROL, 1949 OK 42, 205 P.2d 301

They used to race cars at a public school football stadium located in a residential area (just try that now). A few NIMBYs complained. Here's the evidence the promoter put on to rebut the complaints:

Defendants, in rebuttal to plaintiff's evidence, offered testimony of ten witnesses living near the stadium, each of whom in substance testified that the noise emanating from the race track was not of such volume and intensity as to be disturbing or annoying to them and their families; that it did not interfere with their carrying on ordinary conversations; that it did not interfere with them in their use of radios or telephones; that the noise created by the cars in warming up was no greater than the noise created by passenger cars traveling on May avenue and 23rd street, or other city streets, and no greater than that created by city busses; that the noise occurring while the cars were actually engaged in racing, while greater than that occasioned by warming up, was not of such volume or intensity as to be annoying or disturbing; that the noise caused by the public-address system was no more annoying or disturbing than the noise occurring while broadcasting a football or baseball game. Some of these witnesses who had small children testified that the children were not disturbed by the noise accompanying the races nor by the public-address system, but that the children slept soundly during all of the time the races were in progress. In addition to these witnesses, defendant offered a list of 90 witnesses living near the stadium and it was stipulated that such witnesses would in substance testify as did the others relative to the effect of the noise emanating from the races.

And remember that back in 1949, central air conditioning was far less common. Most of those 90 people probably had to open their windows for cooling.

Do you think you could get over 90 people living next to a race track to defend one now?


**I couldn't figure how to link to the aerial photo, but if you want to see it, go to http://www.satelliteviews.net/my-house.htm and paste in this street address: 400 Land Rush Street, Oklahoma City, OK, 73107-6210. You might have to zoom out to get a sense of the mostly commerical nature of the surrounding area.

[38P]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

Just in case someone fighting the closure of the Oklahoma City Speedway happens to find this (or one of the politicians), here's a link to an earlier discussion on noise abatement strategies that's helpful: http://www.bangshift.com/forum/index...8475#msg298475

[ksj1]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

We've had a few tracks succumb to this.Topeka Raceway was out in the sticks and they got shutdown.HPT doesnt have to worry due to it being funded by the taxpayers Wichita's dragstrip is luckily owned by a family that owns alot of the surrounding land.KCIR a long standing AHRA fixture(now NHRA)was bought by a developer.He bought it with the intention of commercial developement.Luckily he is now a fan of racing.Supposedly he will keep it open until he can find a better venue for a new track.Hes invested in upgrades to the pits,stands and paved some of the parking.Ive got 12-15 tracks within200 miles.Im lucky 8)

[38P]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

All of this "better venue" talk is objectively ridiculous. Only in racing is a "better venue" always more remote, less accessible, and with fewer amenities than the historic tracks that are lost to "progress."

Has anyone bothered to study how much time and fuel are wasted by forcing racers and fans to drive out to "better venues?" Has anyone calculated the effect that location and convenience has on boosting spectator attendance?

Racing seems to be about the only major, lawful sport that "the haters" force to be conducted either clandestinely or out in the middle of nowhere.

And why is it that developers often seem to target racing facilities for redevelopment?

[Brian Lohnes]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

And why is it that developers often seem to target racing facilities for redevelopment?

Large, open tracts of land. Very little clearing and site work necessary, hell, at least one of the streets is paved for you already!

Brian

[38P]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

Bingo! And they usually sell it to the bankers and the "powers that be" as a "higher and better" use for the land.

But there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of developments for every racing facility. And racing facilities usually affect many more people than most low-density forms of development. So how it's "higher and better" is mysterious.

I've seen a number of redevelopments where the old strip and even the access roads are simply narrowed, curbed and reused. And the homeowners/businesses often have no clue about the prior land use. I recall seeing one in Wyoming (where there is absolutely no shortage of land) where the main street was a massive WWII airport runway that had been reconfigured into a boulevard!

Too often strip operators merely lease the land because property values are inflated. If I'm not mistaken, that's what bit LACR (nee Antilope Valley).

[Brian Lohnes]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

The mining operation owned the land that LACR sat on. Once the mine "needed" the land to keep hunting for whatever rocks they are hunting for, it was all over for the strip.

Brian

[38P]

Re: Inside Job: Historic Speedway Under Fire in Oklahoma By Local Politicians

The mining operation owned the land that LACR sat on. Once the mine "needed" the land to keep hunting for whatever rocks they are hunting for, it was all over for the strip.

Brian

Okay, I remember now. Ironic that it's so hard to race legal now in the part of the country that invented organized drag racing.