Why we subsidize bikesharing

In light of the criticism they received, Reason’s Nick Gillespie has a new post defending their attack on Capital Bikeshare’s subsidies as wasteful assistance to the well off.

He tries to distances himself from the deceptive implications that Kennedy when she claimed that the subsidies were meant to “address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment.” Deceptive because that made up only a small portion of the total subsidies given so far and the program that was to be funded by that money hasn’t started yet. Will Somner of the CityPaper charitably called that “cheeky”, to which Gillespie only replies:

Cheeky isn’t the word I’d use.

OK, so what word would you use for something so obviously deceptive? I’d call it lying.

Am I alone in finding it telling that he places this bit of criticism – the most stinging in my opinion – at the end of his defence. And he never responds to the accusation that they’re being deceptive except to say that he’ll be glad to check in on the program next year to see how much things have changed. How about running a correction on the previous story? Wouldn’t it be good journalism to note this fact? But Gillespie sees nothing wrong with it.