opportunities for housing, walking paths, biking paths,” said Lahood. “If somebody wants to ride their bike, if--to work or to the place of employment or to other places--mass transit, light rail--creating opportunities for what we call livable communities
in no way a federal issue, but really not a bad idea if cities or states want to expand mass transit (to meet demand without financial loss), or build bike paths. Leaving rural areas asice, I'd ride a bike more if there were bike lanes, and I'd LOVE to be able to drive my high gas mileage ATV on the streets like the police and parking enforcement folk do, rather than my gas guzzling truck. But in the liberal mind, an idea which might be credible on a local level, but would rely on individual choice, morphs to
...coerce people out of their cars
Rand characterizes the actions of government employees in a way that is consistent with public choice theory, describing how the language of altruism is used to pass legislation that is nominally in the public interest (e.g., the "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule," and "The Equalization of Opportunity Bill,") but which in reality serves special interests and government agencies at the expense of the public and the producers of value.
I like bike paths too. But, as you say, an idea which may have some merit seems to morph into something else -- something rather frightening.