Mountain Biker Openly Advocates Riding Closed Parks & Trails!

From: "Bob Carlson"
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:04:32 -0700
Subject: CA's fiscal emergency doggie

I find it insane to think that they would try to keep people off of
public land just because no money is being spent on the parks. I moved
away from the BA in 2004 and now have houses in Eugene, OR and Tucson,
AZ (and some money left over.) In both Tucson and Eugene, most or all
of the riding within an hour is just on public land and the trails are
not maintained by any public agency. In both places, miles of new
trails are being built this winter, all by volunteers. The whole idea
of “closed” public land is absurd.

If Coe is closed, just keep right on riding and working on the trails.

Cheers, Bob

From: Paul Nam
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:19 AM
Subject: CA's fiscal emergency doggie

The Governor's declared California State Fiscal Emergency of 2008
say's it is going to sink in it's teeth and take a bite out of the
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Does this dog have more bark
than bite?

I have discussed this with many people, and most recently, this
evening at the ROMP meeting. It seems to me that more of us speculate
that this dog is just barking; that not all of the proposed closures
and lay-offs will actually come to pass. I could describe some of the
reasoning behind this. However, I write to reveal an important aspect
of the dilemma which I haven't heard discussed yet. That is: What
consequences, or side effects may come pass, if the parks are closed,
and also if they aren't closed?

Because California is a trend setter, not just in fashions and
Hollywood, but also in progressive public policy making (regulation of
emmissions for one example), how the State Park budget crisis is
addressed and dealt with will affect the policies of other states,
counties, and municipalities. California is a leader. In issue after
issue, such as civil rights, environmental protection, building codes,
and other public policies, other states and nations pay attention to
what California does. What California does with State Parks will be
observed. How Californians react and respond, also matters for the
same reason.

The same forces which constrain the State Budget are acting in
corresponding magnitudes upon counties and municipalities in
California and the US.

If the State finds it neccessary to close parks, will your town or
county be doing the same thing next?

If the public allows the closures to happen, will that send a message
to policy makers, that it is okay to cut parks and rec. budgets, as no
one seems to care enough to stop it?

Most people I know, and I venture most do, place a high value parks
and open space. If it comes to pass, that these people do not respond
coherently to defend the funding for these institutions, then could it
be that they will also not find it within themselves to defend other
institutions such as education, civil rights, and social programs?

Could it be that the proposed relatively miniscule budget cuts to
State Parks is a test of our will, and of our values? I believe that
it is. It may be a small watershed, or a great divide that we are
crossing here. We should think about this. And though the proposed
cuts may not be designed as a test, they are, functionally.

If they worked here, closures could be effected on a national scale
too.

Is this a test of the emergency budget cut system? If we all bow down
and accept that taxes will go up while our services are reduced,
because, "shucks, it's tough but that's the way it is", well that's
the way it is going to be. Incrementally the quality of life index,
and places to ride, would be decreased.

Some will say that they can't really close these parks as people will
go in them anyway. But not everyone is a trail poaching cyclist or a
furtive hiker. Sure the closure of a place like Coe or Malakoff
Diggin's is hard to enforce and very porous, but access is not the
only thing at stake here.

How much we value parks is being tested. Are we being baited into
asking to pay more? The DPR chose to close specific parks, instead of
spread the 10% reduction across the system. Why did they choose this
closure method? Here's one official response: "We decided that this
was really the only option available to us, in order to maintain the
high level of necessary service that we provide,"
http://www.pinnaclenews.com/news/con...w.asp?c=234740

Some speculate that DPR chose this method to make it as painful as
possible for the public to stomach.

Is it a friendly dog? Woof?

- Paul
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Yawn...same banter, all opinions, no facts.