Results 1 to 47 of 47
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764

    FOCC NOW OPERATES CHINA CAMP STATE PARK - THANK YOU!‏ but more help needed!!!

    A copy and paste job brought to you by Buzkil and the letter "C".
    Friends and Supporters of China Camp:

    After much hard work with dedicated State Parks employees over the past few weeks, I am pleased to let you know that Ruth Coleman, Director of California State Parks, has signed the agreement for Friends to become operator of China Camp!

    The agreement still needs final approval from the Department of General Services. In the mean time, State Parks has granted us an Early Entry Permit which effectively allows us to operate the park immediately. YES, you are the operators of China Camp -CONGRATULATIONS!

    It has been a whirlwind few months since we started rallying with you to save the park. From a very small organization with less than fifty members, we now have 1,400 members and donors, and an annual capital and operating budget over $600K, an increase of almost 200 times! This has only been possible with your tremendous support. Your grassroots effort has allowed us to become who we are, gain the support of many organizations and foundations, and garner extraordinary coverage from the media.

    We owe a great debt to you all, and to our partners and supporters – Access 4 Bikes, Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation, Asian Americans Association of Marin, Bay Area Sea Kayakers, California Historical Society, Chinese Historical Society of America, Marin Chinese Cultural Association, Marin Conservation League, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, Marin History Museum, Marin Open Parks Coalition, NorCal cycling League, and WildCare.

    We are most grateful for the generous financial support of many foundations and organizations – Arntz Family Foundation, California State Parks Foundation, Freshwind Foundation, Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation, Marin Chinese Cultural Association, Marin Community Foundation, and foundations which prefer to remain anonymous – thank you!

    We must also thank the enormous support of so many from California State Parks. They helped formulate our operating plan, worked in partnership to overcome numerous obstacles, and cheered us on along the way! We look forward to operating the park with our colleagues from State Parks.

    You will be happy to know that the key terms of the Operating Agreement include:

    · FOCC will operate the park for 3 years, with the agreement renewable annually by mutual agreement through 2017

    · The entire park is included in the agreement, with the exception of an existing concession which includes the café and some buildings in the historic village; that concession will remain under the control of State Parks

    · All facilities, including camping, picnic sites, museum, trails and beach will be opened every day of the year

    · All fees collected at the park will be managed and used by FOCC for the operation of the park

    · FOCC will contract with State Parks to provide 1 ranger/peace office, 1 maintenance worker, 2 park aides, and 2 seasonal maintenance workers, to be supplemented by volunteers, for the operation of the park

    The Operating Agreement also includes a detailed financial plan for the park’s operation:

    · Annual operating expenditures of up to $526,000 for labor, non-labor, emergency repairs, and contingency

    · A first year capital improvement plan of $64,200 for signage, electronic pay stations, new campsites, walking tour viewing stations, and office equipment (the program has since been revised to $95,000 to include new picnic/event sites)

    · Projected income from park use fees – camping, day use, events rental – of $250,000-300,000 annually. We will ask all users to support the park by paying for the use of the park. A park use payment system is being finalized

    · Projected funds raised from special events to be held at the park, FOCC memberships and donations, foundation and other grants, and fundraising events of $250,000-300,000 annually

    While we have exceeded our July 1 fundraising goal of $250K towards the operation of the park in the first year, we anticipate a shortfall in the income from park use, as many have made plans to go elsewhere this summer, thinking the park was going to be closed. We are still far short of our goal of raising $95,000 for our capital improvement program, and are just beginning to develop a budget for other programs which will directly benefit all park users.




    You can help by:

    · Using the park, especially camping during the week and reserving the picnic sites for birthdays, celebrations, company and other functions, and tell your friends to do the same

    · Contributing to our fundraising efforts

    · Volunteering your talents, experience, and time to support the park

    In its editorial on June 26, 2012 about the four state parks in Marin on the closure list, the Marin IJ very correctly stated, ”Friends of China Camp faced perhaps the most daunting task”. We have only been able to accomplish this impossible task because of you.


    Our deepest thank you, and congratulations to you!


    Ernest Chung

    Chairperson, FOCC
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  2. #2
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,842
    Thanks for update buzzkill!
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    467
    Interesting, while I'm glad the park isn't closing and it is good the park will be open every day for camping, hoping this will not have an impact on the trails. Also curious what kind of improvement projects they are talking about?

    I'm just happy Ales and Trails is happening this year

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,399
    Good news for users. FYI there was a large tree down across Bay Ridge on Tuesday. Way too big to move.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Wonderful to hear. Will gladly pay to use the park.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KevXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    694
    I am glad that China Camp is not closing down, but let me get this straight.

    The park was about to close due to lack of funds. Zero. (I thought the money was restored.)
    The park revenues are expected to be $250,000 less than expenses.
    And the fist year's agenda is to spend $95,000 on improvements?
    Sounds like the government is still in control, spending far more than it's income, hoping for a bail out.
    · Annual operating expenditures of up to $526,000 for labor, non-labor, emergency repairs, and contingency

    · A first year capital improvement plan of $64,200 for signage, electronic pay stations, new campsites, walking tour viewing stations, and office equipment (the program has since been revised to $95,000 to include new picnic/event sites)

    · Projected income from park use fees – camping, day use, events rental – of $250,000-300,000 annually. We will ask all users to support the park by paying for the use of the park. A park use payment system is being finalized

    We are still far short of our goal of raising $95,000 for our capital improvement program, and are just beginning to develop a budget for other programs which will directly benefit all park users.

  7. #7
    Old,slow,still havin fun.
    Reputation: fgiraffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    943
    Projected income from park use fees
    Will 100% of the income from park fees stay in China Camp? If not, what %?

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzkil View Post
    [I]

    · FOCC will contract with State Parks to provide 1 ranger/peace office, 1 maintenance worker, 2 park aides, and 2 seasonal maintenance workers, to be supplemented by volunteers, for the operation of the park

    I'm curious if there will be any changes in the authority of rangers at CC? If there is only 1 ranger, does that mean that there will only be a single person that can issue an actual ticket at any time? Will that ticket carry the same authority/penalty as a previous ticket? If I am not mistaken, China Camp is still a state park, just being operated by a volunteer organization due to insufficient funding? So the 1 Ranger at CC will still be a state parks ranger with state parks authority?

    Went wine tasting today and now several DIPAs deep, sorry for the ramble......

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764
    all good questions, I was just passing on information from an email I received. I would contact FOCC to get an answer. ----> Ernest Chung, Chairperson, FOCC
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KevXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    694
    Surprise! They just found $55 million off the books.


    The surplus money consists of $20.3 million in the Parks and Recreation Fund, and $33.5 million in the Off Highway Vehicle Fund, which are the two primary operating funds at the agency. This money was not reported to the state Finance Department, in contrast to normal budgeting procedures.

    Read more here: California parks director resigns amid scandal - California State Parks - The Sacramento Bee

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by KevXR View Post
    Surprise! They just found $55 million off the books.


    The surplus money consists of $20.3 million in the Parks and Recreation Fund, and $33.5 million in the Off Highway Vehicle Fund, which are the two primary operating funds at the agency. This money was not reported to the state Finance Department, in contrast to normal budgeting procedures.

    Read more here: California parks director resigns amid scandal - California State Parks - The Sacramento Bee
    After having worked with government, the first rule is that they almost always have more money somewhere.

  12. #12
    Air Pirate
    Reputation: Bokchoicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,778
    One question: Will my State Parks parking pass still be good at China Camp? Or will I have to pay as I go?
    "You're messing with my zen thing, man!"

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTT77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    348
    I just got this in my Tamarancho newsletter

    Volunteer Wanted- Pass Program at China Camp
    A volunteer is needed to manage the new proposed Annual Pass Program at China Camp State Park. Friends of China Camp (FOCC) is now the operator of China Camp State Park and funding of the park's operation will partially come from park use fees. The program will be similar to the one at Tamarancho Boy Scout Camp, including the issuance of annual passes for frequent park users.


    So we are going to have to PAY to use the trails at a State Park? I understand paying to use Tamarancho, since that is private land. But paying to use the trails at a state park doesn't sit right with me.

  14. #14
    Air Pirate
    Reputation: Bokchoicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,778
    Quote Originally Posted by MTT77 View Post
    I just got this in my Tamarancho newsletter

    Volunteer Wanted- Pass Program at China Camp
    A volunteer is needed to manage the new proposed Annual Pass Program at China Camp State Park. Friends of China Camp (FOCC) is now the operator of China Camp State Park and funding of the park's operation will partially come from park use fees. The program will be similar to the one at Tamarancho Boy Scout Camp, including the issuance of annual passes for frequent park users.


    So we are going to have to PAY to use the trails at a State Park? I understand paying to use Tamarancho, since that is private land. But paying to use the trails at a state park doesn't sit right with me.
    I agree with MTT77. I still have not heard if my State Parks parking pass will be any good at China Camp, and now it appears I might have to pony up just to put tire to dirt? I can understand getting cash for use of the parking spots, but pay-to-play...especially on public land? Are all trail users going to have to pay for use?
    "You're messing with my zen thing, man!"

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Bokchoicowboy View Post
    I agree with MTT77. I still have not heard if my State Parks parking pass will be any good at China Camp, and now it appears I might have to pony up just to put tire to dirt? I can understand getting cash for use of the parking spots, but pay-to-play...especially on public land? Are all trail users going to have to pay for use?
    Doesn't this park have multiple points of entry, how could this be enforced?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTT77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    348
    Seems like they are looking for volunteers to check for passes?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764
    Yeah, I found the tamarancho news a bit odd. My guess is they need someone to spearhead the computer system setup. I would email the FOCC. I think it would be nice if state park passes were grandfathered at least for the first year or two. Regardless if I need to pay 40 bucks a year for another pass that goes directly to the park I am riding in, I'm fine with that.

    I would also assume that if FOCC is actually taking over then the park has been "privatized"

    ps tamarancho has multiple entry and exit points too.
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  18. #18
    Old,slow,still havin fun.
    Reputation: fgiraffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    943
    I emailed them about where the parking fees go now, and the State Parks pass. Got a prompt response:

    Yes, all revenue now generated at China Camp (parking, camping, events at Weber, Buckeye & Miwok), as of July 17th, stays at China Camp. FOCC has an Operating Agreement with State Parks that enables us to pay for the operation of the park through their Marin District, which means China Camp revenue no longer "goes to Sacramento."

    State Park passes will still be accepted at China Camp through June of next year. Hopefully, at some point we will be able to sell those passes at China Camp and be able to keep a percentage so that they can continued to be honored next fiscal year (starting Jul '13).
    So: if you've been parking outside because the money doesn't go to CC, it's time to sack up and pay the fees because the money stays in the park.
    Last edited by fgiraffe; 09-19-2012 at 02:59 PM. Reason: typo fixn'

  19. #19
    Feeling a little taller
    Reputation: Dan'ger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,701
    Quote Originally Posted by fgiraffe View Post
    I emailed them about where the parking fees go now, and the State Parks pass. Got a prompt response:



    So: if you've been parking outside because the money doesn't go to CC, it's time to sack up and pay the fees because the money stays in the park.
    Thanks for doing that! Good to know!
    There are no stupid questions but there are A LOT of inquisitive idiots.


    Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay

  20. #20
    Air Pirate
    Reputation: Bokchoicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,778
    Quote Originally Posted by fgiraffe View Post
    I emailed them about where the parking fees go now, and the State Parks pass. Got a prompt response:



    So: if you've been parking outside because the money doesn't go to CC, it's time to sack up and pay the fees because the money stays in the park.
    Thanks fgiraffe.
    "You're messing with my zen thing, man!"

  21. #21
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,327
    Quote Originally Posted by fgiraffe View Post
    So: if you've been parking outside because the money doesn't go to CC, it's time to sack up and pay the fees because the money stays in the park.
    +1

    To save and improve China Camp, we should all pay the use fee (unless you have a state park pass through June 2013). FOCC will need the $ to keep the park open, clean, and safe.

    To those who don't want to pay, note that there has always been a use fee at China Camp (and every other state park of which I am aware). That isn't changing. What is changing is where the money goes, and next June your annual state park pass won't work.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KevXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    694
    Tamarancho is private property and the use fee is to access private property.

    China Camp is public property and the use fees have always been for using the parking lot or camping areas, not trail access. Is FOCC trying to change the policy? I don't mind a donation can at the access point, like at Slick Rock, but charging for trail access would be wrong.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by KevXR View Post
    Tamarancho is private property and the use fee is to access private property.

    China Camp is public property and the use fees have always been for using the parking lot or camping areas, not trail access. Is FOCC trying to change the policy? I don't mind a donation can at the access point, like at Slick Rock, but charging for trail access would be wrong.
    Rode there Saturday and they just have a donation can. I put some money in as I like riding there and feel that putting some money in the pot is more than fair given the continued access.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    312
    Glad the park remains open and that when it looked like it may be closed the FOCC stepped up and did a lot of work to see that it would stay open. BUT....what a pathetic state government. Threaten to close 70 parks to save $22 million when they have $55 million sitting in undisclosed accounts. While happy the park will stay open the end result is more fees. I agree with KevXR, I buy an annual pass for Tamarancho and am happy to because it's private property. I hope the state park pass will still work at a "state park" and the FOCC is able to get some money out of it.
    In this article they talk about charging hikers $2 and bikers $3 at electronic pay stations. Not mentioned here but also mentioned by a ranger at the park is a plan to charge for ALL streetside parking in the park. If it's gonna happen I hope they do a year pass that includes a parking placard. Dealing with paying for a pass and parking every time would certainly cut down my visits. Hmmmm....maybe it wouldn't be as crowded.

    Marin citizens group takes over China Camp State Park - Marin Independent Journal

    Maybe I'm getting old but I remember when our taxes supported public parks.

  25. #25
    never ender
    Reputation: fat_weasel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by KevXR View Post
    I don't mind a donation can at the access point, like at Slick Rock, but charging for trail access would be wrong.
    Why would charging for trail access be wrong? Trails don't cut and maintain themselves. Even volunteer trailwork requires equipment, tools, beer and BBQs and most importantly somebody who knows what they're doing calling the shots. Keeping trails open costs money. It's fine to argue about whether the state should or could have kept the park open, but in the real world the truth is that the park was going to close unless somebody else stepped up.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by fat_weasel View Post
    Why would charging for trail access be wrong? Trails don't cut and maintain themselves. Even volunteer trailwork requires equipment, tools, beer and BBQs and most importantly somebody who knows what they're doing calling the shots. Keeping trails open costs money. It's fine to argue about whether the state should or could have kept the park open, but in the real world the truth is that the park was going to close unless somebody else stepped up.
    I agree with your general point about the cost of trail maintenance and also the importance of local groups stepping up to continue access, but this is still a state park on public property, funded/supported by everyones taxes, I don't think there is a lack of $$$ for the minimal trail work that happens on the state park regulated trails at CC.

    Charging for parking inside park property? Fair game, go for it (most just use their state park pass, which they pay an annual fee for)
    Charging for parking along the street outside? Sure, if that money actually stays in the park but I bet the city with likely get a cut of that, plus are the rangers now going to be meter maids as well...? I think it will just push riders to park a little further from the main front gate and ride a little extra...
    A user comprised support group charging an annual membership fee for funding, in addition to fundrasing events? Awesome, full speed ahead

    But charging for trail access to public land does not jive, especially if a specific group (mtn bikers) has to pay a higher fee (yes its a just $1). If I am just using the trails, on public land, playing by state park rules and supporting it with my tax $$$, I do not believe I should have to pay a fee for that.

    Private land is completely different because it is not publicly supported with tax money and can cater much more to a specific user group that bears the majority of the cost, afaik, hikers don't pay a fee for Tamarancho, just mtn bikers because the trails are designed for them (yes I know this is open for debate regarding opions on trailwork)

    That all being said, I personally have no issue with contributing $$$ to support a local park that I regularly use, but I do not think it should come to that point, a lack of funding is not the real issue.

    Now if China Camp (or any public park) decided to build a bunch of sweet, mtb specific trails in hopes of attracting more users, which would generate more revenue, I would definitely support the cost (with both my time and $$) of putting down new lines. I would view that as more of a one time public investment in a long term asset with very low maintenance costs.

    Just my $0.02, Ride On.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTT77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by IrieRider View Post
    But charging for trail access to public land does not jive, especially if a specific group (mtn bikers) has to pay a higher fee (yes its a just $1). If I am just using the trails, on public land, playing by state park rules and supporting it with my tax $$$, I do not believe I should have to pay a fee for that.
    .
    I totally agree, and I actually question the legality of charging access to the trails at a STATE PARK. I also question the ability of anyone to enforce the fee collection system. This entire thing smells very fishy to me.

    So guess what? I'm not going to pay.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by MTT77 View Post
    I totally agree, and I actually question the legality of charging access to the trails at a STATE PARK. I also question the ability of anyone to enforce the fee collection system. This entire thing smells very fishy to me.

    So guess what? I'm not going to pay.
    What is wrong with paying a small fee. Isn't it fair that the users of the parks pay some of the costs instead of all the taxpayers?

    I guess it is just the libertarian in me, but it seems fair for users to pay more of the costs of the parks than putting it on all the taxpayers. Just as there are entrance fees in national parks and camping fees at all the state parks.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764
    my .02 they should reclaim all of the "turnouts" reseed them and add no parking signs. Then work with a local tow company and split the profits.
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTT77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    348
    Since I already pay taxes, I am already paying for it. Would you argue that only the people who send their kids to public school should pay for it, and that it is unfair to put the cost of public education on all taxpayers?

    Ask yourself - what are you paying for? You're paying for concession stands and paved parking lots and picnic grounds maintenance. If you were a real libertarian, you'd be outraged that a) your tax dollars should already be paying for all that, and b) you are subsidizing unprofitable services.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by CDMC View Post
    What is wrong with paying a small fee. Isn't it fair that the users of the parks pay some of the costs instead of all the taxpayers?

    I guess it is just the libertarian in me, but it seems fair for users to pay more of the costs of the parks than putting it on all the taxpayers. Just as there are entrance fees in national parks and camping fees at all the state parks.
    Of course if you enter national parks on foot in the wilderness, there is no fee for entrance or camping.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzkil View Post
    my .02 they should reclaim all of the "turnouts" reseed them and add no parking signs. Then work with a local tow company and split the profits.
    That seems pretty harsh to me and frankly this would make me less likely to pay.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    That seems pretty harsh to me and frankly this would make me less likely to pay.
    you would be more that welcome to not pay and park inside the park but I would expect serial non payers may be riding home.

    Just saying, run it like a business. Get a day pass ticket machine that spits out a pass you can tear in 1/2, put 1 in your car and keep the other on your person. Ticket and tow your way profit. Take that profit and turn it into trail maintenance and new bike trails.....
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzkil View Post
    you would be more that welcome to not pay and park inside the park but I would expect serial non payers may be riding home.

    Just saying, run it like a business. Get a day pass ticket machine that spits out a pass you can tear in 1/2, put 1 in your car and keep the other on your person. Ticket and tow your way profit. Take that profit and turn it into trail maintenance and new bike trails.....
    Of course I own that land and it's not a business. The fact is that the state doesn't know how to manage money and that's the real problem.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    Of course I own that land and it's not a business. The fact is that the state doesn't know how to manage money and that's the real problem.
    You may want to work on your entitlement issues...

    Public land refers to the public domain, unappropriated land belonging to the federal government that is subject to sale or other disposal under general laws and is not reserved for any particular governmental or public purpose.

    So I do believe they could lease the land to FOCC and then force entitled people to pay a usage fee..... it oddly sound a lot like how ski resort land deals are run...
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzkil View Post
    You may want to work on your entitlement issues...

    Public land refers to the public domain, unappropriated land belonging to the federal government that is subject to sale or other disposal under general laws and is not reserved for any particular governmental or public purpose.

    So I do believe they could lease the land to FOCC and then force entitled people to pay a usage fee..... it oddly sound a lot like how ski resort land deals are run...
    Sounds logical. Why don't we just lease it for the highest and best use? Marin could use a few thousand affordable housing units no doubt.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTT77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzkil View Post

    So I do believe they could lease the land to FOCC and then force entitled people to pay a usage fee..... it oddly sound a lot like how ski resort land deals are run...
    While many ski resorts do lease the land from the USFS, the resorts are able to charge users for access to the lifts. That is a key difference. Many resorts operating under a USFS lease are unable to prevent people from accessing the land via other methods, such as skinning uphill. (Of course, leases vary and there are safety considerations -- for example you can only skin pre/post season at some places because heavy machinery is being operated on the land during the season, and this language is part of a resort's lease). The important distinction is that you don't pay to use the LAND at a ski resort.

    If we are going to put a ski lift and some DH trails onto China Camp, then I'm happy to pay!

  38. #38
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Some thoughts...

    Let's look at another transportation model:

    We don't pay an additional fee to drive our cars on the streets every time we drive.
    We do pay a Toll to cross a bridge, but that is more like extortion or trying to bargain with a monopoly.
    We can pay a fee to use a Lexus Lane but that is more like a frill.
    We frequently pay a fee to park, market rates apply and legal enforcement can make the cost higher.
    We do pay license fees.

    Let's look at how riders usually behave toward Parks and fees:

    China Camp:
    Shared trails with a decent mtb feel. How many China Camp riders historically drive into the park and pay the parking fee? I see 50-100 vehicle parks on the street outside the Kiosk and Miwok Meadows at any one time on a weekend.

    Skyline:
    Shared trails with a nice mtb feel. Parking is about the same; some people ride in ("so you don't have to pay"), some park and pay.

    Tamarancho:
    Annual fee. Relatively "dedicated" mtb trails, no parking fees. (Plus Davey Jones IPA and a great burger at Iron Springs Brewery.)

    Unsanctioned Tam/Geronimo Trails:
    No fees, no parking problems, not crowded. Nice mtb feel from what I have heard.

    EBRPD:
    No parking fees or use fees. Poor mtb feel. Closer to home, so to speak, for millions. Beer in my shed.

    Joaquin Miller:
    Nice mtb feel but overrun. No parking feels.

    Rockville:
    Nice mtb feel and fairly roomy. Parking can be paid for or parking on the street is possible.

    Skeggs:
    Nice mtb feel. No parking fees where I have parked.

    From my place in Richmond it takes me about as long to get to Tamarancho, Rockville, and Skyline as it does to China Camp.
    I don't rattle.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764
    We can spin this however people want. My argument is about is that they should post signs, ticket, and tow people parking on the side of the road if they want to make money.

    Do I park on the side of the road? Nope but the guy that usually drives me does, why cause it’s easy. Have I supported the park? Yes by making a donation.

    Will I buy a pass and park inside once they close off the sides of the road? You betcha.

    Am I going to bit@h and moan about taxes and government waste? Nope I have better things to do like ride my bike.
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by MTT77 View Post
    Since I already pay taxes, I am already paying for it. Would you argue that only the people who send their kids to public school should pay for it, and that it is unfair to put the cost of public education on all taxpayers?

    Ask yourself - what are you paying for? You're paying for concession stands and paved parking lots and picnic grounds maintenance. If you were a real libertarian, you'd be outraged that a) your tax dollars should already be paying for all that, and b) you are subsidizing unprofitable services.
    Yep. I pay $1000 per year to maintain the educational standards for my son in the Lafayette schools he attends. I have no issue with paying for the government services I use. As far as your libertarian arguments, you would be well served to understand what a libertarian is, as you have missed on both counts.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Some thoughts...

    Let's look at another transportation model:

    We don't pay an additional fee to drive our cars on the streets every time we drive.
    .
    We do. State and federal gas taxes are paid at the pump. They may be the fairest taxes since heavier vehicles get worse gas mileage and tear up the roads more. I get screwed driving my 1996 Toyota Landcruiser as it gets mileage far worse than its weight, bu its paid for and I like it.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Some thoughts...

    Tamarancho:
    Annual fee. Relatively "dedicated" mtb trails, no parking fees. (Plus CASEY Jones IMPERIAL IPA and a great burger at Iron Springs Brewery.)

    Great example, just had to make one minor correction....

    I just got back from a Trancho ride and 3 Casey's @ $2.75, Iron Springs 8th Anniversary party, gotta love it....
    Last edited by IrieRider; 10-08-2012 at 09:15 PM.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzkil View Post
    We can spin this however people want. My argument is about is that they should post signs, ticket, and tow people parking on the side of the road if they want to make money.

    Do I park on the side of the road? Nope but the guy that usually drives me does, why cause it’s easy. Have I supported the park? Yes by making a donation.

    Will I buy a pass and park inside once they close off the sides of the road? You betcha.

    Am I going to bit@h and moan about taxes and government waste? Nope I have better things to do like ride my bike.

    ^Why I ride to CC from home, I can stay out of all the drama and hassle of parking/passes/break-ins/etc.

    If the park/state/FOCC tries to charge me for doing that, then yes I will ***** and complain, because I too have made donations of both time and $$$, and I don't think it is right to charge ANYONE for access to public land, plain and simple.

    If the China Camp state park trails or public road parking were a pay to play situation, I think the usage of the trails would go way down, most just use those trails to access other stuff on adjacent land, ticketing those that park on the side of the road is a horrible approach that would drive people away from using those trails (lots of good riding can be had without setting foot/tire in state park land)

    IF CC or FOCC really wanted to make money, they would embrace mtn bikers and build new trails/open closed trails that are more mtb specific, making it a true destination for bay area riders and then expand the pay for parking areas to maximize revenue from the increased usage. There are break ins fairly regularly at cars parked on the side of the road, a somewhat patrolled parking area inside the park would not be unwelcome if it could actually accommodate the amount of cars who come to the park on a weekend. Right now, even if everyone wanted to pay for parking on a weekend, there would not be enough capacity to take advantage of that.

    Simply reducing street parking and ticketing/towing those who do park there does not exactly create a positive relationship between the park and users. It just makes the park/operators seem desperate for $$$ and trying to take advantage of the users who support them.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzkil View Post
    We can spin this however people want. My argument is about is that they should post signs, ticket, and tow people parking on the side of the road if they want to make money.

    Do I park on the side of the road? Nope but the guy that usually drives me does, why cause it’s easy. Have I supported the park? Yes by making a donation.

    Will I buy a pass and park inside once they close off the sides of the road? You betcha.

    Am I going to bit@h and moan about taxes and government waste? Nope I have better things to do like ride my bike.
    What about parking on the side of the road to just look at the views or paint, I see people (seniors) doing this all the time in the county? Would causal users be subject to these rules too?

    How about Marin residents get a free pass and you guys from other counties can enjoy these cool new regulations?
    Last edited by SS Hack; 10-08-2012 at 09:39 PM.

  45. #45
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,731
    Interesting: a change to non-governmental management and we hear talk of leveraging money out of people and penalties which would never be tolerated from a government agency. Think of how much we love meter maids and getting charged to park in front of our own homes.
    I don't rattle.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,399
    If they implement no parking on the road, the only thing that will happen is the 7-11 and Auto Shop lots will be over run. Or those huge dirt shoulders before the road gets narrow where all the junk hauling trucks park. I actually used to pay the five dollars for parking in the lot by the ranger station everytime I went. I ultimately felt really foolish after passing 35 cars with racks, camping chairs, and makeshift maintenance areas, so I started parking on the street like everyone else. If in the future they "require" 5.00 to park, I will pay. I ride there alot and enjoy the park and adjacent areas. I wish some of that fee would be used to de-attitude some of the hikers though. Never met a more scowling unhappy bunch in my life.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    425

    It already happened with the southern parking lot...

    That lot changed to a "fee lot" a few years ago. (the lot on San Pedro Road above the lower lot). It was free for years, guess what? It's always empty now.
    Last edited by rglsr; 10-08-2012 at 10:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •