Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 207
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bigkidd84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    10
    I posted this yesterday-"General obligation bonds provide funds for projects that will not provide direct sources of revenue; Roads, schools, parks, equipment... These bonds are generally used to fund projects that serve the entire community. The law forbids the use of GO bond funds for salaries and benefits.

    82% of the EBRPD budget goes to personnel, debt service and operating expenses, while 64% of MROSD budget 2013 went to personnel, debt service and operating expenses. Funds for land acquisition and capital improvements fill the rest of the budget.

    The public participated in a process that developed the 25 projects, that process is independent of the bond measure. As with anything the more funds available the sooner things will happen. I agree that the timing of both the vision and bond measure come across as all or nothing."

    I'm not trying to sway anyone either way but I think it's important to be educated on the facts and the process. Everyone has a right to their opinion but, IMO, posting salaries and benefits for an agency located in one of the worlds most expensive areas is changing the discussion to something entirely different and it resembles a Tea Party bait and switch. Yes, there is waste in government but there is also waste in private industry… I've worked in both. The difference in private is you don't have a voice in private industry unless you're a share holder. The public, is for the most part, absent at MROSD Board meetings. Change doesn't happen in a vacuum.

  2. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bigkidd84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    10
    Happy to hear you love the open spaces and enjoy them regularly. You are correct, change will not happen unless you participate in the process and become politically active. MtBiking, is a large user group that has, thus far, been relatively unorganized with no unified message. Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers is a new name and a new start to hopefully build the relationships that create change. Your ultimate goal should be getting a MtBiker on the MROSD Board… I am a MtBiker!

  3. #53
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,883
    Quote Originally Posted by bigkidd84 View Post
    Happy to hear you love the open spaces and enjoy them regularly. You are correct, change will not happen unless you participate in the process and become politically active. MtBiking, is a large user group that has, thus far, been relatively unorganized with no unified message. Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers is a new name and a new start to hopefully build the relationships that create change. Your ultimate goal should be getting a MtBiker on the MROSD Board… I am a MtBiker!
    Most people would rather bike than spend countless hours campaigning for various offices and shake constituents hands to ultimately get a board seat. I don't foresee a mountain biker sitting on Midpen board for a while. Eventhough that'd be the best way to resolve issues. Meanwhile, people can get their voices heard.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  4. #54
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Voicing a need for changing Mtb access in a losing cause vs. a winning cause; pick one.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 03-10-2014 at 11:23 PM.
    I don't rattle.

  5. #55
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044

    I support the bond measure

    I ride quite a lot in MidPen's areas. They have lots of great biking trails all the way from Skyline to Skeggs. I like the Sierra Azul trails/roads for the biking and access they offer, even though it's not singletrack. I like riding there in the rain, which MidPen is one of the few places that allows. They've built nice new biking trails recently, like White Oaks. Most important, we have a great big open space area to ride right here in the middle of high priced Silicon Valley. That is what MidPen was about, and what they did.

    I don't see MidPen as anti-bike in my numerous conversations with several of the staff, and their discussions at several meetings. Rather, I seem them as more concerned about land stewardship. MidPen looks to be fair to biking use among other users after that goal of stewardship. But I may not have the long history that others have. The only big issue I can see a potential bias was the Mindigo Hill exclusion. But that looks to be more of an over concern with snake preservation than anti-bike. And they've suggested some compensation with biking trails in other areas, however real that may be. Still waiting.

    MidPen's charter has officially changed, according to board directives, to give more emphasis now to access, over past priorities of land acquisition and stewardship, now that much of the land has been acquired while it was low cost. With this change to provide more access, MidPen recently concluded an expensive outreach program to collect the public opinion in many ways, such as meetings and web input. I followed this outreach program carefully and feel that MidPen staff truly collected and represented the wishes of the public as best possible. There was minimal cooking on the way to the board. What was said at the meetings and web is the same as what went to the board, in my careful tracking of the voting. There was some bias in the list of projects that MidPen proposed for voting, and at the end extra columns were added so Staff could have a vote too. But that process was made very transparent. Most important, in looking at how that MidPen staff and board bias actually changed things, it was pro-biking!

    MidPen refined and reduced their list of goals to 25 projects that fairly represented the public input, and the board approved them. The board even added some MORE great singletrack biking trails that didn't make the cut at the public meetings. (Such as new access trails down the front side of Mt Umunhum to Hicks Rd. - Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects, #24 on the link) So how is that anti-bike?

    If bikers wanted more change, they should have been more vocal in the Outreach Program. Just a few voices and votes could have got us many more biking trails. And now bikers who didn't bother to vote or attend one of the meetings to provide input, instead want to campaign against the bond because MidPen isn't doing what they want? On top of being two-faced, I think MidPen already knows how much energy will be put into that.

    Bottom line is that MidPen is in charge. They are doing an OK job and will probably stay in charge, regardless of the new bond outcome. Without this bond, MidPen will stagnate and continue as it is now, however much you may love or hate. In contrast, this bond will allow them to move onto their next stage of providing access and more trails for all of us. This includes bike-only single track trails in Skeggs (ECDM), trails all over Mt Umunhum, including all the way to Demo, and many other improvements. Not all of it is just for biking. But the biking interests are fairly represented among all the user groups.

    In sum I definitely support the bond. It's not that big a tax, it provides much more bike trails and user access over time. Where the money will be applied is clearly spelled out and fairly represents what the public asked for, including us bikers, in the outreach meetings.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    359
    They're going to provide trails from Umunhum all the way to Demo? Wow. I'm not sure Demo is my style of riding, but if you're at Demo, you're practically at Nisene Marks, and if you're at Nisene Marks, you're at the coast on dirt.

    I ride and hike in Mid Pen parks. And when I do, I see other riders. Montebello, Fremont Older, Windy Hill, Russian Ridge, El Sereno... they're close to home and people ride there.

    When I look up at the hills from my house, I see green. That's because MidPen wisely bought up the hillsides and prevented them from development. They might not be doing everything we would want them to do, but they've done a lot of right things, and green hillsides mean a lot to me.

    I support the measure.

  7. #57
    Let go lightly
    Reputation: CruzSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    219
    Nicely said Larry.

    Alex

  8. #58
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    This is a perfect example of how much more can be done by participating early in the process than late in the process. It has been very hard to get our community to step up at this stage, so much easier to rail against something that seems conclusive.
    I don't rattle.

  9. #59
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by the other Anne View Post
    They're going to provide trails from Umunhum all the way to Demo? Wow. I'm not sure Demo is my style of riding, but if you're at Demo, you're practically at Nisene Marks, and if you're at Nisene Marks, you're at the coast on dirt.

    I ride and hike in Mid Pen parks. And when I do, I see other riders. Montebello, Fremont Older, Windy Hill, Russian Ridge, El Sereno... they're close to home and people ride there.

    When I look up at the hills from my house, I see green. That's because MidPen wisely bought up the hillsides and prevented them from development. They might not be doing everything we would want them to do, but they've done a lot of right things, and green hillsides mean a lot to me.

    I support the measure.
    My point entirely. MidPen was founded to create Green Hillsides. Access and trails are a secondary bonus. But now that sufficient land has been wisely acquired over the last couple decades, while it was still cheap, access is now finally taking a priority.

    Mt Umunhum is getting a lot of work under the proposed plan, especially nice since I live at the base. There's relevant three open space projects, looking at the map link:
    #23: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects. This is ongoing and besides restoring the top cube area, will make a couple mile singletrack trail along side the road, winding up to the cube. Should be great views.
    #25: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects. This will open up a lot of land on the back (south) side of Mt. Umunhum. Trails will go all the way to Highland Rd. or Demo, and also connect in the east to the Santa Clara parks and open space, such as Rancho Canada del Oro and Calero park areas that just opened to biking. There's been talk in the past about doing lots of downhill singletrack in that new region. With the land available, I've even heard in past meetings proposals for equestrians and bikers to make their own separate trails to their liking. Don't know what will happen, but there's a lot of new open land with the potential to do a lot.
    #24: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects. This project was added back in by the board after it got low ratings by the public. It took me a while to understand this project value to biking, and verify with the MidPen staff this actually includes some multi-use singletrack on the front face of Mt. Umunhum.

    Also, Demo itself is a side tour if you're on the way to the sea. From Highland, just go up Buzzards Lagoon and down the dirt roads all the way to Santa Cruz.

    MidPen has definite plans to open this up this access for continuity to the sea and other parks. This "Loma Prieta" proposal to open this land got some of the highest rankings by the public. MidPen also said in the meetings that they feel that bikers will probably get the most benefit out of these trails, due to the distances and remoteness.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,341
    They should complete the 25 projects on their list and then ask for more money to complete another 25 projects.

  11. #61
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,064
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    My point entirely. MidPen was founded to create Green Hillsides. Access and trails are a secondary bonus. But now that sufficient land has been wisely acquired over the last couple decades, while it was still cheap, access is now finally taking a priority.

    Mt Umunhum is getting a lot of work under the proposed plan, especially nice since I live at the base. There's relevant three open space projects, looking at the map link:
    #23: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects. This is ongoing and besides restoring the top cube area, will make a couple mile singletrack trail along side the road, winding up to the cube. Should be great views.
    #25: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects. This will open up a lot of land on the back (south) side of Mt. Umunhum. Trails will go all the way to Highland Rd. or Demo, and also connect in the east to the Santa Clara parks and open space, such as Rancho Canada del Oro and Calero park areas that just opened to biking. There's been talk in the past about doing lots of downhill singletrack in that new region. With the land available, I've even heard in past meetings proposals for equestrians and bikers to make their own separate trails to their liking. Don't know what will happen, but there's a lot of new open land with the potential to do a lot.
    #24: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects. This project was added back in by the board after it got low ratings by the public. It took me a while to understand this project value to biking, and verify with the MidPen staff this actually includes some multi-use singletrack on the front face of Mt. Umunhum.

    Also, Demo itself is a side tour if you're on the way to the sea. From Highland, just go up Buzzards Lagoon and down the dirt roads all the way to Santa Cruz.

    MidPen has definite plans to open this up this access for continuity to the sea and other parks. This "Loma Prieta" proposal to open this land got some of the highest rankings by the public. MidPen also said in the meetings that they feel that bikers will probably get the most benefit out of these trails, due to the distances and remoteness.
    That is all good, but they do not need more money to implement any of those projects. They will just blow it on fluff like Skeggs parking lot for horse trailers. They have enough money.

  12. #62
    I've had a Pliny
    Reputation: atayl0r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    This is a perfect example of how much more can be done by participating early in the process than late in the process. It has been very hard to get our community to step up at this stage, so much easier to rail against something that seems conclusive.
    I agree with the idea of participation (and the idea of put up or shut up). The disconnect I see is the ability to effectively get the word out to the right people for the right causes at the right time. Forums like this help some as do Facebook feeds from ROMP/SVMTB and FATRAC. Maybe we need an avaaz.org equivalent for local issues - a platform for action alerts - from "come to the public input meeting" to "write your local congressman, here's his address".

    Also, Big +1 on BigLarry's post. Well said!

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    68
    I'm all for the bond if more access is provided to open space already under the control of MidPen. What drives me crazy is seeing roads (dirt and paved) already in place that I cannot ride

    Strava Segment | Cathermola Rd Climb

    Strava Segment | Cathermola Rd Climb

    Strava Segment | Mt Umunhum L Prieta Rd Climb

    Loma Prieta Road defines open space | Silicon Valley Cyclist

    Will providing access to these areas cost any money? Repaving Mt. Umunhum would cost a big chunk of money but it is certainly ridable as it exists today.

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,341
    MidPen should put up or shut up. We told them what we want them to do with all that space and money they've acquired over the years. Now go do it.

  15. #65
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044

    MidPen Gripes

    I am trying to understand the major complaints about MidPen among other bikers. Scanning through the earlier comments, I come up with the following list, in the order of most concern.

    1. Rangers with speed guns give tickets to unwary bikers.
    2. Does not understand the need for good bike trails and wants to build roads.
    3. Too much money for too little.
    4. Restricts access to open areas.
    5. Does not allow any night riding.

    Here's my response on this.

    1. Radar Guns
    I ride a lot of MidPen, and pretty much never see radar guns. That's probably because I ride more desolate areas in Sierra Azul (Woods, Barlow, Kennedy) or biking oriented trails such Saratoga Gap, Long Ridge, and Monte Bello that don't have speed or conflict issues. Most of the radar guns complaints I hear are in the St. Josephs area in Los Gatos. I've ridden those trails a couple times and find them to be very steep as well as highly populated by a diversity of users. Those trails are so populated you almost need to wait in line to get on the trail. My feeling is those areas have real congestion and speed conflicts due to the diversity and density of users. I've seen radar guns on Kennedy once or twice. That trail has moderate density but high speeds. So I see the usage of radar as appropriate to maintain safety in congested areas with diversity of usage. They hope a few expensive tickets will cause bikers to howl all over the web and encourage others to slow down. It probably works.
    I suspect most of the enforcement is due to complaints by hikers. I know when I'm hiking, or even riding slow, I'm often startled by a speedster zipping by without warning. The biker may feel they're in control and know what their doing. I doubt the hiker has that same impression. We can help ourselves by improving that impression on others and reduce calls for enforcement by calling out before passing (I use a bell at a distance, and polite shout out when close) and slowing down below 15 MPH when passing others.

    2. Better Trails

    First, the reality. MidPen is not a biking organization. It's a stewardship with first priority always to preserve the land. You're just not going to get the same type of trails as the county parks or at Demo. Not going to happen. Not in their public charter. Deal with it.
    Next, their (wise) priority to date has been using the limited funds for acquiring, not building or providing access. That meant going with the existing dirt roads already in place for the last decades. The next stage as proposed in the plan will have a lot more singletrack. Of special interest is the new biking-only trail at ECDM, the bone they thew to us bikers.
    MidPen does allow a lot of biking and already has a lot of good biking singletrack. ECDM, Saratoga Gap, and the new White Oaks trail in Monte Bello show what MidPen can do. Not Demo, but a lot of fun biking trails. I suspect we'll see a lot more of that as access is opened up with new trails over the years.
    MidPen is treating biking fairly compared to other users. Other parks in the east and north bay can't get hardly any access whereas we've already got a lot of great trails. Even in their AA Ballot Measure, the first line in the ballot language is "To improve access to hiking and biking opportunities, protect and preserve redwood forests, natural open spaces,..." Two things of note in this language: Access is now taking priority over protection and preservation; Biking is listed as a priority right in front of the ballot.

    3. Too much money for too little.
    Each to his own. But considering one time entry fee at many parks is several dollars, a $3/$100K/year is not exactly excessive. The only reason such a low rate works is because it's spread over all the of the people in the jurisdiction, who want Green Hills rather than development, and willing to pay for that. Note they are not paying for more biking trails. See above for the reality on that.

    4. Restricts access to open areas.
    As said before many times, MidPen's charter and first priority was to acquire land while it was cheap, and preserve it. Now that this land acquisition has been fruitful, a change has occurred to now provide more access on that land. This was the point of the Open Space Outreach program, and this new tax. See the first three words in the ballot language above for evidence of this change.

    5. Does not allow any night riding.
    Nor does any other county park or most other parks. The only place I know that allows night riding is Henry Coe. Not sure why the opposition. Maybe safety and enforcement at night? Maybe to prevent homeless and campers from setting up home? A fear of disturbing wildlife? I really don't know why. But it's not a policy unique to MidPen. So don't single them out either.
    Personally, I never use my night lights. as I like to ride in the day for better views and the warmth. But I don't see any rational reason against night riding that I see everywhere. Hopefully this attitude among parks and land managers will change in the future.
    Last edited by BigLarry; 03-11-2014 at 10:53 AM.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  16. #66
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by beaverbiker View Post
    MidPen should put up or shut up. We told them what we want them to do with all that space and money they've acquired over the years. Now go do it.
    By telling them, do you mean the Outreach program or something else?

    I suspect they will start doing the projects they've now defined no matter what way the bond measure goes. But I suspect the bond measure funds can greatly accelerate that process, which can take decades, with progress mostly limited by funding. If the speed improves from decades to sub-decade, that money is worth while.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  17. #67
    Yeti SB95c
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,161
    I second BigLarry.

    Midpen doesn't allow night riding for safety, to give animals some space, and the cost of hiring more rangers to save their properties from all sorts of a-holes. There may be other reasons but rangers have told me these. If you spend some time with rangers you can hear stories of how bad people can behave.

  18. #68
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by timbo2000 View Post
    I'm all for the bond if more access is provided to open space already under the control of MidPen. What drives me crazy is seeing roads (dirt and paved) already in place that I cannot ride

    Strava Segment | Cathermola Rd Climb

    Strava Segment | Cathermola Rd Climb

    Strava Segment | Mt Umunhum L Prieta Rd Climb

    Loma Prieta Road defines open space | Silicon Valley Cyclist

    Will providing access to these areas cost any money? Repaving Mt. Umunhum would cost a big chunk of money but it is certainly ridable as it exists today.
    These links look to be mostly in the Loma Prieta area, which is a top rated project for MidPen. I'm not sure what patchwork of land is now owned and if it would allow opening of the roads. But there is a clear path through to Highland and Summit roads with the land they have now.

    However, new singletrack trails are what most here desire, and I've attended working meetings on those over the years. Those will take time to plan and create.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  19. #69
    roadie
    Reputation: modbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    These links look to be mostly in the Loma Prieta area, which is a top rated project for MidPen. I'm not sure what patchwork of land is now owned and if it would allow opening of the roads. But there is a clear path through to Highland and Summit roads with the land they have now.

    However, new singletrack trails are what most here desire, and I've attended working meetings on those over the years. Those will take time to plan and create.
    fwiw, most of the land surrounding Cathermola Rd is owned by San Jose Water Co. the road has historically been maintained by them (sjwc) but is in fact patrolled by midpen. there was the Maas parcel in the middle section which has since been acquired by midpen.

    from 2009:

    The District will need to work with the Water Company to consider future use or disposition of the structures to protect the surrounding drinking water watershed and open space lands and evaluate future trail connections from Loma Prieta area to the Wrights Station Road area.
    http://www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/age...e_r_09-126.pdf

    5 years later:

    The Maas property has a house and accessory structures that were originally considered potentially useful as part of a Real Property exchange with San Jose Water Company, which owns the adjacent land. Real Property has determined this transaction is no longer feasible and recommends approval for the demolition of the house and accessory structures, which include a utility building, two small sheds, and a garage/carport.
    http://www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/age...ns_r-14-36.pdf


    hey, at least someone is using it!

    Apr 27

    A ranger discovered that a vacant District-owned residence had been broken into and vandalized. The area where the residence is located is in close proximity to a suspected marijuana grow. The intruders had made a fire in the stove using the window blinds. Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputies were requested but were unavailable to respond at the time of the discovery. Rangers returned with deputies a couple of days later to check the buildings and the area around the property.
    1
    IR 12F121
    Preserve Sierra Azul
    Location Former Maas house
    http://www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/age...es_R-13-31.pdf


    why not two separate entities? Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is clearly capable of buying up land, but imo not particularly good at creating open spaces in a manner that reflects the desired use of the public.

    maybe "Midpeninsula Land Holding Company" and "Midpeninsula Regional Open Space" will allow continued progress on both fronts?

  20. #70
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,340
    Thanks to Big Larry and Modbog for some informative posts

    I apologize if this has already been posted here somewhere but I think it's a helluva good read:

    http://www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/age...on_r-14-46.pdf

    Skip to the end and you'll see how the $300M will be divvied up.

    Mind boggling...

    $8M for that ECDM single track! Woohooo...

    In my turf the Sierra Azul projects get almost $53M! (I guess I should be happy!)

    I'm still bothered that the land acquisitions aren't broken out in MROSD's disclosures.

    Keep in mind that these expenditures are spread over X (10 or 20?) years. (I may not live long enough)

    And, it appears that MROSD staff is cranking up the "more (bicycle) enforcement" machine with this upcoming (tomorrow) presentation to the Board:

    http://www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/age...es_r_14-08.pdf

    I suppose the above deserves its own thread but I haven't the time.

    Go for it...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  21. #71
    roadie
    Reputation: modbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    745
    midpen in their wisdom have figured in inflation, it probably will cost $8M to build single track in 2044-45!

  22. #72
    Axe
    Axe is online now
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,064

    Midpen's Bond Issue - Can / Should We Help?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmpreston View Post
    I second BigLarry.

    Midpen doesn't allow night riding for safety, to give animals some space, and the cost of hiring more rangers to save their properties from all sorts of a-holes. There may be other reasons but rangers have told me these. If you spend some time with rangers you can hear stories of how bad people can behave.
    There are plenty of public lands that are not patrolled at night and where night riding and what not is allowed. Observe the lack of chaos and destruction. Midpen on the other hand had massive grows in Sierra Azul area. Which was closed to anything. What rangers are telling you is a self serving myth.

    Main fact is that proposed tax increase is incremental, will not make a difference for strategic purchases (any purchases in the plan? No. ). And the goal of better access does not require that much of our tax money. Smoke and mirrors from a self perpetuating bureaucracy.

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,150

    Midpen's Bond Issue - Can / Should We Help?

    $8M for that ECDM single track! Woohooo...

    I wonder if this is for dozers and compacted gravel to prevent erosion from horses?

  24. #74
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Thanks plienberg for the links. Very nice summary.

    To be fair, the ECDM projects are not just about one trail, but also completing Ridge Trail gaps, trails to parking area, restoring damaged trails to improve water quality, and preserve additional open space.

    The Sierra Azul breakdown is about what I'd expect.
    22: Cathedral Oaks. $6.7M
    23: Mt Umunhum peak. $28M
    24: Rancho de Guadalupe & trails. $10M
    25: Loma Prieta trails. $8M

    And like you said, this expense will be over a couple decades, hopefully less to get it sooner.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  25. #75
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    There are plenty of public lands that are not patrolled at night and where night riding and what not is allowed. Observe the lack of chaos and destruction. Midpen on the other hand had massive grows in Sierra Azul area. Which was closed to anything. What rangers are telling you is a self serving myth.

    Main fact is that proposed tax increase is incremental, will not make a difference for strategic purchases (any purchases in the plan? No. ). And the goal of better access does not require that much of our tax money. Smoke and mirrors from a self perpetuating bureaucracy.
    I agree that most night riding restrictions are based on unfounded bias. I don't understand myself. But MidPen is not at all alone in their attitude. There's a mass attitude that needs to change.

    The is definitely some marketing at play here. Pay THIS and get THAT. Well, uh, you might eventually get THAT anyway. Still, I think it's a good thing. The tax increase is incremental, but so are the funds currently available to these projects. Bigkidd84 said 64% of current funds are used for staff, debt and operating expenses. If only 36% of the current funds are available for improvements, then the incremental extra funds from this bond can greatly accelerate the process. It's not a lot to help see these projects completed in our life time.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  26. #76
    roadie
    Reputation: modbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    Thanks plienberg for the links. Very nice summary.

    To be fair, the ECDM projects are not just about one trail, but also completing Ridge Trail gaps, trails to parking area, restoring damaged trails to improve water quality ,and preserve additional open space.

    The Sierra Azul breakdown is about what I'd expect.
    22: Cathedral Oaks. $6.7M
    23: Mt Umunhum peak. $28M
    24: Rancho de Guadalupe & trails. $10M
    25: Loma Prieta trails. $8M

    And like you said, this expense will be over a couple decades, hopefully less to get it sooner.
    this is what you'd expect?

    24 Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation
    Open Rancho de Guadalupe to public access. Develop accessible multi-use trails with amenities such as parking and family recreation. Restore habitat for rare species. Protect cultural and natural resources. $10,078,000

    Protect cultural and natural resources? am i confusing this with the supposed waste rock dump site? former future home of planned development that couldn't? myself, i want a better proposal when you're asking for $10,078,000. midpen has had time to prepare, i want a better picture of the proposals, a real timeline, and an actual breakdown the cost. this is lazy. midpen started at a big number and divided it across the domain.. pfft, $10,078,000..

  27. #77
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by modbog View Post
    this is what you'd expect?

    Protect cultural and natural resources? am i confusing this with the supposed waste rock dump site? former future home of planned development that couldn't? myself, i want a better proposal when you're asking for $10,078,000. midpen has had time to prepare, i want a better picture of the proposals, a real timeline, and an actual breakdown the cost. this is lazy. midpen started at a big number and divided it across the domain.. pfft, $10,078,000..
    Actually, yes, it's what I'd expect. Maybe I've lived in the Bay area too long, where even a little house cost $1M these days. Their numbers are on the high side. But that level of full funding will allow great progress to be made.

    I've seen numerous attempts to improve the Mt. Umunhum peak and the expenses are quite large. Just to demolish the buildings, repave the road, and built a small visitor center is $11M. Our representative Mike Honda tried to get us a few $M from the fed to help, but it was squeezed out of the federal budget at the last minute. (More here.)

    Many new trails and permits are going to be needed in the Loma Prieta region. It's almost like opening a new park.

    Same with Rancho de Guadalupe, which is in the middle of some endangered species (frogs?) that improvements need to work around, perhaps with bridges and other structures. Protecting cultural and natural resources is MidPen's main charter that is hard for us to understand sometimes. But the public that gives MidPen their money wants the green hills to be "all natural". And as I said, MidPen takes their stewardship seriously as their prime duty.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  28. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,341
    I'm with Modbog. If they want that kind of coin they should actually put a little bit of effort into the proposal. Something beyond the level of a 5th grade science project would go a long way. For all we know they're going to spend all the money on the parking lots and bathrooms and they're just going to unlock a couple gates to fireroads as "increasing access".

  29. #79
    roadie
    Reputation: modbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    Same with Rancho de Guadalupe, which is in the middle of some endangered species (frogs?) that improvements need to work around, perhaps with bridges and other structures. Protecting cultural and natural resources is MidPen's main charter that is hard for us to understand sometimes. But the public that gives MidPen their money wants the green hills to be "all natural". And as I said, MidPen takes their stewardship seriously as their prime duty.
    i'm all for the western pond turtle (from what i understood most of the frogs probably live in Guadalupe creek across Hicks?), but how is that money is going to help them exactly? bridge for what? what improvements exactly? a trail network already exists there. grade the lot, open the gate, plop down a crapper. right now it's just a dead end where teenagers go to screw in their cars and smoke pot. i'm not trying to be overly facetious, but come on. they might put in a deck to keep people from disturbing the edge of the small pond and an informational placard?

    give me real info, not fluff. acquired in 1995, soil tested in 2010. stewards? pfft. barely managing.. /rant

  30. #80
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by modbog View Post
    i'm all for the western pond turtle (from what i understood most of the frogs probably live in Guadalupe creek across Hicks?), but how is that money is going to help them exactly? bridge for what? what improvements exactly? a trail network already exists there. grade the lot, open the gate, plop down a crapper. right now it's just a dead end where teenagers go to screw in their cars and smoke pot. i'm not trying to be overly facetious, but come on. they might put in a deck to keep people from disturbing the edge of the small pond and an informational placard?

    give me real info, not fluff. acquired in 1995, soil tested in 2010. stewards? pfft. barely managing.. /rant
    Those level of details are best found on MidPen's site. Some have found such details buried in the meeting agendas. Or you can just send an email and ask MidPen how that cost estimate is broken down.

    You say a trail network already exists there. You know more than me. Where do these trails lead to? Around the mountain or up to Woods trail? They mention developing trails so I was thinking mostly new. Still, whatever is there will likely need restoration and improvements to current standards.

    The full description of the this project is as follows.

    Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects
    Open RDG to public access. Develop accessible multi-use trails with amenities such as parking, family recreation, interpretive/educational services. Partner to develop family camping. Enhance habitat for rare species. Protect cultural and natural resources using traditional Native American stewardship practices.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  31. #81
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,340

    CRLF's on Dogmeat???

    Quote Originally Posted by modbog View Post
    i'm all for the western pond turtle (from what i understood most of the frogs probably live in Guadalupe creek across Hicks?), but how is that money is going to help them exactly? bridge for what? what improvements exactly? a trail network already exists there. grade the lot, open the gate, plop down a crapper. right now it's just a dead end where teenagers go to screw in their cars and smoke pot. i'm not trying to be overly facetious, but come on. they might put in a deck to keep people from disturbing the edge of the small pond and an informational placard?

    give me real info, not fluff. acquired in 1995, soil tested in 2010. stewards? pfft. barely managing.. /rant
    Yes really, on a rainy day they could possibly be crossing over from one creek to the next. They're hard to see but the brown lines denoting the range of the California Red Legged Frog reaches nearly to the top of all the ridges in Sierra Azul and as such; combined with the Rainbow Trout and Steelhead habitats make nearly the entire Rancho de Guadalupe property an area of special concern. 2 Western Pond Turtle habitats also.



    Given how the Mindego thing went for MTBing I doubt that we'll see much access to Rancho de Guadalupe.

    Anybody notice on that last link I posted how much pot farm activity is continuing in Sierra Azul? Almost all of that is on the RdG portion.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  32. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,341
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    Those level of details are best found on MidPen's site. Some have found such details buried in the meeting agendas. Or you can just send an email and ask MidPen how that cost estimate is broken down.

    You say a trail network already exists there. You know more than me. Where do these trails lead to? Around the mountain or up to Woods trail? They mention developing trails so I was thinking mostly new. Still, whatever is there will likely need restoration and improvements to current standards.

    The full description of the this project is as follows.

    Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects
    Open RDG to public access. Develop accessible multi-use trails with amenities such as parking, family recreation, interpretive/educational services. Partner to develop family camping. Enhance habitat for rare species. Protect cultural and natural resources using traditional Native American stewardship practices.
    There are a bunch of fireroads and small trails up and around reynolds and pheasant roads that lead to cherry springs pond. There aren't any "legally" built trails from that area up to el sombroso so hopefully that's what they're planning on. I can easily seem them 5 years down the road from now claiming victory with just building a parking lot down off hicks, opening a couple of the gates, and trimming brush back. All for a cool $10mil.

  33. #83
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Many biases rate based in a lack of understanding what is possible on a bike by sensible people. They cannot conceive how anyone could ride at night, climb a 20% grade......
    I don't rattle.

  34. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,150

    Midpen's Bond Issue - Can / Should We Help?

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    Many biases rate based in a lack of understanding what is possible on a bike by sensible people. They cannot conceive how anyone could ride at night, climb a 20% grade......
    Board is a bunch of mostly white baby boomers in loose fit dockers. Doubt they could make it up a trail without a horse.

  35. #85
    roadie
    Reputation: modbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    Those level of details are best found on MidPen's site. Some have found such details buried in the meeting agendas. Or you can just send an email and ask MidPen how that cost estimate is broken down.
    option a is look for buried stuff in meeting agendas? (that's kinda of a warning sign, no?) option b is for the public to request a proposal from midpen via email? (also not really efficient) why isn't even basic information readily accessible? (i guess a few vague noncommittal sentences is not my definition of basic, and buried in pdfs inconsistently linked is not my definition of readily accessible)

    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    Yes really, on a rainy day they could possibly be crossing over from one creek to the next. They're hard to see but the brown lines denoting the range of the California Red Legged Frog reaches nearly to the top of all the ridges in Sierra Azul and as such; combined with the Rainbow Trout and Steelhead habitats make nearly the entire Rancho de Guadalupe property an area of special concern. 2 Western Pond Turtle habitats also.

    moot. the trail is a distance away from those seasonal creeks and outside the boundaries on that map. the only portion that dips near is at the far (southern) end. (i'm referring to the loop around the pond and outcropping, not the dogleg back to the parcel on Pheasant.



    Pheasant Rd, public, goes right through that habitat on the northwestern edge. Hicks Rd, also public and with higher traffic, skirts the northeast side and goes right through the same boundaries - not through rather inside of and parallel with. how are anadromous fish swimming a Guadalupe bookended by dump and dam going to be affected by opening the gate? cultural / historical sensitive areas? (mine shafts? tailings?)


  36. #86
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,340
    Quote Originally Posted by modbog View Post
    moot. the trail is a distance away from those seasonal creeks and outside the boundaries on that map. the only portion that dips near is at the far (southern) end. (i'm referring to the loop around the pond and outcropping, not the dogleg back to the parcel on Pheasant.
    Maybe not so moot; the Mindego Hill access road that was closed to bikes was well outside the normal range of the SFGS; it doesn't take much for MidPen to shutter access.

    BTW on that map those lines represent what were once roads; the may have disintegrated down to trails, it was like OMG 45 years ago I last traipsed across those specific lands.

    And those are not entirely "seasonal" streams; they have pools of water (enough to sustain trout) quite high up and is probably why this area is so popular with the dope growers.

    Very few mine shafts south of Hicks, most of the mines were on the north side of Guadalupe Creek. I'm really curious what the "Cultural Resources" at RdG are; Native American? Mining era??
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  37. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,544
    I just have one word that MidPen doesn't - accountability. I didn't see them spending on what's matter for me. Shift in focus? I'll agree once I see it. The limitations they are imposing on bike trail users are artificial.
    With bond money not going for salaries, please. First overblown budget covers unchallanged/lobbied tenders. Sure house costs 1mil around here but half of it is land and public already paid for it.
    Second, MidPen always can purpose bond measures on the projects which are aldready part of the budget. Even proponents here saying it will helps getting old things faster, not more new things. So once money in, remainder of budget can be spent on rangers and trucks fleet.
    I used to run tubes like you are, but then I got thorn in my wheel.

  38. #88
    roadie
    Reputation: modbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    BTW on that map those lines represent what were once roads; the may have disintegrated down to trails, it was like OMG 45 years ago I last traipsed across those specific lands.
    those are still "roads" and some are somewhat recently graded -- more recently then your last visit

    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    Very few mine shafts south of Hicks, most of the mines were on the north side of Guadalupe Creek. I'm really curious what the "Cultural Resources" at RdG are; Native American? Mining era??


    from pg 15:

    http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfra...April_2012.pdf

  39. #89
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,007
    ^^ Easy, bog.

    You're trying to apply logic to an insanity-based organization!
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk.

  40. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    235
    Half of the new money would be spent on that 'Roller Coaster' I keep talking about. The other half would be spent on sucking every stinking inch of fun out of it.

  41. #91
    We need more wax
    Reputation: justbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    301
    Has anything changed over the past couple of months to warrant the SLMTB to endorse Measure AA?

    Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers Endorses Measure AA! | Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers
    "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?" - Rodney King

  42. #92
    Let go lightly
    Reputation: CruzSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    219
    Well I'm on the board of SVMTB so I'm biased.

    I came to the Vision process skeptical about what riders would get out of the process. I went to a number of meetings and found that MidPen staff and management listened to our input and although we didn't get everything we would like to see (who ever does?) riders will get more trails, more interconnecting trails and likely some bike specific trails at Skeggs.

    Even if MTB riders are skeptical about MidPen and our access to trails what is the benefit of not supporting the bond? By voting no you would be saying you don't want more trails or more protected areas above (and in) the Valley. What's to be gained by that?

    Thanks,

    Alex Anderson

  43. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    24
    At least we (SVMTB) are not alone.

    post

  44. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    359
    Wow, what a list. Who's against the measure, other than some people in this thread?

  45. #95
    Dirty by Nature
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,007
    Sean- And I wonder how many of them are: 1. mountain bikers or 2. bothered by the fact that is costs millions of dollars to maybe/possibly/eventually open up a trail ("Hey, it's not MY money!").

    I think I'm okay being in the minority on this one! Please cancel my subscription to the resurrection of Midpen.
    Last edited by dirtvert; 05-16-2014 at 11:04 AM.
    Friends don't let friends ride e-"bikes" on dirt.

    Nature is not a sidewalk.

  46. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,341
    Has midpen released a document signed by the board that says they are going to use this money to build trails and not just horde land? They keep saying they are but until I see it in writing I just don't believe them. I want to see a breakdown of how every dollar is spent.

  47. #97
    roadie
    Reputation: modbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    745
    Quote Originally Posted by CruzSS View Post
    . . . By voting no you would be saying you don't want more trails or more protected areas above (and in) the Valley. What's to be gained by that?

    Thanks,

    Alex Anderson
    False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  48. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    24
    I do understand the past frustration with certain land managers :-) However, the SVMTB BOD believes it is better to be a part of the process, that's why we participated in the developed of the Open Space 25 priorities. If you read the first sentence of the measure, it says to provide more opportunities for hiking and biking. I think it's important for SVMTB to be involved and maintain a professional working relationship.

    For more information: post

    Sean

  49. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,150

    Midpen's Bond Issue - Can / Should We Help?

    Hope you like increased ranger enforcement, like we just got in Marin.

  50. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    359
    As a matter of fact, I DO like increased ranger enforcement. I get annoyed by scofflaws bombing down shared trails. Particular targets of my ire are scofflaws who bomb down shared trails, then blame their victims because the victims should have realized that scofflaws ride on that particular trail.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bond Brook conditions
    By likeaboss in forum Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-29-2013, 03:38 AM
  2. Augusta, Maine Bond Brook info
    By likeaboss in forum Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 09:32 AM
  3. What Beer Goes With Bond?
    By dobovedo in forum Beer Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-06-2012, 12:26 PM
  4. Bond drops martinis for
    By JFryauff in forum Beer Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-05-2012, 12:57 PM
  5. Attention, MidPen!
    By jdubsl2 in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-22-2011, 03:06 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
  •