Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 199
  1. #1
    C'dale Rush Lefty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    276

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

    Last night the board of directors of the Midpeninsula Open Space District voted to put a $300 million bond issue on the June ballot. The purpose is to fund our wish list developed during the Vision Plan project.

    Openspace.org - News - Potential Funding Measure

    Those in the district can lobby their neighbors but those of us out of the district have limited options to support it.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    Jim

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    16
    Let's see... 25 possible projects, $300M. No indication that all 25 will actually be undertaken, or in what priority, or how quickly. That's an average of $12M per project. Looking at the list, I'm having a hard time seeing how any one of those would cost $12M to implement. They already own the land, so the largest expense is already done with. Just think how long the Demo flow trail would be if it had a $12M bankroll!

  3. #3
    C'dale Rush Lefty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    276
    That is a lot of money but they are also including additional land purchases as the opportunities arise. However, they already have a cash flow stream for that.

    If MTBers want to back this thing then an economic analysis would be good. If we don't back it then we won't get much done.

    $12M for the Demo flow trail would give us an escalator to the top :-)

  4. #4
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,498

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HansNiemand View Post
    Let's see... 25 possible projects, $300M. No indication that all 25 will actually be undertaken, or in what priority, or how quickly. That's an average of $12M per project. Looking at the list, I'm having a hard time seeing how any one of those would cost $12M to implement. They already own the land, so the largest expense is already done with. Just think how long the Demo flow trail would be if it had a $12M bankroll!
    At 12M you can put a radar wielding ranger, with full benefits and pension, at each section. No problem with uphill riding.

  5. #5
    Junior flyer
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by HansNiemand View Post
    Just think how long the Demo flow trail would be if it had a $12M bankroll!
    That would be 450 miles long, which is a helluva climb!

    Or we could just keep it at its current length and install an Enduro™ Tram.
    Why?

    Because we like the taste of freedom; because we like the smell of danger. ~ E. Abbey

  6. #6
    just another bleepin SSer
    Reputation: singlespeed.org's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,340
    Pros: it would involve opening some of the lands they already own to public access. One example I keep hearing is Mt. Uminum, which is currently closed and needing a pile of restoration before it can be opened. This bond is supposed to give the funding to complete that. Another pro is that it should provide funds for more land purchases in the future. And they provide trails for bikes on much (but not all) of their lands.

    Cons - MROSD has a certain level of management they want before opening lands, including having enough enforcement rangers (with their radar guns) and trail standards that we often find pretty mellow. So this will increase both of those.
    Last edited by singlespeed.org; 02-28-2014 at 09:25 AM. Reason: correcting spelling error
    --
    Getting old, fat, and slow...
    Business: www.calkayakermag.com
    Personal: www.singlespeed.org
    自転車が好きだよ

  7. #7
    rox
    rox is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    925
    dont give mrosd any money. It may suck as far as public access, but choking off their lifeblood is the only kind of feedback they understand. If we could bankrupt them an agency more responsive to its users and more deserving of managing our public land would rise from the ashes.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    881
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rox again.

  9. #9
    padded
    Reputation: DrWheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by rox View Post
    dont give mrosd any money. It may suck as far as public access, but choking off their lifeblood is the only kind of feedback they understand. If we could bankrupt them an agency more responsive to its users and more deserving of managing our public land would rise from the ashes.
    We learned our lesson in the EB - the agencies are run by entrenched anti-bike interests, supporting their measures won't foster a new partnership or create opportunities for new singletrack.
    "You are by far the most interesting single-serving friend I have ever met."

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squashyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,833
    Quote Originally Posted by rox View Post
    dont give mrosd any money. It may suck as far as public access, but choking off their lifeblood is the only kind of feedback they understand. If we could bankrupt them an agency more responsive to its users and more deserving of managing our public land would rise from the ashes.
    I'm glad he said it...Midpen sucks huge, low hanging, salty ball sacs. Not saying they suck my ball sac but rather a royal ball sac...sacs. Edit: Midpen sucks a bag of *****.
    Peanut butter Tuesday, if you know what I mean!

  11. #11
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,844
    Quote Originally Posted by DrWheels View Post
    We learned our lesson in the EB - the agencies are run by entrenched anti-bike interests, supporting their measures won't foster a new partnership or create opportunities for new singletrack.
    It seems to me that agencies are a bit clueless. Running a campaign (however limited it was) against the EBRPD bond measure definitely gave cyclists exposure. I believe (and I may be wrong) that it ultimately helped bike advocates gaining access.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,915
    Give nothing to MidPen. They have more money than they know what to do with and they will probably just build more unused parking lots. Santa Clara County Parks has their sh!t together. MidPen does not.

  13. #13
    Ted
    Ted is offline
    Ted in real life
    Reputation: Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    227
    Remember that Mid-Pen is the organization that:

    1) Has kept everyone out of Mt Umunhum for that last 25 years.
    2) Recently purchased and then closed Twin Creeks.
    3) Does not allow any night riding.
    4) Posts rangers with speed guns to ticket unwary bikers.

    Make any new funds contingent on replacing all administrators. They are not serving our interests.

  14. #14
    C'dale Rush Lefty
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    276
    I like Midpen. They've opened a LOT of trails that didn't have to be opened to bikes. The original purpose of the preserves that the voters approved was for quiet enjoyment recreation. That could have blocked all mechanical access. The staff are under pressure from hikers and equestrians to block us. The staff has tried for some balance and I respect most of their choices.

    Their properties are not for downhill and freestyle mountain biking and will not be in the future. Don't rag on the staff. They are following the enabling law and maybe even stretching it to let us on the trails.

    However, we may be able to build a technical trail in the Sierra Azul. The advantage there is that hikers and equestrians haven't used a trail that is new and may not rag on the district about us so much.

    There are some very childish comments in this tread. I expect more maturity.

    Jim

  15. #15
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,640

    More details please...

    Hard for me to develop an informed opinion; emotionally, from a MTBer perspective, given MROSD's track record, I would vote against it. Same emotions, from an environmental perspective, I'd vote for it---that $300M comes from a minuscule increase in property taxes.

    So this is from their FAQs:

    "If this passes, what will the public get out of it? How will the money be spent? The money will be spent on the priorities established by the recently-completed public visioning process, which has included input from more than 2,000 residents via online submissions, at public workshops and through telephone surveys. A detailed project list and spending plan has been developed that emphasizes those priorities, including projects to provide:

    More public access to the preserves,
    Purchase of and protection of more open space as land becomes available,
    Protection of redwood forests, watersheds, farmland and scenic spaces,
    Restoration of creeks, streams and water sources,
    Site improvements to reduce risk of wildland and forest fires"

    I'd really like to see the "detailed project list and spending plan"; just because they list "more public access to the preserves" first doesn't mean that's where they'll spend most of the monies.

    Come on Midpen, show us the list!
    The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not represent any policy of the CA Dept. of Parks & Rec.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by jmpreston View Post
    I like Midpen. They've opened a LOT of trails that didn't have to be opened to bikes. The original purpose of the preserves that the voters approved was for quiet enjoyment recreation. That could have blocked all mechanical access. The staff are under pressure from hikers and equestrians to block us. The staff has tried for some balance and I respect most of their choices.

    Their properties are not for downhill and freestyle mountain biking and will not be in the future. Don't rag on the staff. They are following the enabling law and maybe even stretching it to let us on the trails.

    However, we may be able to build a technical trail in the Sierra Azul. The advantage there is that hikers and equestrians haven't used a trail that is new and may not rag on the district about us so much.

    There are some very childish comments in this tread. I expect more maturity.

    Jim
    What goes up must come down so how do you single out downhilling as not being part of the game...and what the heck is freestyle mountain biking? You lost me there.

  17. #17
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    7,844
    Quote Originally Posted by jmpreston View Post
    I like Midpen. They've opened a LOT of trails that didn't have to be opened to bikes. The original purpose of the preserves that the voters approved was for quiet enjoyment recreation. That could have blocked all mechanical access. The staff are under pressure from hikers and equestrians to block us. The staff has tried for some balance and I respect most of their choices.

    Their properties are not for downhill and freestyle mountain biking and will not be in the future. Don't rag on the staff. They are following the enabling law and maybe even stretching it to let us on the trails.

    However, we may be able to build a technical trail in the Sierra Azul. The advantage there is that hikers and equestrians haven't used a trail that is new and may not rag on the district about us so much.

    There are some very childish comments in this tread. I expect more maturity.

    Jim
    Jim, you have to realize that you're most likely in the minority here liking Midpen. But then again, you take the view that any trail opened to bikes is gravy, whereas most of us look at any trail closed to bikes is evidence of discrimination. So, it's a matter of perspective.

    Personally, I think that if we had the votes, the best way to get what we want would be to campaign against the bond and defeat it. That way, Midpen would have no choice but to negotiate. That being said, I think that we don't have the numbers. Many people feel just like you, and are thankful for whatever trails they got and accept the inane limitations as normal.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,463
    I agree with Zorg, shut it down and be vocal about it.
    Worst that can happens its passed and mtbers will be ignored as always.
    Best thing, measure fails and part of it would attributed to the force Mid-pen would have to recon and negotiate with.
    Their mismanagement of money is just as bizzare as it gets. We complaining about misuse on gov level but giving free pass to smaller organizations where our feedback actually can be felt. (Try to be repub in CA in contrast, completely pointless).
    I used to run tubes like you are, but then I got thorn in my wheel.

  19. #19
    Junior flyer
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,462
    That's a lot of money to not have explicit details (look what happened in Marin).

    With their track record against mountain biking, I have to respectfully decline support. Why on earth would we give more money to an organization that obviously doesn't want us using their trails and routinely harasses us and severely limits our access?!



    (unless they put some trams in)
    Last edited by dirtvert; 03-10-2014 at 09:00 AM.
    Why?

    Because we like the taste of freedom; because we like the smell of danger. ~ E. Abbey

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: beaverbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,915
    If they signed up for specific projects with specific deadlines that the money was going to accomplish I think they'd have a better chance of getting support. But then again, if they stated they're going to spend $300mil over 10 years to open 2 miles of fireroads to hikers only would you support them?

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: squashyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,833
    Quote Originally Posted by jmpreston View Post
    I like Midpen. They've opened a LOT of trails that didn't have to be opened to bikes. The original purpose of the preserves that the voters approved was for quiet enjoyment recreation. That could have blocked all mechanical access. The staff are under pressure from hikers and equestrians to block us. The staff has tried for some balance and I respect most of their choices.

    Their properties are not for downhill and freestyle mountain biking and will not be in the future. Don't rag on the staff. They are following the enabling law and maybe even stretching it to let us on the trails.

    However, we may be able to build a technical trail in the Sierra Azul. The advantage there is that hikers and equestrians haven't used a trail that is new and may not rag on the district about us so much.

    There are some very childish comments in this tread. I expect more maturity.

    Jim
    I think mine was the only childish comment and I stand by it. Getting ticketed (twice) for doing 21 MPH without a sole around, being told that the next time I ride with ear phones I will get fined, and ALL KINDS of attitude and ego filled diatribes (too many to count), I feel it just that Midpen can spend a little time sucking a large bag of *****.
    Peanut butter Tuesday, if you know what I mean!

  22. #22
    just another bleepin SSer
    Reputation: singlespeed.org's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,340
    I am mixed about this. Yes, I agree that MROSD has not been the most bike-friendly Government organization. I was very involved with bike advocacy with MROSD back in the 90s as they went through the "renovations" of Skeggs/ECdM to bring it in to their inventory. We loved the way it was before, but they had a different vision. In the end they did give in some (Leaf trail, Blue Blossom, and the like would never be allowed as they are under their trail standards). Still was painful for those of us who got to bike there there before (when it was mostly old P.I.T.S. motocross trails).

    On the other hand, they are not the worst land managers in the areas. There are land managers that don't allow any bikes on dirt, including San Mateo County Parks and Recreation (love that the land manager charged with recreation in the county does not allow us to recreate the way we want), with lands adjoining many MROSD lands.
    --
    Getting old, fat, and slow...
    Business: www.calkayakermag.com
    Personal: www.singlespeed.org
    自転車が好きだよ

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zignzag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by jmpreston View Post

    However, we may be able to build a technical trail in the Sierra Azul. m
    20 years ago when I moved to the South Bay there was a fine technical downhill trail at Sierra Azul called Moody. But the authorities piled branches high at the few access points which made it impossible to get to.
    Tequila is a pallid flame that passes through walls and soars over tile roofs to allay despair. A. Mutis

  24. #24
    Let's ride SuperModerator
    Reputation: rensho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,648
    Midpen is being dishonest in the bond. The majority of the money will be spent on the $16M+/yr to keep the burgeoning staff paid, as well as the NEW trucks/motos/ATVs purchased.

    Like Rox said, don't give them a cent. There is no lack of access without MidPen there to CLOSE it to the public. At this rate, you would be damn lucky if your GRANDKIDS can access the lands they bought in 2000 era.

    The $300M would just go towards bike rider hatred and keeping dogs off limits, BUT will add 2000 more parking spaces for F550 diesel trucks with horse trailers.

  25. #25
    Let's ride SuperModerator
    Reputation: rensho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Zignzag View Post
    20 years ago when I moved to the South Bay there was a fine technical downhill trail at Sierra Azul called Moody. But the authorities piled branches high at the few access points which made it impossible to get to.
    I'm sure the master plan will include opening Moody again, but only to hikers and horses...

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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
  •