Reminder: Final EBRPD Bond Measure Meeting Today (5/1), Dublin. Please go- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Blanco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,332

    Listen! Reminder: Final EBRPD Bond Measure Meeting Today (5/1), Dublin. Please go

    Thursday, May 1, 7:00 8:30 pm. City Hall, Regional Meeting Room, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568

    The Fremont meeting was well-attended by bicyclists: we were the only group that had more than one person representing them, and there were perhaps 20 people there total, so you will make an impact!

    It's easy, even if you don't want to make a speech...just go and write "Bicycle access to trails" on the comment boards, and talk to the EBRPD people.

    Family recreation is a big thing with them, and lots of us are parents, so play that up if you've got kids. You can also mention that you're an environmentalist and want to support more open space and trails, but you can't support spending money on them when you're banned from ever seeing or using them! Plenty of possible angles...use your own. Just get out there and let them know equal bicycle access and better trails are a prerequisite for your vote.

    Sorry, no site update yet, but I've got a big one coming up.

  2. #2
    Feeling a little taller
    Reputation: Dan'ger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,701
    If you want to go but don't know what to say, PM me for speaking notes. I'd go myself but I'm out of town.
    There are no stupid questions but there are A LOT of inquisitive idiots.


    Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay

  3. #3
    my body breaks the falls
    Reputation: twindaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,435
    I even dressed my kids in Santa Cruz bikes and MTBR t-shirts last week and brought them with me.

    I told Ms. Wieskamp that our family would love to spend more time enjoying our local parks (and thus keeping the associated tax dollars in the county), but my kids prefer biking on trails and not roads. She, as with other input we gave, blew it off as inconsequential. Ms. Wieskamp also seemed to mistake our access request as being one of new/exclusive trails when, in fact, equal access to existing trails would be adequate and eliminates many barriers.

    My advice is to strike a balance - there is no good to be gained by being confrontational, but we need to get the point across. Both John and Ted did a wonderful job of that at the Fremont meeting.

    I was impressed with the amount of marketing the EBRPD has done with the proposal. There are very compelling verbs all over the place - acquire, improve, expand, protect, enhance, develop, etc - yet none of these are followed with "bike access" or "bikers." There are, however, specific details about hikers and equestrians. Hmmm.
    $500 million for more irresponsible EBRPD land management? No thanks.
    www.noonmeasureww.org

  4. #4
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,593
    Did anybody go?
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    233
    I went to the meeting last night. I was impressed with the whole show. I voiced my opinion regarding equal access during the open discussion session. I talked to the General Manager, Trails Manager, and Severin. I asked each two questions. They were:

    1. "If the bond doesn't pass, which proposed land purchases, if any, are immediately threatened by development" The GM and Severin made it sound like it's a big problem without being specific. The trails manager was very detailed in his response and there are many projects out there with various levels of threat. The Concord Naval Station was the most threatened. What was interesting is the bigger concern is the longer we wait to acquire land, the harder it is to purchased it because of the subdividing going on. By that he means no longer are we seeing 1,000+ acre ranch land that can just be bought. These lands are being subdivided into 5-10-20 acre parcels. The area that is most threatened by this latest trend is the area between Garin and Pleasanton Ridge. EBRPD would like to eventually link the two parks together. It is getting harder and harder.

    2. "If the bond doesn't pass, would the measure keep coming back year after year". Everyone stated no. The conscensus was if this doesn't pass, the soonest they could/would get another bond measure on the ballot would be 4 years.

    I chose these questions because in the arguments against the measure is that the land will still be there and the measure will keep coming back year after year. Those assumptions seem to be a bit off.

    The measure is still in draft form and they are soliciting imput from the public regarding what they would like to see. They then write these ideas down. Last night there were a lot of good ideas. Most of the ideas were specific action items that would be added to the measure. The draft measure has action items, such as, "build regional trail from here to there", or "Buy this land or that land", and "Upgrade facilities at these parks". We should come up with action items that specifically state what we want. "Statements like "MTBers are treated unfairly" or "equal access to trails" is not an item that would likely be found on a bond measure put forth to the voters. An example would be "Remove all no mountain bike signs on trail posts" or "Convert X, Y & Z trail to all use". Bond measures state exactly what the money will be used for and voters expect that.

    This is my take on the meeting last night. What did other members come away with?

    I know this is long winded so I will log off.
    Anybody can ski the groomed

  6. #6

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    49
    I also went to the meeting last night. All in all, I thought it went well. I spoke during the open discussion session on access to narrow-gauge trails for mountain bikers. I guess I made a good impression, because Ann Wieskamp came up to me after the meeting and told me that she wouldn't mind sharing the trails "with bikers like you." Also, the gal sitting behind me was muttering something about how multi-use trails were a good idea until you "actually had to share the trail with bikes"; afterwards, she told me, "Good speech." (I could not detect any irony or sarcasm in her tone.)

    And Jim Townsend, the Trails Development Program Manager, told me to contact him about going out on a mountain bike ride to survey that section of Redtail Trail in Chabot where it washed out a few years back; he seemed hopeful that we could do a project to reroute it. I promised him that I wouldn't punish him the way that Ted and Glenn did on one of their rides.

  7. #7
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,593
    Quote Originally Posted by cmon4day
    I went to the meeting last night. I was impressed with the whole show. I voiced my opinion regarding equal access during the open discussion session. I talked to the General Manager, Trails Manager, and Severin. I asked each two questions. They were:

    1. "If the bond doesn't pass, which proposed land purchases, if any, are immediately threatened by development" The GM and Severin made it sound like it's a big problem without being specific. The trails manager was very detailed in his response and there are many projects out there with various levels of threat. The Concord Naval Station was the most threatened. What was interesting is the bigger concern is the longer we wait to acquire land, the harder it is to purchased it because of the subdividing going on. By that he means no longer are we seeing 1,000+ acre ranch land that can just be bought. These lands are being subdivided into 5-10-20 acre parcels. The area that is most threatened by this latest trend is the area between Garin and Pleasanton Ridge. EBRPD would like to eventually link the two parks together. It is getting harder and harder.

    2. "If the bond doesn't pass, would the measure keep coming back year after year". Everyone stated no. The conscensus was if this doesn't pass, the soonest they could/would get another bond measure on the ballot would be 4 years.

    I chose these questions because in the arguments against the measure is that the land will still be there and the measure will keep coming back year after year. Those assumptions seem to be a bit off.

    The measure is still in draft form and they are soliciting imput from the public regarding what they would like to see. They then write these ideas down. Last night there were a lot of good ideas. Most of the ideas were specific action items that would be added to the measure. The draft measure has action items, such as, "build regional trail from here to there", or "Buy this land or that land", and "Upgrade facilities at these parks". We should come up with action items that specifically state what we want. "Statements like "MTBers are treated unfairly" or "equal access to trails" is not an item that would likely be found on a bond measure put forth to the voters. An example would be "Remove all no mountain bike signs on trail posts" or "Convert X, Y & Z trail to all use". Bond measures state exactly what the money will be used for and voters expect that.

    This is my take on the meeting last night. What did other members come away with?

    I know this is long winded so I will log off.
    1) There is a world of difference between putting stuff on a white board, and actually seeing any meaningful difference in the real world, although that's what we all did. Real world example. We went to the Vargas plateau meetings, wrote down on the board that we wanted access to single track at the new park. Result? Bikes will have access to all new "single track" trail that will be 6' wide while hikers/equestrians will have access to a real narrow trail (all in the LUP). Since I believe that past history is the best indicator of
    future performance, I don't believe that the board will listen to our voice just because the staff took notes down.

    2) If it takes a bond measure selling meeting for the district to discover that MTBers want better access to the trails, then our board is sadly out of touch with reality

    3) Why would it take another 4 years to put a measure on the ballot? That sounds like BS to me.

    4) If lots get subdivided, and the opportunity to buy them disappears, then it behooves the board to take care of all its stakeholders, and not just the favorite few, and make sure that MTBers access issue is taken care of so that the bond does not fail in November.

    It seems that the district using reverse psychology here. Let's not forget who's the one with the hand out for more money. If the board wants our tax dollars, then they should work for it, not the other way around.

    Glad to see that people went out and talked about our issues. It's important.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  8. #8
    Blanco
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,332
    Keep in mind that the EBRPD has $500 million at stake...of course they're going to tell you that the world will end if they don't get the money!

    This is not true.

    First, the housing market is declining. In 2001, ranchland was being developed as fast as the developers could ram it past the city council. Now, Bay Area home prices are off 17.2% YOY, that trend shows no sign of reversing, and it's worse in the outlying areas where there are still open ranches to develop. Also, new homes have the highest vacancy rate:
    http://www.mercurynews.com/nationwor...nclick_check=1

    Second, the EBRPD can put bond measures on the ballot as often as they want. They might have trouble *passing* one if it was just defeated the previous year and nothing else has changed, but there's nothing stopping them from trying again.

    If I worked there and was trying to sell the measure, I'd probably say the same things...but they're not true.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by El Caballo
    Keep in mind that the EBRPD has $500 million at stake...of course they're going to tell you that the world will end if they don't get the money!

    This is not true.

    First, the housing market is declining. In 2001, ranchland was being developed as fast as the developers could ram it past the city council. Now, Bay Area home prices are off 17.2% YOY, that trend shows no sign of reversing, and it's worse in the outlying areas where there are still open ranches to develop. Also, new homes have the highest vacancy rate:
    http://www.mercurynews.com/nationwor...nclick_check=1

    Second, the EBRPD can put bond measures on the ballot as often as they want. They might have trouble *passing* one if it was just defeated the previous year and nothing else has changed, but there's nothing stopping them from trying again.

    If I worked there and was trying to sell the measure, I'd probably say the same things...but they're not true.
    You seem to be an expert in this, however, I disagree. I think you are making the wrong assumption. Going back year after year asking the public for money is not wise. I don't see other bond measures that have failed in the past keep coming back year after year?? If it was that easy, I would see same things over again. Four years seems a reasonable amout of time before an agency would try again. When asking for money from the public, agencies do polling, and if the polling is favorable then they proceed. I'm sure it's not cheap to do all research, polling, advertising, etc.

    Now don't get me wrong, I do support equal access to all trails, and I made that point known at the meeting the other night, I think your argument isn't so ironclad as you state.
    Anybody can ski the groomed

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.