Bay Nature has a quick list of the major outdoors-related votes on today’s ballot. The Greenbelt Alliance thoughtfully instructs us on how to vote.
The biggest vote is for Measure WW, which will allow the East Bay Regional Park District to issue $500 million in bonds to upgrade current parks, buy land for new ones and protect/restore sensitive terrain. I’d vote for it if I lived in Alameda or Contra Costa counties, though I recognize many mountain bikers are urging its defeat to avenge the park district’s not-so-veiled contempt for mountain biking. I doubt there are enough MTB’ers to carry the day on this one, and I disagree about opposing good measures for the outdoors mostly out of spite, but I do sympathize with the MTB crowd’s main point: The East Bay Parks, for all their hundreds of miles of trails for hikers and equestrians, have done next to nothing for mountain bikes.
“Let ’em ride somewhere else” is not much of a mountain bike policy, and it just makes for more crowded parks everywhere else.
It’s probably a little late now, but you forgot the Sierra Club. This link will allow you do download a PDF file.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/vote-canada/2008/voters-guide-climate-crisis-election.pdf.
Opps. That’s the wrong one. Sorry!
http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/chapter/political/Fremont%20Voter%20Guide.pdf
Most bicycle clubs are advocating its passage, fortunately. The newest trails being built (the new Brushy Peak Trail, for instance) are being gauged narrower but large enough to be inclusive to hikers, MTBers and equestrians. It’s a good model for future trails that aren’t composed of existing fire or ranch roads.
Most of the “no on WW” crowd is hard to pin down – the website is anonymous, they use flat out untruths to try to sell their case and were soliciting funds to support their side even though they aren’t registered to do so.
It needs a 2/3 majority to pass – which is a tall order in these times. Got my fingers crossed!
Bob: thanks for the context. I think it probably will pass since it involves no new taxes, and because people identify with the hills – the scenic splendor is why we put up with the traffic and absurd housing costs.
I see plenty of bicycle trails in Tilden, Redwood, etc. The main no bike trail is the Skyline trail, and it is just too narrow where I am to safely allow bikes. I do encounter them sometimes – and it’s always “We didn’t know it was closed to bikes” even though it is posted at both ends. Being on foot I can get out of the way, but for horseback riders it is a serious situation.
Do MTBers want something like an ATV park? Seems like the park district could find an eroded wasteland somewhere to accomodate this.
Ralph: what I always hear is bikers craving “single-track,” probably primarily because it’s so often off limits and they want that forbidden fruit (human nature, really).
I see guys on bikes taking on gnarly single-track terrain (“technical” is the term for it) and always find myself wondering “wouldn’t be easier to walk?” but the difficulty is the whole point.
I don’t think they want ATV parks, or they’d be riding ATVs. They want the same trails the rest of us get to use.
There’s a tyranny of the majority issue: there are far more hikers than bikers, and while there are not that many people who ride horses, many who do have lots o’ money and political influence. That puts mountain bikers third in line.
I’d suggest the greatest conflict is not between hikers and bikers; it’s between bikers and equestrians, because a fast-moving bike has much more potential to spook a horse and get its rider killed or maimed … but then again, down at Henry Coe bikers and equestrians share many of the same trails without incident.
Tom & Ralph, one of the most ironic things I’ve read is a “rate the EBRPD” comment document from one of the largest local MTB organizations. It’s almost 50 / 50 between those who want access to single track trails and those who feel many of the District’s trails are too steep or rocky! Like hikers, MTB riders are all individuals.
Ralph, I’ve had some one – on – ones with bikes on the Skyline Trail, too. As long as there’s a few inches to pass we’re all OK. And I’ve yet to meet a real jerk on a bike out there, contrary to a lot of hiker’s opinions. I’m sure they exist, but….
Tom, as a mountain biker (And former equestrian, for many, many reasons) I agree with your last comments.
Most mountain bikers are also hikers and choose the occasional ride for the thrill and the difficulty. Just like climbers: sure, you could go around that boulder but climbing it IS the fun part. (Silly hikers, why don’t you drive? Or better: watch it all on Discovery Channel?)
No, the issue isn’t hikers vs bikers, it is with the equestrians. Their hooves destroy the trails, cause erosion, leave their unmentionables behind, attract predators, I could go on… In comparison, dog owners leave nothing behind, mountain bikes do not damage the trails, and of course hikers are the most perfect users.* But dogs and mountain bikes are allowed on a tiny fraction of the trails that horses are allowed on. Why? That is the question that steams me every time, whether I’m biking, hiking or walking my dog.
Personally, I’m VERY happy that WW passed because I use enjoy all the parks no matter my mode of transport . I hope that someday the money and influence wielded by the equestrian super-minority will wither and the health of the outdoors will be allowed to speak…
*(So you caught the sarcasm: yes, all these groups are guilty of occasional infractions)
This is the second of two messages 4wheelbob has posted on the No on Measure WW campaign whose tone I find regrettable.
4wheelbob writes: “the website is anonymous, they use flat out untruths to try to sell their case and were soliciting funds to support their side even though they aren’t registered to do so.” With regard to each assertion, he’s either wrong or technically right but in irrelevant ways.
Taking his complaints in reverse order . . . .
The No on Measure WW campaign raised $150 from two contributors and wasn’t required to register until it reached $1000. Even then, I had no objection to registering, but it required filling out and filing numerous forms with various agencies. It wasn’t worth it for $150 just to satisfy the doubting Thomases like 4wheelbob, who seem to sense some sort of grand and well-funded conspiracy against Measure WW, rather than the three individual mountain bikers who in fact ran the campaign.
Like others, 4wheelbob says our website was laden with “flat-out untruths” (I’m adding the required hyphen) but fails to identify a single one. We heard that from many people: our website was misleading or inaccurate. But no one identified a single material inaccuracy. Nor does 4wheelbob on his post.
Finally, 4wheelbob complains that we principals in the No on Measure WW campaign maintained what he sees as undue anonymity. I would note that we were the cover story in the East Bay Express of October 29, 2008. See this link: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/fighting_for_their_right_to_bike/Content?oid=855053. We’re proud to identify ourselves and everyone knew who we are (except, I guess, 4wheelbob), but we didn’t bother to do so on the No on Measure WW website because our biographies were beside the point in that forum. Take a look at any number of websites supporting or opposing ballot measures and you’ll find the same approach.
Bikers enjoy single track for the same reasons as other users: it’s a more intimate experience with nature and simply way more fun. As for the technical trails, one would be surprised the kind of trails one can bike on. It’s all about having fun at the end of the day. That being said, I’m not sure that I’ll ever see a fun interesting technical legal trail to ride on in the EBRPD. Fortunately, there are more legal fun trails to ride on in the south bay.