PV: The axe is falling.....

[DDB@OCR]

The fun Zone is a great idea.
It'll give the Bigger bikes a place to stretch thier legs and practice skills w/o conflict or intervention from Trail Nazis and the like. I'm stoked about this and if it comes to be nothing but good will come from it.
And if done corerctly, and planned for, the City could even charge a small entry fee (self-pay box thingy) to maintain the area, cover liability insurance etc.... and parking.

Speaking of- Has anyone thought about the parking situation there, i.e.- as there is currently no parking on PV Dr. W.

[drclark]

I believe that there will be parking directly across from the funzone area as part of the "active recreation" area that will eventually serve as the primary gateway to the area when it is constructed. Also, there is parking at Abalone Cove with a short hike/ride to the area.

The area's proximity to the nekkid beach may be seen as a benefit to some. Just need to make sure we invite some mtb hotties for a swim after a long hot summer's day ride.

Reading that Daily Breeze editorial just made my day. That is exactly the "general public" sentiment that I have been trying to convey to the PUMP committee. Will it be enough to sway the moderate members of the PUMP committee? Probably not, however, it could have significant effect on the city council and public hearing. Maybe its time to invite a Daily Breeze reporter to the next PUMP meeting so they can see the close-mindedness of certain committee members firsthand!


drc

[Sharky]

The next PUMP meeting is Wed. January 16th. I'm VERY excited about the paper editorial thanks for making my day...my year!!
Let's also hope people see the obvious benefits of the play area. Maybe some can finally get over these self serving steriotypes of bikers I've seen to often used at the PUMP meetings. (Thanks for your post Chris...well said)

[roach]

Originally Posted by Flat Broke

If you're going to try and be a sarcastic POS, at least have an understanding about the very things you intend to mock.

The PUMP Committee has no domain over the proposed area as it falls outside of the preserve.

A. help get the people you seem to loathe involved in the process in a constructive manner, and B. lure some of those people and traffic off of the now reduced trails at Canyons ER/Del Cerro. I don't see any negatives there, except for the need for some hard work on behalf of those that would volunteer to assist in trail building.

If you were bored and trolling, congrats, you just landed your first catch.
If you genuinely believe the things you say, that's your own business, but do all mountain bikers (lycra clad weight weenies and gravity goons alike) a favor and stop spreading the very stereotypes that have helped perpetuate the myth that we are the reason there are problems at Del Cerro.

Chris

Good eye catching the sarcasim.
A) I have an understanding of what's going on. I know this hypothetical playpen is outside the PUMP's domain, but it is still important to have the PUMP's blessing about this idea since they have been given the responsibility to parcel out user groups for almost all the real trails above the gay beach.

2) I realize most of the people on this board either feel sorry for freeriders or consider freeriding a legitimate form of recreation. I don't, I guess that makes me a POS.

3) Sorry I don't know what trolling is (I only started typing on this forum after I learned riders were actually serious about a free ride park at the gay beach), but I do legitimately care about this area as it is still the best riding area in South LA.

Freeriding is the reason we have problems at Del Cerro.

Everybody here seems really positive about this idea but here is a short list of concerns (pt. 8 is the most important).

1 Parking.
2 Who's gonna pay for construction of "ladders and drops"?
3 who will approve their structural integrity? Who will maintain?
4 Who is going to judge which stunt/drop is too high/big or not big enough?
5 Liability? The city will be ultimately liable, and we're supposed to convince the city council that a bunch of kids building stunts are responsible and there won't be any degradation of the environment?
6 the area is very small, but I guess that's not a big deal, since no real riders are expected to visit this area.
7 No habitat there?? the area looks just like all the area in the "nature preserve".
8 Plenty of bike haters could use this proposed area as an excuse to close even more legitimate trails at Del Cerro. (it's not hard to picture Eva scowling and stating "you don't need to ride trails, just go to the MTB area by the beach").

I'm sorry for being a POS. I'm sure many of the positive thinkers out there just want to pursue this idea to lock up as many of these brainless freeriders as possible and will see the above short list as "no big deal".

BTW, a previous post mentioned other successful free-ride parks (Seattle, Fresno, and New York). I hope people check em out. The one in Seattle is probably the funniest thing I've ever seen (it's under a freeway).

[DDB@OCR]

Guys-

Try and say on topic here.....the gist of this topic is Info regarding the Canyon Lands Preserve, support for/updates from PUMP meetings etc... stuff along those lines.

FR aint the only reason trails are being lost. Let's not do the 'big-bike-vs.-little-bike' thingy here. Most bike haters don't know a 5" bike from a HT. I ride the same trails the big bikes do on my SS rigid.

Use to PM button for Flame Fests- 'others' are watching this board, most likely.

Mkay?

Thanks.

-kevin.

[drclark]

8 Plenty of bike haters could use this proposed area as an excuse to close even more legitimate trails at Del Cerro. (it's not hard to picture Eva scowling and stating "you don't need to ride trails, just go to the MTB area by the beach").

Just to address this point, equestrians already have over 50mi of horse-exclusive trails throughout the penninsula. Yet, this is not being used as an excuse to restrict horses from any trails within the preserve. The whole point of the funzone is to provide an outlet for the style of riding that is perceived as incompatible with a nature preserve so that more trails can be open to multi use.

You are correct in that the strategy may backfire, but even if you were to instantly remove all free-riders from existance, the haters would still be trying to ban us from the trails.

drc

[kanga]

Originally Posted by drclark

Just to address this point, equestrians already have over 50mi of horse-exclusive trails throughout the penninsula. Yet, this is not being used as an excuse to restrict horses from any trails within the preserve.

I wonder if there exists somewhere a statistic on the number of equestrians who use those trails, vs. the number of hikers, number of riders. If there are already 50 miles of Equestrian only trails, and my suspicion would be that there are far fewer equestrians than mountain bikers, this is a disproportionate allocation of resources, that are publicly funded. I'm not entirely familiar with the politics of the area, but I understand that dollar for dollar, equestrians tend to have more monetary clout than mountain bikers, and money = power. It all leads to inequity....

Originally Posted by drclark

The whole point of the funzone is to provide an outlet for the style of riding that is perceived as incompatible with a nature preserve so that more trails can be open to multi use.

This is key! Our arguments in glendale were as much to educate riders who are naturally attracted to DH and Freeride styles of riding, as well as giving them a specific outlet. This should help "contain the problem" so to speak, the problem being the few whose appearance and behaviour on the trails are making it hard for the many.

[Flat Broke]

Originally Posted by kanga

I wonder if there exists somewhere a statistic on the number of equestrians who use those trails, vs. the number of hikers, number of riders. If there are already 50 miles of Equestrian only trails, and my suspicion would be that there are far fewer equestrians than mountain bikers, this is a disproportionate allocation of resources, that are publicly funded. I'm not entirely familiar with the politics of the area, but I understand that dollar for dollar, equestrians tend to have more monetary clout than mountain bikers, and money = power. It all leads to inequity....

Kanga,

There is actually some (a very limited sample) data like what you are asking. The PVPLC did two user surveys. One at Forrestal and the other at Canyons/Del Cerro. Both quantified the number of users from each group on the day of the survey. As you might have guessed, Equestrians were the extreme minority. IMHO, these studies should be repeated on at least a monthy basis for the Conservancy to have a more accurate picture of who is using the area and how management policies should address the needs of ALL user groups. If you want a copy of the surveys just shoot me an email.

If the sentiment reflected in the recent articles in the Daily Breeze is an accurate composite of all trail users for the area, it's clear a large majority support multiuse trails. Hopefully the City Council's public workshop on 2/23 will draw out this same demographic to give their input. Obiviously if the PUMP was doing their job correctly, their final recommendation to the City Council would mirror that of the general public. But even if it doesn't, the City Council will hear the opinion of the public. That's why it's important for us to not only continue to attend the PUMP committee meetings to give them the input they so desparately need (but tend to ignore) but also to make a strong showing at the 2/23 workshop as it will be a last stand of sorts since it is likely the last time the City Council will formally accept public input on the issue. Even if you feel that you wouldn't get up and speak, your attendance is valuable from two standpoints. First it shows the City Council how many people care about that issue, and second the time you would have been aloted to speak can be yielded to those within our community that will be making presentations in excess of the 3 minute time limit. It will more than likely be an all day affair, but maybe we can treat it like any other group ride, and come out, do something productive, and have a good time.

Chris

[Flat Broke]

Originally Posted by roach

Good eye catching the sarcasim.
A) I have an understanding of what's going on. I know this hypothetical playpen is outside the PUMP's domain, but it is still important to have the PUMP's blessing about this idea since they have been given the responsibility to parcel out user groups for almost all the real trails above the gay beach.

2) I realize most of the people on this board either feel sorry for freeriders or consider freeriding a legitimate form of recreation. I don't, I think of them like a rapidly spreading cancer, I guess that makes me a POS.

3) Sorry I don't know what trolling is (I only started typing on this forum after I learned riders were actually serious about a free ride park at the gay beach), but I do legitimately care about this area as it is still the best riding area in South LA.

Freeriding is the reason we have problems at Del Cerro.

Everybody here seems really positive about this idea but here is a short list of concerns (pt. 8 is the most important).

1 Parking.
2 Who's gonna pay for construction of "ladders and drops"?
3 who will approve their structural integrity? Who will maintain?
4 Who is going to judge which stunt/drop is too high/big or not big enough?
5 Liability? The city will be ultimately liable, and we're supposed to convince the city council that a bunch of kids building stunts are responsible and there won't be any degradation of the environment?
6 the area is very small, but I guess that's not a big deal, since no real riders are expected to visit this area.
7 No habitat there?? the area looks just like all the area in the "nature preserve".
8 Plenty of bike haters could use this proposed area as an excuse to close even more legitimate trails at Del Cerro. (it's not hard to picture Eva scowling and stating "you don't need to ride trails, just go to the MTB area by the beach").

I'm sorry for being a POS. I'm sure many of the positive thinkers out there just want to pursue this idea to lock up as many of these brainless freeriders as possible and will see the above short list as "no big deal".

BTW, a previous post mentioned other successful free-ride parks (Seattle, Fresno, and New York). I hope people check em out. The one in Seattle is probably the funniest thing I've ever seen (it's under a freeway).

Thanks for posting a more direct statement for discussion. I apologize for the POS statement. You have your right to dislike freeriders if that is your actual feeling and not another statement veiled in sarcasm. Unfortunately message boards don't convey sarcasm readily, and especially so when we have little in the form of previous posts to reference. So again, I apologize for the POS statement and welcome your discussion as you bring up some good points.

We can argue until the end of days as to whether or not Freeriders are the singular reason cyclists are having problems in PV. So it's probably best just to agree to disagree on that point.

With regard to many of the questions you raise about the area, the only firm answer I can offer is, "I don't know". I'm not the City Council or a CORBA PV representative. All I can offer is my speculation and offers for assistance. I think there is an unspoken assumption that the future users of the area and other cyclists will assist with the actual labor and design of the area. I know of at least 10 people including myself who are ready to diligently go to work on this area once the green light is given. So I guess that is a decent start to the manpower pool.

I know that CORBA and CORBA PV have the insight of accomplished and respected trail builders at their disposal so I think that the issue of design might be centralized around those people.

As far as funding for lumber and equipment, again I have no solid answer for you. I can see ways to legally procure materials outside of the RPV budget, so while it's an issue to consider, I don't view it as a point of failure for the project.

With regard to maintenance, again I'm not a representative for any of the cyclist organizations, but I know the same individuals who are committed to help build, are equally committed to help maintain the area. There have been side discussions about ways to help the area fund itself. Everything from non-obligatory self pay boxes like those in other areas, to annual passes, etc.

The one thing I think needs to be conveyed is that from the people I have spoken with, no one expects this to be an area where you can build what you want where you want. There would be a formal design, and then one would assume that the group responsible for maintenance would more than likely hold periodic meetings to discuss future trail/feature repairs, enhancements or modifications.

The relatively small size is unfortunate but with it comes some positive attributes. Less land equates to an area that is easier to traverse, monitor, and maintain. It takes far fewer people to do trail maintenance on 6 acres than it does on 600.

Doug has already addressed your concern about the area being used as justification for removing all bikers from Canyons ER, so there isn't much to add to that concern. I don't know if you attend the PUMP meetings, but if you do, then you have heard some of our community's biggest opponents in PV publicly state that they don't have an issue with XC oriented riders in the preserve. They could be saying that to placate those of us at the meetings, but for now I have to take those statements at face value. If what they are saying is true, I would think creating an outlet to accommodate the freeriders would be something you'd favor.

Your question about the habitat is a good one. In all honesty, I'd love for those of us who volunteer in the area (should it come to fruition) to use it as a model in defense of biking in sensitive habitat. I'm sure that a measurable amount of the vegetation we see in that area is non-native. After the trails are built, I would happily spend time removing non-native vegetation if the Conservancy wanted to step up and provide native stock to be planted in its place and expert guidance to ensure that we are re-vegetating in a manner that will afford the greatest opportunity for a positive outcome. Ultimately we could have an area loved and cared for by bikers that shows how we can positively influence an area. Again, the area's small size makes a task like this far more feasible.

I know a lot of this sounds like "pie in the sky", and without any formal blessing from the City Council, it is. But I'm not alone in my views of the area, and I strongly feel that if you give freeriders and other mountain bikers who may like to occasionally dabble in that type of riding an area to care about, the results will represent the entire MTB community in a very positive light. There is talk of MTB clubs in the local high schools. Some of these teens have already volunteered time doing trail and habitat work in areas they haven't even ridden. So there is definite hope that the youth can be engaged to interact with this environment in a positive and productive manner.

I appreciate your concerns because we're sure to hear similar questions from others, and being able to foresee possible issues is invaluable in being able to present a complete picture when requesting something of this magnitude.

Chris

[kanga]

I'm up in Mammoth at the moment, but I'm gonna try to head back tonight and make it to a ride and meeting with the Corba PV down at Del Cerro. I hear we'll be riding the area (will be my first time), as well as checking out the potential bike park area. Since we've been through the process with Glendale (or I should say, are going through the process), it's good to see that we're not alone in our struggles....

[Evel Knievel]

Originally Posted by Flat Broke

Thanks for posting a more direct statement for discussion.



Your question about the habitat is a good one. In all honesty, I'd love for those of us who volunteer in the area (should it come to fruition) to use it as a model in defense of biking in sensitive habitat. I'm sure that a measurable amount of the vegetation we see in that area is non-native. After the trails are built, I would happily spend time removing non-native vegetation if the Conservancy wanted to step up and provide native stock to be planted in its place and expert guidance to ensure that we are re-vegetating in a manner that will afford the greatest opportunity for a positive outcome. Ultimately we could have an area loved and cared for by bikers that shows how we can positively influence an area. Again, the area's small size makes a task like this far more feasible.



Chris

Hahahah you are going to get rid of the mustard grass, yeah right.

[El Presidente]

Originally Posted by Flat Broke

If you're going to try and be a sarcastic POS, at least have an understanding about the very things you intend to mock.

The PUMP Committee has no domain over the proposed area as it falls outside of the preserve. While it would be nice to have their final recommendation to the City Council include support for the idea of a dedicated area for a style of riding that may not be 100% consistent with the PVPLC's implementation of mountain biking in the preserve; it's not a prerequisite for success. The orriginal idea was that it would A. help get the people you seem to loathe involved in the process in a constructive manner, and B. lure some of those people and traffic off of the now reduced trails at Canyons ER/Del Cerro. I don't see any negatives there, except for the need for some hard work on behalf of those that would volunteer to assist in trail building.

If you were bored and trolling, congrats, you just landed your first catch. If you genuinely believe the things you say, that's your own business, but do all mountain bikers (lycra clad weight weenies and gravity goons alike) a favor and stop spreading the very stereotypes that have helped perpetuate the myth that we are the reason there are problems at Del Cerro.

You seem to have some strong opinions. Perhaps it would be in your best interests to show up at the next PUMP meeting as well as the public workshop on 2/23 to ensure that your opinions are heard by those that make the decisions, or make recommendations to those who do.

Chris

Very good response!

The fact is most people in So Cal have not had the opportunity to do this type of riding so they don't really get it!

[jonkranked]

so are the trails still open? I just got back from an extended stay on the east coast and need some riding!

[Flat Broke]

Originally Posted by jonkranked

so are the trails still open? I just got back from an extended stay on the east coast and need some riding!

As far as I know, the Conservancy hasn't posted any closures yet. Get out there and get it while you can.

Chris

[chevyblazer5150]

Originally Posted by roach

BTW, a previous post mentioned other successful free-ride parks (Seattle, Fresno, and New York). I hope people check em out. The one in Seattle is probably the funniest thing I've ever seen (it's under a freeway).

columnaid in seattle is one of the greatest places ever concieved!!! It drove away the homeless who had set a makeshift city under there. It gives the seattle guys a place to ride in the rain (you know how much it rains) and with all the skateparks getting city approval it was a great transition to see the bikes get a skillz park. I can't make the next meeting due to work, but someone should print these pictures
http://www.observedtrials.net/vb/showthread.php?t=33091
and bring them to the meeting.

My only other concern is if we get this land, being shot by a stray arrow from the archery club. They get their area, wheres ours?

[Sharky]

Isn't the next PUMP meeting this Wednesday? If so will be there. Any word if the trails were closed by the Conservancy yet?