Feb 6th Santiago Oaks Meeting:Please Attend

[maxwell]

"I can pretty much guarantee that land managers getting letters like some of the above are not going to take them seriously especially if they start casting disparaging remarks on someone like Roger Bell who was literally building trails in some of the most remote areas of California before many here were born."

Probably why he is out of touch with what is wanted by current park user's.

How come they don't get a second opinion by an IMBA based group?

[JamR]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

Seems to me that a company should have been brought in to do the assessment that wouldn't have had nothing to gain from the proposal.

I know that the report cost thousands to even have done in the first place...Santiago Oaks wasn't being looked at for trail erosion or trail closures but because of the fire the park has gained attention...and then Historic trails that were there long before the Barham Ranch area was aquired by Santiago Oaks (which was aquired "as is" in documentation) have been under fire. These trails have never had proper care and maybe with some proper care and water bars, stabilizer bars, etc. they could be deemed safe instead of simply closing them.

We were told time and time again at the meetings that if a trail was taken away that another would be given.....that is where I am having an issue.

If I lose credibility in the biking community or the horsey community because I am speaking my mind on a message board then so be it.....I am "emotional" about the park I ride in daily and I am "emotional" about my horse trails and riding trails being changed because someone else feels I can't ride them safely...

I have a right to voice my opinions to the supervisors...they have been listening to me now for months....I have a right to voice my opinions and that is what I plan on doing at the meeting.

My opinions and "emotions" in the past got the contaminated dirt removed from Santiago Oaks and stopped new trails from being built for the "mule". All of which the supervisors were unaware of until someone brought it to their attention.

My opinions and "emotions" will continue....

There is a difference between emotions and disrespect. Your comment was disrespectful and unfruitful.

It's just a first proposal and can be commented on.

Hiring an unbiased professional is the responsible thing to do, and now you have a basis with which to comment and work on.

Emotions on this post have already bashed a professional contractor, and accused a supervisor of being paid-off.

Explain the benefits of this?

A lot of trails have been added to the southern areas and trails of technical nature without personal bashing or accusations of supervisors being paid-off.

Your emotions are justified, but how you act on them as the leader of the bike community and a representitive of a well-respected bike advocacy group is just as important.

People can be angry, but don't make false accusations against a professional trail builder or a supervisor. (You did not make the supervisor comment, but clearly everyones anger is over-taking their better sense right now.

[JamR]

Originally Posted by bighit8

Jamr
I don't think he directly accused anybody of being paid off.From you're previous post it seems you may have a hand ( related to money) in this whole thing. I maybe wrong, so I will put my foot in my mouth before you ask me to.These are sensitive issues, so to reprimand people for comments is not really, well........

Sorry...but the first line in his post was that he fired off a letter to the paid-off supervisor.

How else will that be construed at the supervisors office except as an accusation of being paid-off.

Reprimands for irresponsible comments IMO are justified.

Now it appears you are accusing me of having a monetary hand in this which is completely false. Can you see how this type of anger get's out of hand?

[bighit8]

I understand, that is why I said insert foot in mouth.I understand you're point, but it seems big Money always wins in these situations. I apologize for saying you are someway involved in the whole thing.

[ODB]

Roger Bell oversaw the construction of the new section of Goat/Waterfall. I don't want to see any more of his handiwork in Santiago Oaks ... or any other park, for that matter.

[KeepsWhatHappens]

Originally Posted by JamR

John,

I think you know that these posts are viewed by everyone including people at the Supervisor's office.

So effectively in a very short period you basically accused a Supervisor of being paid-off; discredited a reputable and respected trail-builder, and aggressively informed the county that you are not going to allow them to make decisions over land that they are responsible for.

How does this letter help?

Where are the constructive suggestions for someone to review and ponder.

Frankly, if I was a supervisor who was just accused by you of being paid-off, I would clearly not give your letter a second thought.
Everyone needs to calm down here.

Adam, I respectfully disagree...

I really doubt the supervisor or his staff monitors this form but I surely hope they do!

I honestly believe the supervisor and his peers are paid off if not in this situation in many others, so that is my valid opinion.

I also believe the trail builder that might win a contract should not have been the one doing the trail assessment. It should have been done by an independent third-party. This is only common sense.

If my letter came off as aggressive then I am sorry, but I am emotional about these issues. Without emotions it seems these days our voices are not heard.

KeepsWhatHappens

[JamR]

Originally Posted by bighit8

I understand, that is why I said insert foot in mouth.I understand you're point, but it seems big Money always wins in these situations. I apologize for saying you are someway involved in the whole thing.

Accepted!

But can you see how unabated emotion and anger can go the wrong way and actually damage positive efforts?

My point is that this is just the beginning and people need to bring actual constuctive suggestions to the table and bring suggestions for technical trails.....not personal attacks.

Big money does not always win and people have a lot of say.....but their words are much more powerfull if they are well thought out and not simply attacks in anger.

There has been a lot of positive gains in the past years and no one wants to see it go backwards into a war between the managers and the bikers....which is what is represented in some of the posts here.

Again.....people just need to calm down, and get their thoughts together, and bring suggestions to the table.

[g-dub]

Golly, I've never done something like this before. Guess it's time, huh?

Supervisor Campbell:

The planned reroute and closure of several trails in the Santiago Oaks/Weir Canyon complex is ill-advised and should not be adopted. The overwhelming majority of park users will not be served by this change. I have read the report, and it reads as a self-serving sales pitch for an individual consultant's company. This proposal will result in hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent to degrade the visitor's experience. As a local resident for over a decade, I consider this park and the adjoining park complex to be my single most compelling reason to live in this part of Orange County--more important than my children's elementary school!

The February 6th meeting regarding this proposal will be well attended by constituents, including myself. I encourage you to attend. Rather than handing a large contract to this consultant, consider the opinions of your constituents. The mountain bike community is unusually resourceful and increasingly well coordinated. Low cost, high value added volunteer projects in this park will continue to be a high priority.

Thank you,
Greg Wright
Resident, Santiago Hills, Orange

[JamR]

Originally Posted by KeepsWhatHappens

Adam, I respectfully disagree...

I really doubt the supervisor or his staff monitors this form but I surely hope they do!

I honestly believe the supervisor and his peers are paid off if not in this situation in many others, so that is my valid opinion.

I also believe the trail builder that might win a contract should not have been the one doing the trail assessment. It should have been done by an independent third-party. This is only common sense.

If my letter came off as aggressive then I am sorry, but I am emotional about these issues. Without emotions it seems these days our voices are not heard.

KeepsWhatHappens

It's not the aggressiveness of your letter......it was simply your very unprofossional comment about a supervisor. And I can assure you that these posts are known about and read all the way up to the supervisors office. They have been for years.

Trails 4 All was also on the survey so in fact there was an impartial 3rd party, plus more than likely Bellfree simply looked at the area from the sustainability standpoint. Actually...I might add that if you pick up any trail-building book (including from IMBA), many of these trails go way beyond the recommended trail standards. The point being if these trails are looked at by strictly the typicall accepted building standards...they would not be built today. However most land managers are aware that some standards area changing and there are exeptions to every-rule, and that some diversion from typically accepted standards are accepted. Examples of this exist all over the county.

Again....this is just a beginning point; and there is nothing wrong with anger; but I personally thought you went over the top with the paid-off comment.

Just lose the accusations.....you don't have to be angry or loud to be heard. Sometimes being too loud or too angry works to the opposite and get's you ingnored as a non-credible group.

That was a very disrespectful comment that was not needed. From my experience...if someone truly believes a person is corrupt; they have an obligation to bring facts forward.

That is a strong accusation if you have no foundation for it, and again IMO only ends up reducing the effectiveness of you being taken seriously.

How many people here have been angered by letters and comments about mountain bikers from other angry user groups....many of the comments without fact or foundation....just their anger.

You just basically fell into their camp and put yourself right down to thier level.

All I'm saying is that your letter would have had much more weight if it was written without the anger and accusations.

Just some thoughts.

Originally Posted by g-dub

Golly, I've never done something like this before. Guess it's time, huh?

Supervisor Campbell:

The planned reroute and closure of several trails in the Santiago Oaks/Weir Canyon complex is ill-advised and should not be adopted. The overwhelming majority of park users will not be served by this change. I have read the report, and it reads as a self-serving sales pitch for an individual consultant's company. This proposal will result in hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent to degrade the visitor's experience. As a local resident for over a decade, I consider this park and the adjoining park complex to be my single most compelling reason to live in this part of Orange County--more important than my children's elementary school!

The February 6th meeting regarding this proposal will be well attended by constituents, including myself. I encourage you to attend. Rather than handing a large contract to this consultant, consider the opinions of your constituents. The mountain bike community is unusually resourceful and increasingly well coordinated. Low cost, high value added volunteer projects in this park will continue to be a high priority.

Thank you,
Greg Wright
Resident, Santiago Hills, Orange

Now that's a well written, non accusatory letter.

Thanks

[JamR]

Originally Posted by ODB

Roger Bell oversaw the construction of the new section of Goat/Waterfall. I don't want to see any more of his handiwork in Santiago Oaks ... or any other park, for that matter. And if you don't find his dual role as trail advisor and vendor a bit unsavory, then i just don't know what else to say.

I appreaciate your position, but it's a position that can be turned around in any direction.

Could not the county be suspicous of bikers being involved in the planning of these trails so there would be a bias towards mountain bikers?

What if the trail alignments were spear-headed by a hiking group, or an equestrian group.

you can take any individual or company and slant their involvement any way you want.

Again.....this is simply a first-draft starting point and is open for comments by all user groups.

If people are going to lose sight of the ball over who did the first draft...you'll simply have a harder time coming to the table in a constructive manner.

I think it is less important how the first draft was developed as opposed to what you now do with that information.

If people simply want to be angry and bash the county, the trail contractor, and the supervisors office.......what will this get you?

Just take the map, make comments, try to get a real on-site look at any proposed alignments, and get your opinons on the table in a non-accusatory manner.

This is all I'm saying.

If we want to be taken seriously as a group, we need to act seriously and responsibliy.

This whole Santiago Oaks issue can end up being a win-win for everyone if people would just put their heads together......but also be realistic that everyone will have to bear some give-and-take, and some compromises.

There's plenty of time to get your opinions onto the table and make real suggestions.....use this time wisely.

Thanks!

[Vickie]

Originally Posted by KeepsWhatHappens

If you want to have a say on whether trails stay open to mountain bikers you should attend the meeting below.
----------------
This from Jim Meyers at Trails4All:

February 6th 7pm

Save the date and plan to participate in the public workshop concerning the trails plan for Santiago Oaks Regional Park.

Detailed information will be available shortly on the County's website: WWW.OCPARKS.COM

Regards,
Jim Meyer
Executive Director

Trails4All
(Cell) 310-344-9229
(Fax) 562-529-5153
www.trails4all.org/ <http://www.trails4all.org/>

----------------------
KeepsWhatHappens

John, I scheduled myself off from work on Feb 6th so I'll be there to support!!

[KeepsWhatHappens]

Adam - even though I disagree with some of what you say, I want to thank you for being a sturdy rudder and helping to steer the ship when it is heading off course.

KeepsWhatHappens

[Cowgirl]

JamR...I agree with KeepsWhatHappens...we need to be vocal to be heard.

I am sure that Bill Campbell has heard worse and that Roger Bell was expecting users to disagree with his proposal or he would have never stated "However, we would be willing to take another look if there is strong support to realign and re-open any of these."

And..do not make this sound like a battle between "user" groups...it is far from that...the equestrians, cyclists and hikers have all been attending the meetings and are all on the same page!! The equestrians have actually been calling on the bikers and hikers to help them regain their trails since they are such a minority in the park.

I am flattered that this thread is gaining controversy...this is what brings it to the attention of everyone and makes those that may have sat back to just watch, feel that they can have a say by coming to the meeting!

And last but not least....if being a "leader" in my community means that I can not voice my opinion regarding changes that are happening in "my community"...(remember I live in OPA..so Santiago Oaks is my back yard) then I don't wish to be a "leader". There will be those that agree with me and those that disagree with me...that is part of the territory when you voice your opinion...you of all people should know that.

Now I am going to tuck in my beautiful kids...

Look forward to seeing you on Feb. 6th

[JamR]

Originally Posted by KeepsWhatHappens

Adam - even though I disagree with some of what you say, I want to thank you for being a sturdy rudder and helping to steer the ship when it is heading off course.

KeepsWhatHappens

Same here......I've always said we can agree to disagree as long as we are respectful. Frankly, many disagreements are how things do get accomplished, but should always be done with respect.

I respect people here and I completely understand the frustration that can come with these issues.

I just think that this can end up good for everyone, and a lot more will be accomplished if people come to the table with their arms and minds open, instead of sitting on opposite sides of the table with folded arms and closed minds.

Again.....just think of this as a starting point for frank and honest conversations about specific trails and technical desires. There's plenty of time to stay involved with this process.

Thanks.......and thanks for all your hard work on the trails!

[ODB]

Originally Posted by JamR

I appreaciate your position, but it's a position that can be turned around in any direction.

Could not the county be suspicous of bikers being involved in the planning of these trails so there would be a bias towards mountain bikers?

What if the trail alignments were spear-headed by a hiking group, or an equestrian group.

you can take any individual or company and slant their involvement any way you want.

Originally Posted by JamR

Again.....this is simply a first-draft starting point and is open for comments by all user groups.

If people are going to lose sight of the ball over who did the first draft...you'll simply have a harder time coming to the table in a constructive manner.

Frankly, you are minimizing the import of this report. It is EXACTLY because this is the first draft that it's so important. This is the starting point that frames the debate from here on out, which is why there should've been a process that involved myriad interests. I can only hope that a greater variety of viewpoints will eventually be sought out.

[JamR]

Originally Posted by ODB

Your argument is completely fallacious. User groups don't stand to gain financially from their input in this process. Bell serves on the trail advisory council, and thereby is advising public officials to whom he is also in effect pitching business. The fact that his service on the trail council may be voluntary and uncompensated doesn't make the situation any less unseamly. But any matter of possible conflict of interest is beside the point. I'll let the recent work done at Oaks speak for itself.



Frankly, you are minimizing the import of this report. It is EXACTLY because this is the first draft that it's so important. This is the starting point that frames the debate from here on out, which is why there should've been a process that involved myriad interests. I can only hope that a greater variety of viewpoints will eventually be sought out.

This is the type of stuff that worries me.....miss-information.

Roger Bell does not serve on the Trails Advisory Council. He was simply hired as the independent third-party to take a look at the park and give his comments on his thoughts on a sustainable trail system. This is what he does. It's no different than getting an estimate from your auto shop who may also be the one to do the job.

From my understanding, this is just a proposal that can be accepted, denied, modified; done by him or done by others. It truly is a starting point, and it just might be possible that there were so many mixed emotions with previous discussions between the groups and the managers that they felt it necessary to seek an outside opinion....who knows????

Varying viewpoints are being sought out and for the people who have been in attendance at the previous meetings, it was not a surprise that Belfree was contacted