PQ/Tunnels Public planning meeting. September 18th at 6 PM

A-men, brother. :beer:

 

Received this e-mail this morning through the LPQ CAC:

These kind of comments have hardned my resolve to be there tomorrow night.

 

^^Who is this Marvin Gerst?

Notice how he lumps runners and bikers into the same category...um, I'm confused.:?: Anyone else understand that?

Edit: Google is a great thing.

Marvin Gerst, department of psychiatry, UCSD (or at least he was at some point)

 

Mr. Gerst is apparently confused in another way:

"The net result would be less access for other users because bikes on narrow trails discourage use by slower moving foot and hoof users.."

This logic makes no sense. If the concern is that the trails are NARROW and thus the presence of mountain bikes discourages other users, when is the last time he saw a horse?

I think I know what he is trying to say, but it's very unclear.

I am coming to this meeting, without a doubt.

 

A point taken from Dr. Gerst's letter is his impression that the trails were "cut" by mountain bikers. I thought these trails were "cut" by the migrant workers that used the area as their homes / village, and were established for years.

I just don't see how these trails were "cut" illegally by trail riders in such a short span of time after the migrant workers were forced to evacuate the area. If you look at the trails, these are well worn, established trails, not fresh cut. The trails follow the tree line, as would benefit the migrant workers for both shade and cover (hiding).

This may not be a small point if the community thinks a bunch of derelict mountain bikers illegally cut these trails in a nature preserve, and are now complaining their illegal acts should be rewarded by keeping them open.

 

Another point by Dr. Gerst, as also mentioend by SDYeti:
"Of the three, the mountain bikers are the most vocal, demanding that all trails both legal and illegal be kept open and open to all users (i.e. themselves).
The net result would be less access for other users because bikes on narrow trails discourage use by slower moving foot and hoof users.."

Dr. Gerst shows a clear distain for mountain bikers. Is he a part of the LPQ committee? By his bias, he should recuse himself from voting on an issue that he cannot be open and just towards.

The location of the "tunnels" trails serves as a natural filter for the majority of joggers- it takes a long run just to get there (although I have seen a few joggers enjoying the shade of the trails). As mentioned by SDYeti, the narrow girth of the trail is a natural filter for horses. (I guess the migrant workers who forged these trails had neither the time or the money for equestrian endeavors. ) Does Dr. Gerst propose that these trails should not be considered because these natural factors favor bicyclists, a group for which he has already posed his contempt in the language of his letter? Perhaps a reason the bikers are the most 'vocal' is that they may represent the majority of SD residents that utilize the open spaces of LPQ. The 'equestrians', possibly the most powerful group, likely represent the least numerous faction of users.

Perhaps Dr. Gerst should be reminded that the closure of these trails means more insidious bikers would be on the bottom trails, causing more traffic, and all the other evils we do (in his small mindedness), for the joggers, hikers and equestrians.

BTW- I work at UCSD and did not find 'Gerst' in the UCSD directory.

 

^^He is also a member of the Del Mar Mesa Planning board.

Clearly he has a disdain for mountain bikers even though he says that "in [his] opinion" the trails in Tunnels were made by mountain bikers. Way to spread untruths and inconsistencies considering the majority of people will probably skim the email and many will conclude that mountain bikers are scum.

 

This might be a good reason to take a copy this 'distributed' letter to the meeting. It might be useful should we need to neutralize some of his condescending opinions. And I think we might.

I know it is an election year, but spreading these types of bias and untruths is truly unconscionable and could be made a point of. (...and never end a sentence in a preposition)

BTW- don't bring a helmet, bring a suit. If you own a $3,000 bike (or two), you must have a tie somewhere in your closet. Impressions do matter.

 

What about a helmet and a suit??? :-k

So who is suggesting we bring our helmets to this meeting??

 

Perfect!

Sorry, same topic, different thread. ](*,)

 

I don't have a suit but my boyfriend does :lol:

So, do you think we should dress nice and bring our helmets or just dress nice?

 

Just received Erik Basil's response to the e-mail above. Erik's e-mail was sent out to the original distribution list, so hopefully it will explain the situation a little better. I'm always impressed with the way he puts the words together. Must be a lawyer or something

 

^^Bravo EBasil!!:clap:

 

Doh! #-o

 

Thanks for the post b5driver.

And Kudos to Erik. Very well done sir. :clap:

 

While his message is inaccurate if not irresponsible, we should not spend time worrying about Dr Gerst's opinion. We are not going to change it, nor will he change our opinions. We just hope that the other members are more open-minded. A good showing of bikers will go along way to keeping these trails open for us because the other users will probably not show up in great numbers. At this meeting we will have the opportunity present our side and to respond should Dr. Gerst present more misinformation. That is the forum that really matters, not some email to a bunch of people (ie general public) most of whom will ignore it.

The one thing I laugh at in his message is his comment that there will be a net loss of access (despite the additional trails). Most certainly, Deer Canyon and the mesa (assuming that will be included in the preserve too) will not be available to ANY users were it not for the actions of the multi-use trail coalition and the biking community. We are still not there yet, but any trails in those areas that do become legal will be there solely as the result of our actions. It would be ironic that Dr. Gerst would then have bikes banished from the very trails they fought to win access for, for all trail users.

I would expect these new additions to the preserve would become equally as popular with other users once they are "on the map". They are still unknown to most other users just as they were once unknown to most bikers. Certainly they would build trailheads on the tunnels side and that would lead in the hoardes. Lets just hope they use common sense and keep the horses out of tunnels itself where low branches make an undeniable filter (well, at least til the equestrians cut all those branches down).


edit- What you wear is not as important as showing up. If you wear a suit you may be the only one. The last meeting was not formal at all with a wide range of people in attendance. That said it is important that the committee and/or the city reps be able to identify that the majority are mountain bikers.

 

I agree. Come in uniform, professional work clothes. Bring wives, husbands and kids that support the pro-trails environmental movement.

 

As to the origins of the trails, I learned today in a meeting with staff that some may claim the trails in Deer Canyon were all created by Mountainbikers, after 2005. It sounds eerily like what Marvin Gerst is spouting.

Please do this for me, you and the rest of us: GOOGLE deer canyon, migrants, camps, relocation and "invisible mexicans of deer canyon". Print the articles about the 750 persons removed from McGonigle and Deer in 1997. Print the articles about the 160 people living in Deer Canyon up to early 2007. Figure out how to link/embed the sample video from the "invisible mexicans" film site and post it around the internet.

The trails in Deer Canyon are of various generations: the motorcycle trails shown in the 1990 "Mountainbiking San Diego" book, along with the SDGE service road are pretty old. The mesa-top route that runs from LPQ through the semi-fenced off vernal pools area is over 100 years old. The migrant trails were made by migrants in the 90's and beyond. Now, they're all just trails.

One note: people may try to bait you with inflammatory comments tomorrow night. Don't take the bait. Hand them a printout of the old UT news stories, smile and move on to talk with someone else.

 

....... and perhaps we'll finally get credit (blame) for creating the Grand Canyon in 1998.


Seriously, the migrant worker camps are part of the past and near recent history of the area. Several decades of these camps have been clearly documented, as Erik points out. Believing these trails didn't exist prior to 2005 is just denying this history. Besides, the last migrants left the area mid-2007, so I don't know where the magic year 2005 comes from. Put another way, there is abundant documentation of migrant villages, ie clearings and paths, in that area for decades. Is there any evidence that cyclists utilized those trails prior to 2007?

 

If I can attend, I plan on wearing only a helmet.