Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,899 Posts
The FBO letter is a bit confusing. The city wants to sell the parcel and FBO wants to build a skills park and/or a trailhead. I recall there being some issues in the past with the county as to why a trailhead was never built. The city owns it because it's the old municipal golf course but it's surrounded by county, private land, and nat. forest.

A skill park and trailhead is a great idea but how is that going to happen unless the FS buys the land or the city deeds it to the FS? It's hard to see the city go for that idea. We can't even get a sledding hill inside city limits.

What if a developer bought it and rebuilt the golf course. Wouldn't that just be the cat's meow?:mad:
 

·
slower than you
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
The FBO letter is a bit confusing. The city wants to sell the parcel and FBO wants to build a skills park and/or a trailhead. I recall there being some issues in the past with the county as to why a trailhead was never built. The city owns it because it's the old municipal golf course but it's surrounded by county, private land, and nat. forest.

A skill park and trailhead is a great idea but how is that going to happen unless the FS buys the land or the city deeds it to the FS? It's hard to see the city go for that idea. We can't even get a sledding hill inside city limits.

What if a developer bought it and rebuilt the golf course. Wouldn't that just be the cat's meow?:mad:
my guess is that preservation would have to be done via some sort of land exchange process. sadly, this is just the sort of parcel the usfs typically hopes to off-load in favor or some choice in-holding, not the other way around.

not to sound too pessimistic, but i can't imagine how this piece of ground gets saved from development, except through the antiquities act. i've spent a lot of time walking around out there. and there are several sites on the land that are likely of archaeological significance... lots of 800-year-old sinagua potsherd and probably a small pithouse on the east side of the property and, of course, flagstaff's original waterline road water storage tanks... to say nothing of the old linseed-oil covered 'greens' of t.a. and mike riordan's original 19th century flagstaff 9-hole golf course (which later became avery's kowboy kountry klub and eventually the flagstaff country club). nearly 1000 years of local history on just a small parcel.

worth keeping intact, indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
Although the "Y" is a great place to park in the warmer season, it's especially important in the winter for hikers, trail runners, and skiers. That's because the Schultz Pass Road (including the Schultz Creek trailhead parking area) is gated in the winter. If this parcel is lost there could be a lot of on-road parking during the winter (and maybe even the summer). This might be a point worth making in the meeting.

I hope to be there.

-db-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,504 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Although the "Y" is a great place to park in the warmer season, it's especially important in the winter for hikers, trail runners, and skiers. That's because the Schultz Pass Road (including the Schultz Creek trailhead parking area) is gated in the winter. If this parcel is lost there could be a lot of on-road parking during the winter (and maybe even the summer). This might be a point worth making in the meeting.

I hope to be there.

-db-
Very good point!
 

·
slower than you
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
Although the "Y" is a great place to park in the warmer season, it's especially important in the winter for hikers, trail runners, and skiers. That's because the Schultz Pass Road (including the Schultz Creek trailhead parking area) is gated in the winter. If this parcel is lost there could be a lot of on-road parking during the winter (and maybe even the summer). This might be a point worth making in the meeting.

I hope to be there.

-db-
The "Y" itself is private property and not a part of the parcel the city is concerned with. Parking at the "Y" is technically trespassing, but to-date has been "allowed" by the landowner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
The FBO document indicates that part of the parking at the "Y" is included in the parcel.

"...The City Council is voting to potentially sell off the City owned parcel of land on which is located part of the parking area and most of the trails that access Schultz Creek and Rocky Ridge Trail..."

Is this incorrect?

-db-
 

·
slower than you
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
The FBO document indicates that part of the parking at the "Y" is included in the parcel.

"...The City Council is voting to potentially sell off the City owned parcel of land on which is located part of the parking area and most of the trails that access Schultz Creek and Rocky Ridge Trail..."

Is this incorrect?

-db-
I believe it is. But I am not a land surveyor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
There is no reason why the City would need to deed this to the USFS in order to have trails, a trail head or bike park on it.

The parcel is City owned in the County outside of City limits.

Much of the parking at the "Y" is on this parcel, some is privately held.

FBO has been in an ongoing conversation about ideas about various scenarios with City, County, USFS staff. This current move to sell this parcel is an independent action of the new City Council/ Mayor (we think?) to fund a new courthouse without taxpayer dollars being spent or bonds being issue (new City debt).

FBO, Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, City Parks and Rec, Coconino County Parks and Rec are just getting to a point, (Mount Elden Dry Lakes USFS Planning, City of Flagstaff Parks and Rec Master Plan being Finalized, Regional Master Plan under revision...), to discuss real options for this property, but there are no definitive plans in place. Sale of this parcel would preempt these concepts.

Hopefully that clears things up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
Arizona's Ride Center

Yup, l'm planning to go to the Tuesday meeting. With the help and the living history (I'm not saying your'e that old:p), RockyC and RockM have the place dialed in. I vote you in on heading the charge with the legal council of Anthony, RA's need to learn how to use a skidsteer, and me to use a welder and grinder where possible. This is just like some of the Ride Centers in the UK I made a visit to. A few parking spaces, a simple building that rents bikes, offers skills clinics. A coffee shop, a pizza slice, a beer tap, a patio and the place would be really neat. Kinda like a nordic center but bike purpose.

And what about dogs? Gotta pick up da poo. But I digress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
I went to the meeting at 4pm and stayed through the vote on the Schultz Pass parcel. The council voted to not sell the parcel adjacent to the Y parking, but to investigate the feasibility of developing townhouses on the parcel at the SW corner of Buffalo Park.

There was an impressive turn out by the public unanimously in opposition to sale of the parcels. The council members had one hell of a time agreeing on what they were actually talking about with regard to voting on sale vs. voting on investigating the possibility of development.

Contrary to what was stated in the agenda, the money generated from hypothetical sale of the parcels isn't guaranteed to go towards a court house. This part was exceptionally shady.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top