Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
with the city pushing riders out (via closures, enforcement of grey areas, etc), it's pushing them on to the fewer and fewer legal trails that do exist.

What a shame, to see the city take such a stance when SDRP is actually working with/for riders to provide a place to ride.

Summary:
City is closing trails and therefore pushing riders to areas such as SDRP but also threatening to walk away from funding to support such areas.

At this point, it all seems to be a political game, the city seems to want a heavier hand in decision making but at any rate, it's just another tick on the paper of failures from the city with regards to proper trail planning.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,816 Posts
with the city pushing riders out (via closures, enforcement of grey areas, etc), it's pushing them on to the fewer and fewer legal trails that do exist.

What a shame, to see the city take such a stance when SDRP is actually working with/for riders to provide a place to ride.

Summary:
City is closing trails and therefore pushing riders to areas such as SDRP but also threatening to walk away from funding to support such areas.

At this point, it all seems to be a political game, the city seems to want a heavier hand in decision making but at any rate, it's just another tick on the paper of failures from the city with regards to proper trail planning.
For the City Council and for the County Supervisors, trail users are a very very tiny concern, compared to both these institution's concern for the welfare of developers.

WE will always get the shaft (and the bill) so long as THEY continue to favor the Big Bucks.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top