Yippee! Another Park Bans Bikes!
Mike Vandeman
"natural" when they are used off-road....
Mike
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:16:49 -0000
Subject: Good Bye St. Eds, it was nice while it lasted.
A quote from William C. Leak;
Kudos to c4sep, public comment 01/12/07, and public emails and
letters. (bias bastard)
By Peyton Whitely Seattle Times East Side bureau;
"After hearing 15 speakers, the seven-member state park and
recreation commission unanimously decided Friday to designate
as `natural' one of the last remaining swaths of forest along lake
Washington" (should have been at least 6 to 1, not sure what
happened)
So… it looks like there will be no new trail for us at St. Eds that
heads down to the lake and the door has been slammed shut and locked
forever. What I am still very concerned about (I seem to be the only
one) is that the whole park AND the adjoining county park known as
big finn hill will be designated `natural'
We all heard them say that they want to combine the two parks and
reclassify the whole thing at the public meeting we all attended.
Prepare your selves to wave bubye to good old finn hill folks.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
cc
jo...@phred.org
mjv...@pacbell.net says...
> It's also nice to know that land managers don't consider bikes
> "natural" when they are used off-road....
Shockingly, Mike Vandespam got it wrong again!
The "natural" designation includes a Resource Recreation corridor for a
new trail through the Holmes Pt. ravine and continues to allow
orienteering in the western half of the park. So the park banned bikes
to the extent that specifically allowing construction of a new cycling
trail constitutes a ban.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
pmh
jo...@phred.org wrote:
> Shockingly, Mike Vandespam got it wrong again!
Since he's had it wrong all along, "again" is perhaps redundant.
Notice the request that the post not be archived. Perhaps he's wised up
that he's left a miles-wide trail of posts which clearly outline his
oft-repeated irrational statements.