Poll: Should we finish the Santiago Creek bike trail in Fisher Park?

View Comments

• anonster says:

  "the plan that the Army Corp had, would OBLITERATE this proposed bike trail, but would include one of its own. Why spend the money now, when this will happen eventually (and will be done much better) anyway?"

  ……..So you are not against the completion of the bike trail. Good to hear.

  ‘Land ownership discrimination based on race, religion etc. is illegal, those old CC&R’s are irrelevant.’

  (a law was requited to be passed to over ride those parts of the CC&R’s, and you will find it as a line item in your title insurance policy)

  ‘The property lines are not, if their deeds say they own that land and their property taxes reflect that, then they OWN the land.”

  (Prop 13 changed how property taxes are computed, it is on the price you pay for the property and no longer on the amount of land purchased)

  But if you have your title policy handy, maybe you can look to see what it says about the flood control easement for the creek. It may even have book & page reference, as that would make finding tHE doc at the recorders office easy as pie.

• No, I am not against the bike trail in theory, in fact if they wanted to put it right down the middle of the creek bed, I'd support it. I am AGAINST this plan as it would REQUIRE the CUTTING DOWN of almost ALL THE TREES.
  At least the Army Corp's plan was comprehensive and there would be flood protection.
  This plan could potentially alter the path of the creek and leave homeowners vulnerable and without protection from the entity building it. Just look at the area directly outside of Jack Fisher Park, that area would need to be massively built up and every time you move something in that creek bed it ALTERS the flow of water. Walls have failed in that creek bed and they aren't getting any younger.
  This bike plan has NOT been well thought out, this part of the creek is VERY NARROW, very UNLIKE the part above Main St.

  "(Prop 13 changed how property taxes are computed, it is on the price you pay for the property and no longer on the amount of land purchased)"

  Think about that cook, when you purchase property you pay for what you get, if you pay x for an acre of land, you would probably PAY LESS for 3/4 's of an acre. You just CAN'T TAKE PEOPLE'S LAND, this would HAVE to be done through eminent domain.

  • Not true. Just widen the dirt path and get rid of the rocks. The brush does need some trimming.

• No Art, I've talked to these people, they want NOTHING LESS than a 10' wide asphalt path, that's what the OC Bike trail people REQUIRE.

• Art, you can't get rid of the rocks, they were put there for a reason and it has nothing to do with keeping out the public. look up riff-raff. (look for the rocks placed in river beds)

  Anonster, you should look at the 1969 pictures of the creek. You can see that a lot has been done to the creek after the flood. So to maintain that nothing can be done would leave the creek bed at your back door.

  Maybe there is not enough land to improve the flood control and have a bike lane and parkway. The next best thing to do would be to take out all the houses on one side or the other to make the room.

• Cook,
  First off, let me congratulate you on being a first rate angry, bitter, old coot. Way to stay relevant.
  I guess you old coots are reading comprehension impaired, I NEVER said that I was against improving the creek for flood control, in fact I liked the Army Corps plan, it was comprehensive, attractive and included a bike path.

  • You're the one who had to apologize for being rude. Cook has done excellent research on this subject.

• Anonster, peace. You did say you favor the plan by the engineers that includes a bike lane.

  So if I stepped over the line, except my apology.

• "The next best thing to do would be to take out all the houses on one side or the other to make the room."

  Yeah, that comment elevates the discussion.
  Your skewed/biased/illogical "judgements", never fail to amaze and amuse.

• “The next best thing to do would be to take out all the houses on one side or the other to make the room.”

  Yeah, that comment elevates the discussion.
  Your skewed/biased/illogical “judgements”, never fail to amaze and amuse.

  ........ I know, not a cool thing to say to someone who home is there. .......

  I was thnking about the Bristol street widing project that displaced hundreds of homes, (for a Centerline that will never be built at least not in my life time).

• Turn the existing single track trail into a path. Its simple. We already use it on bicycles...I would like to be able to safley use it and not have to worry about being robbed.
  All the teenagers who live in Fisher Park are against this trail. They all use it to smoke weed. Anyone who has been on the trail knows the exact 3 spots that I am talking about.

• RESEARCH NOTICE:
  The pro bike trail advocates falsely claim that the bike trail will reduce crime along the Santiago Creek. No research evidence was presented to make such a claim. "The existence of the trail has had little, if any, effect on crime and vandalism experienced by adjacent property owners (Zarker, G., Bourey, J., Puncochar, B., and Lagerway, P. Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman Trail's Effect on Property Values and Crime. Seattle Engineering Department. May, 1987, p. 3). No studies have found any decrease in crime by building a bike trail. In fact, a bike trail will increase pedestrian traffic since pedestrians outnumber bicyclists on pathways 75% to 20% (Ragland, David R., Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTrec), Jones, Michael G., Alta Planning. Prepared for Caltrans, February 2010).

  • What we do know is that the current situation is a disaster. Just look at the pictures.