The battle to finish the Santiago creek bike trail that currently ends under a bridge, just south of the Main Place Mall and Memory Lane, in north Santa Ana, took an interesting turn today as various letters and emails that were requested by the bike trail proponents were emailed by Santa Ana City Clerk Mary Huizar to an email list of media, bloggers and trail supporters. I loaded the documents into Google Documents and you can see them for yourself at this link.
What this all boils down to is a belief by the handful of residents who don’t want the bike trail that they would be better off by denying public access to the trail, with a fence. There demands are a bit tough to make out by pay special attention to the letter sent to the City of Santa Ana by their attorney, Mark Rosen. You remember him, he was an elected member of the Garden Grove City Council and he is Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido’s lawyer, which strikes me as a bit of a conflict of interest. But there he is now representing the NIMBY neighbors.
If I understand their argument correctly, they don’t want a paved bike path to run by the creek behind their homes as paving the current unsafe dirt path would result in some brush and trees being cleared. That might be true but as I understand it the trail proponents would be okay with a dirt trail. That said, the current trail is almost impossible to navigate, in the 1.5 mile stretch behind the Fisher Park homes. It is strewn with rocks, too narrow and partially blocked by the aforementioned brush and trees, and Edison equipment.
The NIMBYs have made it clear that they will not negotiate. They don’t want the public to safely access the trail, period. Rosen does not mince his words in his letter – he even calls out State Senator Lou Correa for supporting the completion of the trail.
Mark McLoughlin
Rosen also mentions one of his clients, Janelle McLoughlin, who is married to Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee Mark McLoughlin. He ended up on the RSCCD Board after Al Amezcua was compelled to resign, when Amezcua allegedly got caught living out of the Area he was representing. He had registered to vote at his law office instead of at his home in Morrison Park.
The McLoughlins actually teamed up with Amezcua when they worked to recall former SAUSD Trustee Nativo Lopez. The same folks riled up about the bike trail were angry because Lopez wanted to open a public school in their area. While the recall focused on ESL, it was really about stopping the building of that school. Now the same coalition wants to stop the bike trail.
McLoughlin is in a bind here as he is a friend of Mayor Pulido and I suspect Pulido is going to end up supporting the trail completion. For McLoughlin his NIMBY position is a big time risk – it makes him look like an elitist and that won’t help matters when he runs for reelection.
Attorney Mark Rosen
Rosen’s letter also mentions the danger posed by fires in the creek – that allegedly are set by homeless men. He also mentions men having sex in the creek and alleges that this activity is spilling over from nearby Santiago Park. The problem is that our police and fire men cannot safely access the Fisher Park creek area – because the dirt path is subpar and unsafe.
I don’t understand why these people are so against bike trails. Or why they rather shut out law abiding residents and their families. But at least the NIMBYs are offering to pay for the fence they want installed. Of course they should. If the land is private then they should do what they want – but if the City can negotiate a clear path that would be better for all of us.
From what I understand, Correa says there is funding in place to finish the trail. So let’s finish it already! Click here to sigh a petition to finish the trail.
The “inclusive needs of the many” to be able to enjoy this creek and all of the areas it connects outweighs the “exclusive desires of a few” to fence it off from the public and keep it private for themselves (the City of Santa Ana owns a 15 ft wide section of the creek)
The City of Orange just opened up their new bike trail extension giving us 8 miles of trail on the creek. Many families are enjoying it. Lets finish this 0.25 mile missing link and connect Santa Ana with Orange for all to enjoy the outdoors together.
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens stated at the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance Mtg that this can be achieved through “Environmental Design”. A path that we (law abiding public, park staff, police, and fire) have access to. This plan/vision was initially proposed in 1971.
I used to bicycle to work once a week and part of this trail was part of my route. I had to get off behind St. Josephs because the trail wasn’t finished.
If the folks are so worried about fires and sexual activity, I would think finishing the trail, thereby giving more traffic and better access by police, wohld be what you wanted.
It’s a shame I cam’t sign the petition because I would love to be able to ride this once in awhile.
Hi Jeff,
Anyone in Orange County can sign this online petition as it is a regional issue. Go ahead and sign and get the word out.
I think I just had a V-8 moment. The worst part is, you even drew me a map and I didn’t get it.
There was a fire near the Discorevy Science center last week. the fire men used the bike trail to reach the fire.
I think the city is going to use the Master Plan update to “again” postpone this tiny piece of infracturer.
The trail is not in my backyard (in my neighborhood), however I don’t believe that I would support it at this point of knowledge. There is something to be said about keeping the neighborhood part of the neighborhood. If homeowner’s private property is being encroached upon, then it should be a non-starter unless a deal can be struck with the homeowners. If the path is to be on solely City property (i.e. the 15 ft path), then the City should also have the right to do with is property that it wants, but they should keep it to that property line.
Additionally, I don’t really see how connecting this is letting everyone enjoy the outdoors together. The path, I believe, would connect up to Memory Lane, which does not seem very “naturey”, cross over a very busy Bristol (not naturey), and go to the SA River which seems much more concrete than nature. It would allow those in the neighborhood to partake in the moving into the Orange section which I will take your word for it that it is nature and enjoyable. However, honestly, it seems to me to be more of a true high speed bike path that will allow street bikes (bicycles not motorcycles) to get to the SA River bicycle highway. Walking with my kids on a bike bath with bikes zipping by does not seem to be a very safe thing to do.
Nature is very enjoyable hiking along a dirt trail. If safety is a concern, then the path should be cleaned up. There are many safe dirt paths. Grade it down a bit, cut some branches, etc…Anyone who walks along the sidewalks in these older neighborhoods know that there are dangers even on the sidewalks- low hanging branches (even tree trunks in certain areas), concrete pushed up a lot, uneven surfaces, etc…
Not really in favor of fencing it off either. I did not review the Google Doc’s as I don’t use Google Doc’s (will try to figure out how…), but it sounds like the group wants to actually fence it off to not allow any public access- probably at each end I guess. That does not seem to be right either. Let the city/county clean it up and maintain it, so that the public can enjoy it. Keep it dirt as most nature trails are dirt. Keep it on public property so as to not invade private property rights.
The map almost looks like the FEMA flood map of the illegal encrochment
My husband and daughter are avid cyclists and I am just new to cycling. I know they enjoy using the Santa Ana River trail however have to ride on busy streets to get there. This is frightening to me having recently had a friend die from getting hit by a car on her bike and my husband having a crash on the road soon after that because of an obstruction in the road. It only makes sense to continue the Santiago Creek Trail to connect to the Santa Ana River Trail so that people can safely move around, whether it be on bikes, walking, running, or in a wheelchair.
Cyclists are very considerate by the way, TJLocalSA! They respect the environment, they watch out for pedestrians, and they go slow, when necessary. Have you never been out of your yard? Check out the new bike trail. It’s beautiful. In Orange, they added plantings and other landscaping. I saw a birdwatcher out there the last 2 times i rode. It’s an enjoyable place to be. People are enjoying the outdoors! It’s like a 4 mile long park.
I know people from Santa Ana River Trail would love to go safely from there to the Santiago Creek Trail and enjoy some of what is going on in North Orange. This is for our future. It’s for our community.
Do you really want to put up with an area currently laden with “multiple fires, men having sex, gang activity, and garbage”?(see Mark Rosen’s Letter) Wow. That’s desirable. You don’t see any of that on the current bike trail. Get out of your house and see for yourselves!!!
Shari, thanks for all the assumptions about me. Really makes me want to get on your side- sheesh. Yes, I get out of my house and even my yard. Yes, I know that bicyclists are generally kind and considerate. I love the outdoors. I partake in many outdoor activities. I teach my kids to love the outdoors- hopefully they listen. Regardless of the inferences which I will give you a pass on, I will try to address your concerns. I have addressed most of these previously, but worth repeating and also emphasizing that my mind is not made up on this topic.
1. I am concerned that the trail is going to require a lot of cutting of trees and damage to a creek which is probably one of the few remaining creeks around.
2. I am concerned that most of the bikers are going to be using the proposed trail as purely a pass through. This can create some issues especially with speed and kids. You may think that they watch out for pedestrians and slow, but both of those are in the eye of the beholder. I as a parent, am going to be very nervous about walking the kids on the trail- all it takes is for a kiddo to dart 2 feet to one side and there is an accident.
3. Private property issues are a major concern. I personally feel that private property rights are pretty serious.
4. What do the neighbors actually want? I don’t see a tremendous benefit…the creek is used by a lot of neighbors already. This would seem to benefit those outside of the neighborhood who want to pass through to either the Mall or to the SA bike highway.
5. There are many ways to get away from an area that is “laden with “multiple fires, men having sex, gang activity, and garbage.”” A paved trail is not the only way to get rid of that. A better dirt trail will help. Routine maintenance (some good shoes and a garbage can do wonders) by the same agency that otherwise would maintain it would help…yes, they can also walk- walking is great exercise too.
6. Overall busy-ness of the neighborhood. Is it really advantageous to have more traffic in our neighborhood…seems pretty bad already. Do we really want a bicycle highway through the neighborhood?
I am super happy that others are enjoying the recently developed parts of the trail. I am sure that it is not without its own issues, which seems that supporters really never bring up. How about garbage from busier parks? How about near misses from kids? How about native trees/plants being cut down? How about redirection/erosion of a native creek (this is actually probably more of an issue with the Floral Park area due to the width being smaller)? If you are saying that this is not a concern, I would probably have to disagree with you. In fact, you did say that “you don’t see any” garbage on the trail–maybe someone needs to slow down…there is garbage, not a lot but it is there. There is more than one way to get a good result. I am all for a cleaner and safer creek, but I am just not sure that putting a biking thoroughfare in the neighborhood is the answer when there are probably other alternatives that actually will probably cost quite a bit less.
There will still be street riding btw after the bikes exit Fisher Park. I used to ride that section of roadway on my way to work (yes, see I do ride a bike!) and it is not exactly getting back to nature. You contend with Memory Lane traffic which is not too bad but getting worse, but once you get to Bristol, that is a pretty hectic intersection that would only get worse by adding more traffic. Floral Park already has a lot of pass through car traffic. Pass through traffic does not seem to enhance the neighborhood but it surely seems to increase speeding, near misses, and the overall hectic-ness of the neighborhood. We are busy enough already before the Tower goes up and then add in another source of traffic (albeit on bikes)…just not sure it is a good thing for the neighborhood.
Flame on…
We are NOT asking for a paved surface, but a soft surface trail as stated on the Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance page at http://santiagogreenway.org/vision and on all recent documentation. Just to clarify.
I’m not disputing all of your issues, as they have already been addressed. Sure change is scary but “Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts.”
Arnold Bennett
Hi TJLocalSA,
I served as a Reserve Park Ranger for the County of Orange for 10 years and have lived along this creek for 20 years and been involved in Scouting.
1. Santa Ana reported 646 Bicyclists being hit by Car during the last reporting period to the OCTA . This does not include Pedestrians being hit by cars while crossing streets.
2. It is safer to have Bicyclists and Pedestrians share a multi use trail than to have them be on streets with Cars. There is evidence supporting this based on our Parks througout the County and also with the Creek Bike Trails
3. It has taken us 40 years in Orange and Santa Ana to attempt to complete a 10 mile trail along this creek for all to enjoy. Meanwhile, Cities like Irvine has made 40 miles of trail in 40 years using money from the County and State level that taxpayers from Orange and Santa Ana helped to pay for.
4. Yes, there will be those who commute to work on this trail but there will be many more who enjoy if for recreational rides, walks, and strolls. I know as I have seen this over 20 years throughout other areas in the County. I encourage all those concerned to go visit these other areas and talk to people enjoying them.
5. Lets finish this missing link of a 0.25 trail to connect our communities together which will make this a greenway creek trail park of 10 miles. Orange has completed all their sections and Santa Ana has previously completed the ones in Santiago Park and Morrison Park.
6. If not, at present, the existing foot path is not safe for most who prefer to walk or jog nor for bicyclists. Plus, the proposed alternative to fence it off to all of the public will contribute to the decay of our society as compared to building it for us to enjoy and future generations.
Shari- Thanks for the clarification on paved versus soft surface. I must have missed that part of the “vision”.
How wide will the path be? Will street bikes be able to zoom by or are there enough natural “speed bumps” to keep traffic sloooww? Will it cross over private property? What is the fiscal (i.e. money) impact? Why can’t it be maintained now yet it will be maintained in the future? I would love to see the “plan” and not just the vision, but that is what is being worked on, so we wait and see.
Unfortunately, my issues more likely have not been addressed (or at least to the satisfaction of someone who’s mind has not been made up and is waiting to get answers yet cares a lot about their neighborhood) and instead we are being asked to trust the path building and the changes that will occur. That is easy to say when the person saying it does not live in the impacted neighborhood- I don’t know where you live but presume not in the direct neighborhoods impacted by the increased bike traffic. I wish we could do something about pass through traffic yet alone adding more to it.
Who put out that proposed bike trail map?
I count at least 17 homes whose land would need to be taken by eminent domain on that map.
Are Bruce Bauer, Shirley Grindle and Mark Lindsey willing to go on record saying a dirt “path” is what they have proposed?
Why can’t they provide us with the DETAILS of their plan?
People need to remember that the creek between Main and Flower is all embankment, it is all on a 45 degree angle, in order to create a safe, paved bike trail there, the entire embankment will have to be graded and then built up. This means chainsaws, bulldozers and dumptrucks full of dirt and the destruction of the creek bed as it is now.
Hi Anonster,
There is no “offical plan” as the City has to first approve to add it to their Master Bike Plan before detailed planning proceeds.
However due to requests from creek homeowners through their Lawyer, the City has instead spent resources doing a feasability study to fence off this section creek to keep all of the Public out even though the city/public owns portions of it. Why? Rest of the creek going east for 9 miles is now open to the Public. Why create a divide?
As you know, there is already an unoffical dirt foot path that has been in this section of the creek for decades that many local residents try to use along with rest of the public. We basically want a safe path that those on foot and bike can travel on. Design exceptions can be made to Class 1 trails and this does not necessariy need to be Class 1 but needs to be a multi use trail (hike & bike).
Take a look at Santiago Park’s trail on the other side of Main. It is not a 15 ft concrete path. It is not wide and meandors around trees and bushes. We trust that through “environmental design” as Sheriff Hutchens stated we can develop a win-win solution.
Take a look at other creek trails in the County. Some look great, some do not. We trust that this can be made to look great as there is lots of interest in this with many folks like you, myself, and others. We need to pull together and collaborate.
This would be better than its current condition or fencing off this creek to all of the public for the exclusive use of a few.
The City of Orange did the right thing. It was not easy but now the public is enjoying it and planting is currently going on in sections that did not have plants.
Lets make a good trail great.
Mark, as always, thanks for the information. Direct question: are you lobbying for a paved path or dirt path? From prior conversations, I thought it was paved, but now maybe dirt per Shari and the website.
I first must be concerned with private property rights. If private property must be confiscated, I probably have an issue with it unless those property owners are in favor of it.
Second is the concern for the neighborhood. The added cyclists who are going to the SA bicycle highway seemingly will be going through our neighborhood. This does not seem to be adding much to our neighborhood. Along with countless car who feel it is worthwhile to cut through the neighborhood, now we will be adding others to the equation too. It seems that this will add quite a bit of traffic…crossing two public parks and along neighborhood streets. There is an advantage of more people which should mean less crime…however, there are other alternatives such as a nature trail.
A distant third is probably a concern for other neighbors who despite their best efforts will likely be bringing a lot more bike traffic yet enjoying it.
I think that I would feel more in favor of it if you were able to tell me that it will be a dirt path, no private property will be confiscated through gov’t powers, and that the neighbors along the path are in favor of it. The money is also a concern- no matter where it comes from (i.e. city, county, state, feds), one must ask is it worth the money? How many millions and how many people will use it? Divide it out and you get a dollar per user- is that reasonable?
There may be no “official” plan, but are there parameters in order to qualify for funding, WHAT ARE THEY? When I attended one of your informational meetings, I was led to believe that in order to get funding the bike trail needed to be 10 ft wide and paved, is that true?
Is the above proposed bike trail from your group? If not, you certainly must have some idea where the proposed bike trail must go, why not SHOW the rest of us?
Homeowners along the creek are concerned about folks from your group coming down in the creek bed and cutting down the trees (it’s been happening), it is making them nervous and now they may want to fence the creek. For years anyone could use that foot path, you are forcing the homeowners to act by threatening to take their property, not really surprising.
The Santiago Park bike trail has no relation to this stretch, for one thing it was flat with plenty of space on both sides of the actual creek bed, secondly, nobody’s property had to be TAKEN by eminent domain and nobody’s retaining walls, fences and privacy would be impacted. That stretch and this are in no way comparable.
I will try to answer both TJLocalSA and Anonster’s questions but please remember that it is the City who decides and all of us (that includes you) have a voice.
1. The Parcel Map of the Creek with the shown proposed trail did not come from us. It appears to be part of the info the City provided in response to ours and the media’s Freedom of Information Act request. It possibly is one of many proposed versions of a trail. I bet the city also has proposed versions of how to fence it all off also. Either way, it is up to the City to facilitate the planning and approval.
2. We are not trail construction experts. Thus, we are not specifying what materials it should be made out of but it should be done with the environment and users in mind. Let the City and their contracted professionals figure that out and I am sure they will solicit input. Both Orange and Santa Ana have done great jobs on the existing official trails.
3. We know of multiple instances when the public has travelled along the unofficial dirt path that they have been sternly or worse talked to by neighbors that they are trespassing. This has confused people as they look at a homeowner who is peering over their fence and telling them to get out of “their” creek bed. Plus, this trail is not maintained. When you look at the Parcel Map, people wonder how homeowners actually purchased portions of the creek bed though the city did keep a 15 ft wide section though you can only figure it out if you have a parcel map.
4. We are lobbying for a safe effective path for all the key stakeholders to enjoy. That should include those who walk, mothers pushing strollers, joggers, bicyclists, etc. Personally, I would not consider this as creating congestion in the neighborhood as it is good for people to be outdoors without having to drive a car.
5. More families are going to want to travel east up this creek when the Discovery Science Center expansion is completed plus to visit Main Place and the activities at the Lawn Bowling facility. Why should they have to continue to drive in their cars to do this? Those that already live east of this (i.e. Santiago Park and Orange) are able to access these areas on foot and bike but not able to access your neighboorhoods west of the 5 Fwy to visit friends, family, or pass through without having to travel on surface streets most likely via a car as the detour is up to 2 miles.
6. The Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance (www.santiagogreenway.org) has been instrumental working with neighboorhoods and levels of government to help realize the vision established by the County in 1971 (40 years ago). Check the website and it shows the history. Basically each time a segment of the creek trail was done, this area of the creek did not want to be included. There has also been horticulture planted by the Cities and Volunteers with trail construction and afterwards (we need more volunteers). We are now at the point where all of the trail segments are basically done or approved except for this missing 0.25 mile link which is critical. The detours around it are approx 2 miles on busy streets.
7. There is over 100 miles of trails on creeks in OC alone. LA and other counties throughout the USA has many miles of creek trails. We are confident the constraints can be figured out on this 0.25 mile stretch as they are not unique and can be collaborated on (that is what a democratic society does). Possibly, if some homeowners will not allow the existing trail to be improved, then the city may have to use more of the city owned portion of the creek to construct a trail which could result in removal of trees. The homeowners can not have it both ways as a stalemate.
8. What is important is we collectively ask the City to facilitate the planning and construction of a trail for families to enjoy. If available funds already earmarked to support projects like this is not used here, it will continue to be used elsewhere in OC, CA, and the USA. The amount that would be spent on this last segment is small compared to what has been spent on rest of the creek yet the recreational value would be tremendously improved.
9. Why wait another 10+ years before Santa Ana updates its Bike plan again? Why revert back to erecting fences/barriers in our open spaces so the public can not enjoy it due to fear? Better to be part of the Light of the World to drive out the Darkness. What Legacy do we want to create and leave behind? Lets make Santa Ana and Orange into better communities along this creek and serve as a good example for others.
Note: I am willing to discuss this in public forums as compared to these lengthy texts.
So in other words, you want to tell people it “could” be a dirt path, but the reality will be what was done in Orange, where everything was scraped off and paved over. In order to qualify for funds there HAS to be certain criteria and that means PAVEMENT.
If any one wonders what our creek will look like after this project just go to Tustin Blvd. and look in either direction on the bike trail. It’s a flat, artificially built up 15 ft wide road, backed up directly behind people’s homes, a mish mash of fencing and a dry barren looking embankment below, there are trees planted but ten years in they look stunted and the area is not planted with “natives”.
In short it is ugly and unnatural the complete opposite of what we have now.
Mark, you are “selling” an idyllic natural path, but people will be “buying” an intrusive ugly road for speeding bikers.
There is a reason you folks are so sketchy on the details because if people understood what this bike road really entailed they would reject it.
Mark- will try to get back on your other items later, but specifically on #4- don’t you see that if you put in bikes from out of the neighborhood that this will add additional people and hence congestion? This is added volume and NOT just people on the neighborhood enjoying it. The creek trail would be a feeder to streets which connect to the SA bike highway.
Not sure if you specifically answered the direct question: are you in favor of a dirt path? Additionally, would you be willing to take a paved path off the table?
Seems simple enough to answer.
Seems to me that it’s time to flood the city council meetings with supporters. Santa Ana doesn’t really need any more bad press.
Supporters of what?
What exactly are you supporting, an improved dirt path, a paved bike trail, a bike road that is taking 17 homeowners’ backyards through eminent domain (look at the map)?
It’s DUMB to support an “idea” without knowing what it entails.
I agree with anonster with his comment to Sean… I would love to know the details. Supporting an idea is much different than supporting the detailed plan of end result and implementation. I understand that maybe additional work has to be put in until the details can be released.
I do find it interesting that now it seems that the Alliance is supporting a dirt path (correct,?). I always thought that they wanted a paved path so that bikes could move to the SA bike highway, which I don’t think I really would support.
concerns: 1st- ppty rights, 2nd- impact on the immediate neighborhood, 3rd- the surrounding community outside the neighborhood.
Looking forward to Mark’s response if he supports a safe dirt path?
Hi Folks,
1. As stated before, we are asking the City for a “Trail” that provides “safe” travel for users such as those who walk, mothers with strollers, joggers, and bicyclists and is sustainable. “I” and many others would appreciate one that satisfies this local and regional need. Regardless of the material used, other factors such as width and routing to be safe and environmentally friendly are important.
2. It is up to the City to figure out the best design to accomplish this for all key stakeholders. First though the City has to approve it as part of their Bikeways Plan. The details of the planning comes later. There are many options (shades of grey) in trail design and construction. The solution does not need to be at either extreme but could be somewhere in-between. Go out and visit/travel the trails along creeks and in city, county, and state parks.
3. Much to their own discredit, there is misinformation being spread that this section of the creek will be made like the portion immediatly east of Tustin Ave. This short section had very few trees or plants in it before the trail. It had already been that way for decades. The new trail did not make it this way but now the public has access to improve it. Look at rest of the sections of the trail and you will see various plants that have been there for many years and many are also relatively new. We like “green” but it needs to be accessable.
4. We hope/plan to place more plants along the official trail with help (we always could use more volunteers). Orange has been supportive of volunteer groups in improving the community. I think Santa Ana wants to do the same (the City staff and other homeowners). I encourge you to put your energies to this as compared to erecting fences to keep people out.
5. Lastly, you should not be concerned that there will be more people who can enjoy this section of the creek and the areas it connects. A majority of the users will be from your own and immediate adjoinig neighboorhoods. The minority will be from other areas and they have a right to enjoy it also. We do not ask folks in Santa Ana to stay out of Orange or vice versa or say it to cities in North or South OC. The vast majority of people in Orange County are nice. Spend part of a day observing families enjoying the new creek trail in Orange and the existing one in Santigo Park in Santa Ana.
Mark- Thanks for telling me what I should be concerned with…I think that I will probably take my own advice and be concerned. The majority of people riding their bikes from the Creek Trail to the SA bike highway will not be from our neighborhoods, otherwise they would not be coming from the trail to the SA river. Just as I probably should not be concerned with out of neighborhood commuters who zoom by. I see it is a similiar issue- you don’t put any validity to that which is your right, I just disagree I guess as do others.
Unfortunately, it does not seem that you can answer the paved vs dirt pathway even presuming it would be safe. A simple yes would suffice and help those who have questions instead of providing the politically correct answer of letting someone else decide that. I have a hunch that a lot of the non-immediate neighbors (i.e. those outside of Floral/W Floral Park and Morrison) are probably more in favor for it to get their road bikes from one neighborhood (their own) to the SA bike highway and not so much for the families walking around it. Our neighborhood will just be another pass through- this time for bikes instead of cars. Those of us who already enjoy the Park and the surrounding areas will get some benefit from the improved trail, but I am struggling of finding the benefits to allowing more pass through traffic.
I am not in favor of fencing people out of public space. I have not put any energy into erecting fences.
Next meeting
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
4:00 pm – 7:00 pm
Santa Ana Senior Center
Policy 1.10 Provide barrier-free accessibility throughout the circulation system.
Policy 1.11 Minimize travel impediments on bicycle and pedestrian paths.
Policy 3.6 Maximize the use of public rights-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Policy 3.7 Support system enhancements and bikeway support facilities that encourage bicycle usage.
Policy 3.8 Develop bicycle paths that maximize access to major activity centers, neighboring jurisdictions, and regional bicycle paths.
Class I Bikeway. Provides for bicycle travel on a right-of-way completely separated from the street.
Class II Bikeway. Provides for a striped lane for one-way travel within the street right-of-way.
An existing Class I bikeway runs along the banks of the Santa Ana River, the Southern Pacific railroad tracks to the south, the Santa Ana Gardens Channel, Flower Street, and along Maple Street.
Proposed Class I bikeways are planned along Santiago Creek.
A linkage to connect the Maple Street trail to the Alton
Street trails is also planned.
Bikeway Master Plan. The City will continue to develop its bikeway system as outlined in this Circulation Element. The system of bikeways will include
both the Class I and Class II facilities described herein.
A proposed Class I bikeway is planned along Santiago Creek.
Class II bikeways proposed in this Plan include extension of the existing bikeway along Santa Ana Boulevard from the Civic Center to the Santa Ana Transportation Center.
(This is not secret information kept from the public, but has been part of the public records for years, as can seen in the date of adoption and subsequent updates.)
Adopted
February 2, 1998
(Reformatted January 2010)
This document includes revisions to the Circulation Element adopted by Santa Ana City Council March 21, 2011 (GPA 2011-01), July 6, 2004 (GPA 2004-06) and as passed by the voters of Santa Ana April 5, 2005 (GPA 2004-01).
OK, sorry for the back to back post…I just went running up the creek bed and the trail actually seems to be a pretty good nature trail. It seems in pretty good shape with solid footing. A good trail for being in the city. Definitely some low hanging trees which unless you are running with your eyes closed are pretty easily avoided. Would be difficult to ride a bike under them though. Some graffiti on the trees. Really not much garbage at all but it was dark and I just had my head lamp on so easily could have missed some otherwise visible garbage. The only area that seems to be really a hazard is all of the rocks/small boulders toward the end where the paved path ends…it seems that if they were just to even out the boulders and do some easy trimming, the trail seems to be in good shape. Definitely probably not for someone wanting to ride a bike fast or for someone just beginning to ride (i.e. small kids), but it certainly seems like a nature trail to me.
Mark,
You and the others who support this bike road, keep saying it could be a dirt path, it could wind around the trees, we could keep it natural, too bad that’s not the truth.
Look what cook posted;
A proposed Class I bikeway is planned along Santiago Creek.
A Class 1 bike trail HAS to be a MINIMUM of 8 ft wide and PAVED.
A Class 1 bike trail means the total destruction of the creek bed as it is now. You can pretend that it won’t in order to “sell” your plan, but the hard reality is that this portion of the creek in order to accommodate a flat 8 ft wide, paved bike road would need to be graded and built up. That means the trees have to be cut down.
There is NO other way to achieve that level of bike trail with out tons of construction.
I challenge everyone to walk the dirt path (that has been open to EVERYONE for years and years) and see for yourself the 45 degree angle of the embankment, in order for this path to be safe enough for multiple bike riders it HAS to be wide and flat. It will also REQUIRE the taking of peoples’ land through EMINENT DOMAIN.
Why not tell the truth, Mark. If you want people to support your bike trail don’t you think they need to KNOW the details?
Of course everyone would want to have a nice flat bike trail back there, winding through the trees, unfortunately WE CAN’T HAVE BOTH.
Let people decide on the facts;
Bike Road or trees and private property rights?
That’s the question.
Hi Anonster,
I have been true in my positions that I want a trail that all types of users can enjoy. What Cook posted is what the City thinks is required to support that. I am not one to tell the City that they should exclude people from the creek as I beleave in “Leading in an Inclusive environment supporting the diverity of needs” as compared to Leading in an exclusive enviroment catering to the desires of a few without regards to the needs of the many”
If the City “thinks” that some type of a Class 1 trail may need to be placed here to achieve it, then attend the meeting and provide input. The City also has been “thinking” how to permanently fence off this creek so only the creek homeowners can use it”. Thus, they are exploring options. I hope that we can all pull together and create a win-win. Personally, I do not have a strong passion for what material or width it is. I just want it to be safe,effective, sustainable, that people (families) can enjoy.
Once again, the City has the Subject Matter Experts that can best determine a Trail that will meet the needs of the community. Please stop misinforming people that it will be 15 ft wide as if you look at rest of the creek trails you will notice that is not the case. There are shades of grey even within classes of trails.
Thanks Cook for posting the info on the upcoming meeting and the agenda. It is news to me and I am glad the City is going forward to discuss this and to allow input from the citizens. This is what needs to be done.
Mark
Still NOT being truthful Mark, a Class 1 bike trail is a minimum 8 ft wide and paved.
If the bike road proponents thought their actual plan would be popular, they would tell you the truth.
Instead they are pushing for a Class 1 bike trail and pretending that they don’t know what that means.
A Class 1 bike trail means CHAINSAWS, BULLDOZERS, DUMPTRUCKS and EMINENT DOMAIN.
In short, the destruction of the creek bed as it is now.
Hi Anonster,
I am being truefull. Interesting you are now stating min 8 ft wide as your earlier posts of 15 ft.
The Cities, County, and State has constructed thousands of miles of recreational trails througout the state of California. Some look great. Some do not. There are enough “concerned” citizens who love Orange, Santa Ana and especially this creek that together we can make sure it is a trail that still provides a beautiful creek.
I apologise for the wording to everyone in my earlier posting when I said “folks should not be concerned”. I meant to say that you should not be “overly” concerned. By all means share your concerns but try to evaluate them based on their relative (level) of importance to the community.
We all want a better tommorrow for all to enjoy.
Remember that is 8 ft MINIMUM, a Class 1 bike trail is ideally at least 10 ft wide with at least 2.5 ft of clearance on either side, thus the 15 ft.
And FYI, I’ve been getting my info. from you bike road proponents, but that’s like pulling teeth.
You guys are bobbing and weaving to AVOID being pinned down and revealing the ugly details of your plan, perhaps if you were more forthcoming with the truth … crickets … this would be a lot easier to figure out.
We ALL want a “better tomorrow”, mine just happens to include nature.
Seeing the recreational bike riders in my Floral Park neighborhood makes me feel safer, just like seeing the civic center police officiers and judges jogging over the noon hour. Unlike South County cities, in Santa Ana we don’t see people out and about exercising as often. I’d hate to have them all ride on a bike trail in the creek and not using streets like Riverside Drive and Riviera. Makes me feel better knowing others feel it’s safe to jog and ride our in our neighborhood. It’s a nice quiet ride with very little traffic so I can’t imagine why they would prefer to ride in the dry creek bed.
Anciano says:
“Seeing the recreational bike riders in my Floral Park neighborhood makes me feel safer, just like seeing the civic center police officiers and judges jogging over the noon hour”
….. If you are suggesting that the roads be blocked from auto use and only bikes and jogging be allowed, I don’t think your neighbors will go along with that.
There have been cities that have blocked off car travel on some streets to provide for bikes and LSV use. In sunny California that could be option.
Keep this good ideas coming.
cook,
Anciano was only saying that he likes seing bikers going through the neighborhood, that they use the sidewalks now, that it is safe and easy to get around NOT that he wants to block of the roads. That’s some poor reading comprehension.
Thanks anonster. While some of the people with kids might ride on the side walk, most just ride on the street on Riverside Dr. and Riviera to Santa Clara…then on to the Santa Ana river trail. It’s easy, it’s fun, and we get the bonus of seeing all of those rich athletic people from Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, Cowen Heights in that sporty biking gear riding in Santa Ana. Who knows, maybe some of them will stop off at Pico de Gallo for a bite to eat. Most of these folks wouldn’t ride the streets of Santa Ana on a dare if not for this short detour. I go to the Black History parade and Fiesta Patrias each year with my grandkids and the only Gringo I ever see on a bike is this friendly older gentleman who rides an adult tricycle and waves to the kids! I say, why not bring that same love to the masses by providing a reason for others to ride through our city, and not just in the creek bed.
It is nice to ride on the streets of Floral park, with the traffic barriers blocking 98 percent of the cut though traffic makes street riding very safe.
Now Broadway, Main, 17th, Bristol have paid the price of having to bear the burden of the additional auto traffic that’s been pushed out of the North Santa Ana neighborhoods.
Looking forward to the alterative routes designs the local have to offer.
Why do some people buy property along a public easement, and then complaint about the public use of that easement. They knew all about the easement and its future uses, the real-estate agent had them sign the papers of disclosure.
I stopped commenting on this post because I had nothing further to say. But, I have been reading the comments and this shows what a discussion should be on this forum. Here is my two cents, after having read everyone else’s. Disclosure: I signed the petition.
It’s one thing to talk about pre-disclosure of an existing easement. It’s quite another to decide, after all these years, to exercise eminent domain over someone’s property which was bought, fair and square, and then have the lines of that property blemished for the sake of the city wanting to complete a public project. I am not a fan of eminent domain but understand the purpose of it. I would like to see the bike trail finished but not at the expense of the homeowner.
Now, trail improvement can be done (it can) without the taking of someone else’s private property, then I am all for it. If it can’t, well, too bad. There should be another way.
But. what it really sounds like to me is that you have some homeowners whose property backs up to the creek, not that they own property that would have to be condemned. That being the case, they don’t have a property interest in this matter. And, to be honest with you, I can’t see why they would complain about families using the creek trail. It’s certainly better than having that section isolated and cut off so that only the homeless and gangs are using it as a cut-through.
There are many options such as the City could place a path down the 15 ft wide portion that the city owns but that would require removal of trees as the existing path travels along sections of both private and public property.
Also, some homeowners extended their fence lines into/over the city owned property so they would need to pull their fences back from the city owned portion.
IMHO, I hope the other option where the homeowners who own portions of the creek bed yet are not maintaining it will allow construction of a safe trail that follows most (not all) of the current trail to minimize the removal of trees. That would be a win-win for everyone. They would provide easements, not have the liability, and it can be maintained by those who care enough to take care of it (the city and volunteers).
If not, IMHO, then place it on the City/County owned path the whole length as that is what most of the public needs. That means that there would be 2 trails. The existing zig zag one and a safe public one.
Permanently fencing it off so no families has access except those who live along this section of the creek is not fair to the other people who live in these neighboorhoods or adjoining communities. It will be a bad reflection of these neighborhoods to be so exclusive towards others. As most of us learned in Kindergarden, there is enough room in the “sandbox” in the playground for all of us to play. Not everyone will be in the sandbox at the same time.
I am confident that a win-win will eventually be reached if enough good people speak up and our elected officials do what is right for the community. After all, Santa Ana reported 646 accidents between cars and bikes to the OCTA during the last reporting period. Plus, families need more greenway trails to walk on like in Santiago Park and rest of Orange.
This is probably my last comment on this blog. I prefer more face to face (am new to this social media). Signing off to take the Dog out for a walk on the creek today (I clean up after him), will be watering a couple of new Oak trees, and a bike ride on the official sections of the trail. Will be seeing smiling faces and will be sharing with them stories such as above. None of the existing official trails would exist if it was not for good people having the courage and stamina to make it happen.
Lets pull together and be the “Light of the World”. Fences to keep public out of greenways creates more darkness in society. North & South OC has been opening up more of their open spaces/greenways. Why should we do the opposite in Central OC?
I have lived on the creek for over twenty years and for ALL of those years the creek has been OPEN and ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE.
What’s changed?
The proponents of the bike trail have been agitating for eminent domain and have been cutting down trees in the creek bed. I for one want the creek to remain open, but NOT at the expense of the trees, if these bike road enthusiasts can’t control themselves and continue to chop away without regard to private property rights, the homeowners along the creek will be FORCED to PROTECT their property rights.
All Mark Lindsey has left out of his arguments is “think of the children”, this “do it for the community”, i”t will bring us together”, blah, blah, blah is only to obfuscate what the bike road means to this portion of the creek, TOTAL DESTRUCTION.
We all would love to have a bike path that winds through the trees, but that is NOT POSSIBLE in this portion of the creek. In order to build a Class 1 bike trail which is what Mark Lindsey is advocating for, the trees will HAVE to be cut down, the embankment graded and built up and people’s private property will have to be TAKEN through EMINENT DOMAIN.
He can pretend and spin the facts, but that is the truth. It is unfortunate, I wish the REALITY were different, I wish we could have both, but the community is going to HAVE to choose;
PAVED BIKE ROAD OR TREES AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Instead of cutting down the trees, allow the property owners nearest to relocate them on their private property. Since moving the trees would only be a few feet, the chances of successful transplants would be high.
That would clear the way for a bike trail with the added benefit of it being out of the way of the future flood control rebuild that is coming and doesn’t raise any issues about private property and imminent domain.
As I ran on the trail this afternoon, virtually no trash, a few others enjoying it, and some graffitti on the trees (same as always- hate it). Not sure where the property lines are at, but the trees don’t look like the ones you would easily transplant b/c they are leaning and it is sort of like a game of “pick up stix” to where moving one will have an impact on others.
I found it strange actually that I saw more trash on the paved portion of the creekbed. I also found it ironic that one of the pictures that I think I have seen associated with the “look how dirty the non-paved section is” I believe is actually along, but not on, the paved portion of the trail to where I don’t really see how the paving of it would eliminate/reduce that type of graffitti- I am referring to the section under the bridge/freeway/Broadway/Main (not sure which). I think it may even be the picture on above right with the bike trail petition. Ironic I guess…maybe I am wrong and it is somewhere else.
I do think that with a little maintenance that it could be an even better dirt nature trail. Even a nicer greenspace than it is now. Not in favor of fencing it off- improve it, keep it natural w/o paving, enjoy it, and maintain it. Hopefully the neighbors would be in favor of that also.
One group that has not been considered in all of this talk of bike trails is Adults who ride Tricycles.
How about a special bike lane for adults who ride Tricycles? The problem with the creek bike lane idea is that if you get Four Adults on Tricycles riding all at the same time it won’t be wide enough. I would suggest an Adult Tricycle lane on Sycamore street running south to Civic Center and then west to the Santa Ana river trail. You might get Zeller’s Cyclery to sponser the trail and hold events there to inspire other riders.
Nice idea Anciano “I would suggest an Adult Tricycle lane on Sycamore street running south to Civic Center“
But Sycamore doesn’t exist north of 17th st and the portion from Washington to Tenth St has been abandon for OBP.
But there is a under used street available. Heliotrope Dr. The barricade at 17th St. can be removed and Heliotrope can be a one way street exiting Floral Park, and the other half of the street can become the bike lane. Part of Benton Ln and most of Riverside Dr would be one way also completing the bike lane to near Broadway, but going back up to Flower and connecting with the Memory Ln portion.
Now there is still the lack of connection to the current end under the freeway.
That can be accomplished with a bike bridge crossing over to the south side and continuing south along the Broadway exit to a prior abandoned street and then connecting to the bike trail on Riverside Dr.
I am sure that the creek side property owners would chip in to buy out the home owner who is living on the abandoned street so the bike lane can be kept off of public property on the creek.
Riverside Dr would be one way, east from Flower to Benton, opening up half the street for the bike lane.
Also, at 17th street the bike lane can cross and travel south on Parton. Willard can get its own traffic diverters and the trail is a straight thought shot to the School, Library and Civic Center.
I think a few street all over the city and county should be turned into bike roads and this is a good time to start, because the private auto is going the way of the Dodo bird.
“Nice idea Anciano “I would suggest an Adult Tricycle lane on Sycamore street running south to Civic Center“”…… Hmmmmm
I would propose to ban Adult Tricycles because they are dangerous and easily tip over in a turn.
Many havily white-bearded persons riding them, without a helmet, ingured themseves and their craniums.
3 wheel bikes are fun to ride, but it is true they are not built for speed.
All tricycles are dangerous, that is why they are very slow speed.
I would like to comment on some of the points that Mark Lindsey has made here. First, I will say that I do not personally live in Santa Ana, but that really shouldn’t be an issue. There are quite a few people that want to build this bicycle trail that live in cities other than Santa Ana (Shirley Grindle, Mark Lindsey, John Moore).
Now, on to my comments…
Mark Lindsey:
“There are many options such as the City could place a path down the 15 ft wide portion that the city owns but that would require removal of trees as the existing path travels along sections of both private and public property.”
Nope. This information is incorrect. I suggest that everyone here view the ACTUAL property maps, and you’ll see that the current bicycle trail under the freeway ends right onto PRIVATE PROPERTY. Has anyone approached the landowner(s) to ask if they are interested in selling their plot of PRIVATE PROPERTY to build a bicycle trail? A bicycle trail that has absolutely no benefit to them, whatsoever? Oh, my mistake, I’m now remembering that the landowners should give up their private land for the “inclusive needs of the many”. “Needs” is a strong word to use here, Mark. I’m not sure I would go that far. This is a bit juvenile, don’t you think?
Mark Lindsey:
“Also, some homeowners extended their fence lines into/over the city owned property so they would need to pull their fences back from the city owned portion.”
Now wait just a minute here! Mark, if you have such a high regard for property lines, why are advocating so strongly to violate the property lines of some property owners over others? What makes their ownership less valid than anyone else’s?
Mark Lindsey:
“Permanently fencing it off so no families has access except those who live along this section of the creek is not fair to the other people who live in these neighborhoods or adjoining communities. It will be a bad reflection of these neighborhoods to be so exclusive towards others. As most of us learned in Kindergarten, there is enough room in the “sandbox” in the playground for all of us to play. Not everyone will be in the sandbox at the same time.”
I’ve read all the materials from the public info request(s), and I’ve seen nothing that talks about fencing off the entire Creek (and in fact, let’s get real, even if someone had the hair-brain idea to fence off the entire Creek, it couldn’t ever happen because the Santiago Creek is a flood control channel). Building a fence along a private property line is a much different thing than fencing off public access to public space. But, that kind of clarity in definition isn’t really what Mark Lindsey seems to specialize in, is it? Building a fence along your property line isn’t sensational, but if you add just one small lie, something that’s a routine activity for the average homeowners can be made to sound evil. If there’s room in the sandbox for everyone, Mark, why do you have fences around your private property in Orange? I bet you probably even have locks on your doors and windows! Your property isn’t sitting open in the sunshine, welcoming in anyone who’d like to visit and use it as they see fit. I can’t get up on Sunday morning and decide to go have a stroll and a picnic in Mark’s yard. And if I tried, I’m willing to bet I’d have the Orange PD on me quicker than you can say “malicious mischief.” The property owners in the Creek are already being far more generous than Mark is – and the way Mark shows his gratitude is to call them greedy and demand that they hand over their property to him and his friends?
Does anyone here have children? Anyone? Why do I ask? Well, all I read in Mark’s statement is: “It’s not FAIR!” It reminds me of the Violet Beauregarde character, and her famous quote of, “I want it NOW!” in one of my favorite childhood movies “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. Mark, regardless of what YOU think is FAIR, people/families own the land that you and your shady, villainous cohorts want to pave over.
I think everyone really needs to take a step back and take a good look at what these people are proposing. They are banding together to FORCABLY TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY AWAY FROM HOMEOWNERS. At what point is this considered criminal conspiracy? Because the definition of criminal conspiracy an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future. I’m no lawyer, Bruce Bauer (anyone see what I did there?), but I believe that stealing land from someone who holds the DEED is a crime. But maybe you can give me a better definition Bruce…since you ARE a lawyer…hmmm…a lawyer that is working to steal land from people who legally own it…someone else is looking a little shady, too…
Mark Lindsey:
“This is probably my last comment on this blog. I prefer more face to face (am new to this social media). Signing off to take the Dog out for a walk on the creek today (I clean up after him), will be watering a couple of new Oak trees, and a bike ride on the official sections of the trail. Will be seeing smiling faces and will be sharing with them stories such as above. None of the existing official trails would exist if it was not for good people having the courage and stamina to make it happen.”
I guess I won’t be receiving a response then? Oh, that’s just too bad, isn’t it? I do hope that you’ll reconsider, because I have another question for you. Mark, can you tell us how many privately owned residential lots were acquired to build those wonderful trails you speak of? Can you produce one single private landowner in Orange County who willfully surrendered their residential property for the building of a public bike trail?
Look, I think it’s great that you clean up your dog’s mess when you take him out. I think that’s fantastic. That means that you go through the tremendous effort of complying with the minimal restrictions of the law. Should we give you applause for that? What I don’t think is fantastic is the woman who I’ve seen down in the creek on several occasions, wearing her designer track suit (complete with matching red visor) walking her dog OFF leash, taking her little nature hike right onto PRIVATE PROPERTY and watching her little pup leave his deposits for the homeowners to clean up. That’s what I don’t think is so fantastic.
Mark Lindsey:
“Lets pull together and be the “Light of the World”. Fences to keep public out of greenways creates more darkness in society. North & South OC has been opening up more of their open spaces/greenways. Why should we do the opposite in Central OC?”
Is that comment meant to be a joke? Because I actually LOL’d. The “Light of the World”? Darkness in society?! Are you kidding me right now?! Honestly, Mark, it’s wonderful that you believe so strongly in this ideal of communal land ownership. But unfortunately, comrade, that’s just not the way the system works in our society. What you and your bike buddies do on public land is up to you – that’s what that space is for. But when you cross onto private property and start dictating what should happen there without the consent of the owners, you’re just wrong.
Hi Friend of Santiago Creek,
Obviously you did not read the attached letter to this blog demanding the City to Fence off the Creek. Go read it. The City was forced to do this study thanks to a powerful lawyer representing a powerful homeowner.
If you are having difficulties viewing it, then go to another news article at http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/01/santiago_creek_bike_trail_floral_park_rosen_pulido_bauer.php
I and many other friends want to be able to enjoy the creek. The city does own propery (15 ft wide path) along this creek. Go to http://www.neighbors4trail.org
Society would be better served if people had more passion for the right thinks (inclusiveness) and less passion for the wrong things (exclude others from being connected in the community).
Gosh, Mark Lindsey, what a nice, socialistic view of your utopian world. Redevelopment agencies are dead. So, why should private property owners be required to give up their property for the common good?
I seriously doubt that anyone claiming creek property has a legal right, however. Just because some moron fenced their property all the way to the creek bed, doesn’t mean it belongs to them. Let’s take a look at tract maps before we determine that private property needs to be seized.
The city owns enough land to build the trail on without taking anyones property.
Hi Folks,
Cook is right, the city owns a 15 ft wide section (take a look at the parcel maps above). Ignore the “proposed path as that is more resembles the current existing foot path” and I do not know who created it. To the best of my limited knowledge there is not offical proposed path yet but I am sure there are lots of options.
In regards to comments made about me in my earlier postings, I am actually Christ Centered True Blue American who is purpose driven and believes in Democracy. As such I am very involved in Church, Community, and etc. This creek trail is a sociopolitical issue. Religion is part of Society especially for those of us who live our faith 24/7. Thus, when we face conflicts, it helps to ask ourselves what is right for the greater good and to draw from and share the “good words” to draw parallels with the real world and current events.
IMHO, finishing this trail to connect the neighboorhoods from the East to the West and vice versa will join our communities together. Not by car but by foot and bike which allows for better interaction – physical, mental, and spiritual health.
Come see for it yourself from Santiago Park up to Villa Park. If it was not for efforts for good people similiar to myself, this trail system along the creek that families are enjoying would not exist. Nor would they exist elsewhere in OC.
Putting up fences to keep people apart only hardens the hearts of many.
Okay, I am getting off my soapbox.
LoL (as in Lots of Love) not the other LoL directed to me earlier. Everyone has a right to their own opinions which is part of what makes the USA great to live in.
I see what you did there, Mark. You’re very good at distracting people from the true issue at hand. Just for the record, the main issue that I addressed in my previous post was that of Private Property.
But, if that letter is really what’s distracting you, I’m happy to shed some light on what it actually says.
The letter spoke of a meeting that was held in response to a prior meeting, which was held some time in September. The letter references a fencing feasibility study that Gerardo Mouet was engaged in at the time of the September meeting. Let me break this down. In early August, Mouet told members of the public that he’d been assigned this task by the City Manager.
So, let me see here…Mark Rosen originally met with the city in September, and then had a follow-up meeting in October. The time lines just don’t seem to match up to support your claim. Mouet was telling citizens that the City Manager had charged him with this study prior to the first week of August. Mark Rosen initially met with the city in September, and then had a follow-up meeting in October.
Quick question that you might be able to clarify for me: Does Mark Rosen have a DeLorean stashed somewhere so he can magically jump months into the past and retroactively make these types of demands? I’m just not sure that I believe that Mark Rosen somehow twisted time, space and reality and forced the city to engage in this study BEFORE his first meeting with them on the subject. It’s much easier to believe that the attention was brought to the city about this area from the trail proponents secretive meetings with city officials in the summer of 2011. My guess is those clandestine meetings are the real reason that the City Manager called for the study in the first place.
So now let’s talk about point two: fencing.
You claim that the letter calls for completely fencing off the creek. But, when reading the actual letter, we find that Rosen writes very clearly:
“…To recap, we would like the end of the bike trail to be under the bridge like the River Trail that has all emergency key/codes at the gates. We would like a high fence around Jack Fisher Park with the same locked gates for emergency access and the same No Trespassing No Loitering signs that appear on the west side.”
Now, you can argue up and down that the residents east of Flower don’t deserve the same protections, services and/or considerations from their public servants that the residents west of Flower receive. But, I’m not sure why it’s so terrible to ask for equal treatment on, literally, both sides of a street. Why is the west side access to the creek fenced and locked, anyway? Why aren’t you fighting a campaign against the high-powered West Floral Park lawyer who’s erected those fences and is keeping that gate locked?
Rosen doesn’t command the city to build fences. He doesn’t demand that his client’s wishes be fulfilled. He doesn’t wield this power you claim he has to get the job done no matter what the city thinks. He states that this is what he and his clients are asking for. What’s wrong with stating what you want and then asking if you can get it? So far as I can tell, the city hasn’t built any fences along the creek border of Jack Fisher Park, so how has this request broken community connections or excluded members of the community? I told a waiter that I wanted passion fruit iced tea at lunch today, and he told me they only had regular tea. Does that make me evil for asking for something I wanted and then didn’t get?
As I stated in my previous post, the bike trail under the 5 freeway currently ends at the property line of a privately-owned lot. But, that doesn’t concern you, as the trail proponents aren’t interested in private property, right? So if that property line was fenced, it doesn’t pose a problem. Even our good friend Art Pedroza advocates fences along private property lines right in his blog, so I know no one has an issue with that. The idea is to use the City-owned property in the creek bed that runs out from under the 5 freeway for the trail. I see nothing at all in Rosen’s letter that talks about fencing that off. And there’s no way that could be fenced, as it would be a barrier to flood control, as I pointed out before.
In short, I see your lies and raise you a couple of truths. You might also want to talk to your psychiatrist about these time-travel delusions you’re having, the odd feelings of anxiety over citizens asking for equal treatment from their municipal leadership, and the fact that you seem to need to project your feelings of confusion and misunderstanding on others around you. These might be symptoms of some larger health problem. In the mean time, you might want to give serious consideration before operating any heavy machinery, motor vehicles or your bicycle.
I just want to clear up some inaccurate information. I walked the dirt trail inbetween Fisher Park and the 5 on 1/24/2012. It is easily accessed, safe and fun. Anyone of any age and physique could pass through. The comments about it being unsafe, subpar and almost impossible to navigate could only come from someone who has obviously not walked it.
Thank you
I agree with you OC Ped…every time that I have walked and jogged it, it seems very safe. A few low hanging trees that are easily avoided with a duck and weave (I have the same issue on some of our SA sidewalks too!). The only area that seems a little out of line is by the 5/Broadway end when the dirt path turns into basketball or larger sized boulders bedded into the trail. It would be nice to have that section worked a bit, but overall, seems to be a good trail.
Question I have asked a few times with no response (maybe Admin can help): Why is it that the petition above and some of the other websites use a graffiti laden section of the 5/Broadway/Main overpass area as their lead picture of what is wrong when that section is not in the dirt section and I can’t see paving it changing that area? Seems very misleading to me…