Sebastopol Trail Makers needs your support for new bike trails

[Barry]

The Sebastopol TrailMakers invite you to get involved
in making our town a better place to live by
paving the way for more bike and pedestrian trails.

We are currently working with the City of Sebastopol to adopt two great bike trails and a new trail head park. These trails will provide safe, scenic, and direct multi-use bike paths that would connect downtown Sebastopol and the Joe Rodota Trail with outlying portions of our community to the south and west. View the proposed trail maps for the "Gravenstein Trail" and the "Apple Blossom Trail" and learn more about how these proposed biking/walking trails can improve Sebastopol’s quality of life.

This is a community project that takes community support. We need your help! We need to act now to get the City Council to adopt the trails – or this opportunity will be lost.

These well worked out trail proposals are in place. Nearly every critical property owner is supportive. Grant opportunities abound. In five years it is possible for these trails to be complete. These trails will do more than any other single thing to make Sebastopol a better place to live.

See our website at https://www.sebastopoltrailmakers.org/ for more information including our petition.

[Rustie]

What are people thinking - looks to me like these proposed trails cut right though private property. What's the concept here? Furthermore why are we not putting our attention into a viable public transportation system that will actually be used on a daily basis for commuters and transport to shopping needs not met by our local Sebastopol merchants?

Scenic bike trails do nothing to get the bulk of our traffic off the roads. I do not see how this is consistent with the stated intentions of our community attempting to "green" Sebastopol, decrease congestion and increase local business opportunities and patronage.

The Sebastopol TrailMakers invite you to get involved
in making our town a better place to live by
paving the way for more bike and pedestrian trails.

We are currently working with the City of Sebastopol to adopt two great bike trails and a new trail head park. These trails will provide safe, scenic, and direct multi-use bike paths that would connect downtown Sebastopol and the Joe Rodota Trail with outlying portions of our community to the south and west. View the proposed trail maps for the "Gravenstein Trail" and the "Apple Blossom Trail" and learn more about how these proposed biking/walking trails can improve Sebastopol’s quality of life.

This is a community project that takes community support. We need your help! We need to act now to get the City Council to adopt the trails – or this opportunity will be lost.

These well worked out trail proposals are in place. Nearly every critical property owner is supportive. Grant opportunities abound. In five years it is possible for these trails to be complete. These trails will do more than any other single thing to make Sebastopol a better place to live.

See our website at https://www.sebastopoltrailmakers.org/ for more information including our petition.

[Imagery]

Just curious if you know what you're talking about, Rustie.

What are people thinking? Well, at least several are thinking of ways to make an alternative (and safer) solution to the crappy, pothole filled roads that cyclists are forced to ride on due to lack of a viable alternative. Do they claim it will be the end all/be all perfect solution to take the "bulk of our traffic off the roads"? No. I'd consider them fools tilting at windmills if they did.

If they have the support of most of the critical landowners, then they are well on their way to doing something nice for the community.

-Gregory

What are people thinking - ....

[Rustie]

Well Gregory, it appears to me that the several of you who are thinking, as you put it, are thinking primarily of those who are cyclists. If we put our resources into repairing those crappy pothole filled roads wouldn't that be a solution for everyone that uses them, not just cyclists?

Regarding the safety issue, off the top of my head, why not reduce the number of lanes down Main Street from 3 to 2 and utilize the gained space for bike lanes on both sides. Please don't bother to point out how reduced auto lanes will increase congestion because the other side of your argument, which for the purpose of discussion I am implying I accept, is that better cyclist access will reduce traffic. You can't embody all sides of the debate and be taken seriously. There might well be other legitimate flaws to that idea but you need to realize that just because some of us are not thinking solely of cyclists does not mean that we are not thinking. It's a problem that's much more comprehensive than simply providing more pedestrian and bike trails.

I have not suggested that the folks advocating for these bike trails are insinuating that the trails will be an “end all” or a “perfect solution” to the bulk of our traffic problems. Without question however, they have included as talking points the idea that these trails will have a significant impact on reducing the use of petrol based vehicles in our town. I simply question the validity of that position. As I recall that was the same hypothesis presented when converting the Joe Rodata Trail into a pedestrian/cyclist path. Connecting Sebastopol to S.R. appeared to be a wonderful opportunity to reduce traffic by way of creating alternative routes of transport. Problem is most folks do not get on their bikes to peddle across town to get to work or shop at the mall or go to Costco or for any other non-recreational purpose. They get in their cars and drive. Imagine if that abandoned railroad right-of-way had been utilized as a light rail public transport system running five days a week from 6am to 10pm and on weekends till midnight. How many more people do you think would be using that trail on a regular daily basis compared to it's current, primarily week-end recreational usage? That's how you get large numbers of people out of their cars, you provide them with a viable means of alternative transportation to adequately accommodate their everyday needs.

I'm not saying that bike trails are bad – I'm merely suggesting that if the intention is to create more recreational opportunities for a specific group of people then call it what it is. Please do not insult our intelligence by attempting to guise it in how good it will be for our community and the environment. If you want to build community don't suggest carving up people's property for your recreational desires – get out, meet your neighbors and offer to help them do their yard work or invite them over for a BBQ. If you are concerned about the environment don't create an opportunity to draw in and encourage tourism. Tourism is an industry that has a HUGE carbon footprint. At the risk of sounding redundant – what are people thinking?

Let me go on record now to make it perfectly clear – these proposed bike paths do not affect me personally, they do not come anywhere near my property. My comments are not motivated by self-interest as you have attempted to suggest (in your post to me prior to Barry's editing). Quite the contrary, I am noticing that other people will potentially have their personal property rights, as well as their privacy, violated by these bike paths. I have my doubts that the critical landowners, with their homes on those parcels in question, will support the idea of having a public trail run through the center of their properties. If I am wrong and they are down with the plan that's their business and I say good for everyone but I take issue with folks who use various forms of guilt as a manipulative tactic to service their own desires.

I would suggest Gregory that you consider the perspective of others. Perhaps a public park in your neighborhood, utilizing your property as well as your neighbors might benefit the rest of us. I'm guessing by your selfless desires to do nice things for your community that you wouldn't mind having me and several of my friends gather on a regular basis every Saturday afternoon in your backyard........

Just curious if you know what you're talking about, Rustie.

What are people thinking? Well, at least several are thinking of ways to make an alternative (and safer) solution to the crappy, pothole filled roads that cyclists are forced to ride on due to lack of a viable alternative. Do they claim it will be the end all/be all perfect solution to take the "bulk of our traffic off the roads"? No. I'd consider them fools tilting at windmills if they did.

If they have the support of most of the critical landowners, then they are well on their way to doing something nice for the community.

-Gregory

[Sandy2y]

I guess the thinking is that more folks will ride bikes and drive less. We here at Burbank Heights and Orchards are objecting heavily to the proposed part of the trail that runs through our property right past the church. Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Seb. City Council and others:

I am writing to protest the inclusion of a bicycle path through Burbank Heights and Orchards. The proposed path running next to the ‘R’ and ’S’ buildings is a particularly dangerous idea. Frequently, there are delivery trucks parked at the curb, and other vehicles double parked waiting to pick up tenants who need help walking. This narrows the available space for walking and riding. Although there’s a sidewalk there, pedestrians would have to get to and from the sidewalk, encountering bicycles.

Residents living here range in age from 62 well into their nineties. Many walk very slowly, some are recuperating from injuries or operations. Others are hearing- and vision-impaired, and a cyclist yelling out “on your right” or ringing a bell might not be heard, and might frighten a person as they quickly pass. In addition, the city bus stops right there, further impeding through traffic.

The bike paths are a necessity and I’m all for them. But, pedestrians are frequently at risk. I no longer walk on the Joe Rodata Trail or other bike trails because of the danger to myself. The speeding bikes coming up very close to me, especially in both directions, before I can get to the side of the path where it’s not paved, are unnerving. That same danger can be applied to the path at Burbank Heights. Bikes and pedestrians do not belong on the same path.

We are old. We move slowly.

Must we wait until someone is hurt?

sandy2y

What are people thinking - looks to me like these proposed trails cut right though private property. What's the concept here? Furthermore why are we not putting our attention into a viable public transportation system that will actually be used on a daily basis for commuters and transport to shopping needs not met by our local Sebastopol merchants?

Scenic bike trails do nothing to get the bulk of our traffic off the roads. I do not see how this is consistent with the stated intentions of our community attempting to "green" Sebastopol, decrease congestion and increase local business opportunities and patronage.

[santoshimatajaya]

people like riding from santa rosa to sebastopol to forestville
riding through the countryside
avoiding city streets, traffic
preferring sounds of the birds, the wildlife, being physical, away from machines, in a more timeless state

it's part of what living in this community is about
why it is so desirable and appreciated
and rare

~yamah

[Glia]

Bravo!! Thank you for stating what should be obvious but apparently is not: for 99% of the population, bicycles are NOT a practical form of transportation, especially for the long distances between towns.

This is the 21st century, and we need to be investing in 21st century solutions.

...Scenic bike trails do nothing to get the bulk of our traffic off the roads. I do not see how this is consistent with the stated intentions of our community attempting to "green" Sebastopol, decrease congestion and increase local business opportunities and patronage.

[podfish]

What are people thinking - looks to me like these proposed trails cut right though private property.

our country is a tad unique in its fanatical devotion to private property rights. I guess in a land where corporations not only are people, but are people with special priviledges, it's not unexpected. I find it funny that (knowing nothing of Rustie's politics - but this is common even among lefties here) so many people are communitarian in everything but land access.
But from a guide to hiking in Britain, where they're a bit more civilized, they've helpfully written a primer for their less enlightened cousins who come to visit there:

"Expect to cross private property. In North America, the law restricts where people can camp. Most people camp in state and national parks. However, there just isn’t as much open space in Britain. Farms and pastures take up much of the rural landscape. In the UK, you will probably spend much of your trip on someone’s private property.

This doesn’t mean you can’t explore the countryside. Rights of public access are very important in Britain. If someone has a trail on his property, right-of-way laws require him to keep it open to the public. Even Tony Blair, who has a trail running through the front yard of his country house, isn’t above the laws of public access.

Signs posted along most trails will tell you how much access you can have. Sometimes you can leave the trail and explore the surrounding countryside. At other times, you’ll be expected to stay on the path. When in doubt, don’t leave the trail."

[Rustie]

While I appreciate your perspective it seems to me that there is a fair amount of pertinent information missing from the excerpt you have presented. For starters land law in the U.K. is quite a bit different than it is over here in these “uncivilized” regions of the globe. Across the pond land ownership laws were rooted in the feudal system which began around 1066. The concept being that all land was owned by the crown.

Certainly over the centuries there have been numerous changes in these very civilized land laws but I believe that the specific laws which you are referencing are those that came into play with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act in 2000. This gave the public the right to roam freely on registered common land in England & Whales. Scotland has its own version. Common land is very specific land and the owner's rights are restricted in a variety of areas inclusive of the right-of-way laws. Common lands consisted of millions of acres until around the 17^th century. Now most all land in England and Whales that is privately owned provides the landowners with exclusive rights of ownership as well as usage. I believe all preexisting public paths & trails are also protected by right-of-way laws.

In Britain many of these public paths are a part of the country's national heritage. Ancient history such as the Saxon Shore Way, the Ridgeway, Offa's Dyke etc., to name a few, are examples of this. I'm sorry Podfish but I just don't see your insertion of these right-of-way laws in the UK as relevant to this discussion. That having been said I will attempt to connect the dots none-the-less.

Preexisting is the operative word here. It is my opinion that there is a very distinct difference in properties with existing public trails and access and properties without preexisting public access. I think it is fair to say that if one purchases property with a freeway running through the backyard it would be inappropriate to expect that a cease and desist position on the public use of the freeway would or should take precedence, even if it is in Tony Blair's backyard. However, if there is no such freeway or disclosed plans for one when someone buys their little plot of privacy why are you compelled to deem them uncivilized should they choose not to open their home for public use?

our country is a tad unique in its fanatical devotion to private property rights. I guess in a land where corporations not only are people, but are people with special priviledges, it's not unexpected. I find it funny that (knowing nothing of Rustie's politics - but this is common even among lefties here) so many people are communitarian in everything but land access.
But from a guide to hiking in Britain, where they're a bit more civilized, they've helpfully written a primer for their less enlightened cousins who come to visit there:

"Expect to cross private property. In North America, the law restricts where people can camp. Most people camp in state and national parks. However, there just isn’t as much open space in Britain. Farms and pastures take up much of the rural landscape. In the UK, you will probably spend much of your trip on someone’s private property.

This doesn’t mean you can’t explore the countryside. Rights of public access are very important in Britain. If someone has a trail on his property, right-of-way laws require him to keep it open to the public. Even Tony Blair, who has a trail running through the front yard of his country house, isn’t above the laws of public access.

Signs posted along most trails will tell you how much access you can have. Sometimes you can leave the trail and explore the surrounding countryside. At other times, you’ll be expected to stay on the path. When in doubt, don’t leave the trail."

[podfish]

Preexisting is the operative word here. It is my opinion that there is a very distinct difference in properties with existing public trails and access and properties without preexisting public access. I think it is fair to say that if one purchases property with a freeway running through the backyard it would be inappropriate to expect that a cease and desist position on the public use of the freeway would or should take precedence, even if it is in Tony Blair's backyard. However, if there is no such freeway or disclosed plans for one when someone buys their little plot of privacy why are you compelled to deem them uncivilized should they choose not to open their home for public use?

first off, I agree that I'd be pretty unhappy if they put a public trail across my property too. And it always seems unfair when rules change. Finally on that line, I'm not implying that any individual's level of civilization is in question here. And since it's academic, not personal, for me, I do acknowledge that this reads differently for those who may have to deal with cast-off McDonald's wraps.

What I am saying, though, is that a 'civilized society' (ok, I'm being glib, and will soon be hyperbolic, but consider the media here...) should work to increase communitarian rights. I'm not convinced by the argument that all it need do is provide 'equality of opportunity' at birth then let Darwin and Malthus fight it out from there. Of course it should be concerned with protecting the individual against the "tyranny of the masses" but that's not always easy to define.

So here, I'd define that as compensating the impacted owners for 'loss of privacy'. Since you brought it up, that's what happens if they did decide to put a freeway through. I think the bike lane extensions are a public good, so I think they're worth supporting, but I think it's also a public good to try to recompense those who are more directly affected (by compromising their privacy) than the rest of us taxpayers (who just contribute a little cash). That doesn't often happen, and in a civilized society we'd do a better job of it. But everything changes and it's not possible or desirable to freeze a status quo when there's an opportunity to benefit so many. That's what over-reliance on 'pre-existing' conditions essentially means.

[podfish]

Bravo!! Thank you for stating what should be obvious but apparently is not: for 99% of the population, bicycles are NOT a practical form of transportation, especially for the long distances between towns.

This is the 21st century, and we need to be investing in 21st century solutions.

Segways? I don't think we'll ever get the rocket packs they promised us...

I saw an interesting critique recently about the Google self-driving cars; it was something I hadn't considered. In general, I think a small fleet of cab-equivalent self-driving cars that come when you need them and make efficient use of limited roadway would improve our lives tremendously. But it was pointed out that this is a disruptive technology in the same ways that freeways were in the fifties: they lower the cost of sprawl and so they remove some of the pressures that are making people live in more sustainable ways.

[erinsheff]

The volunteers at Luther Burbank's Experiment Farm (aka Gold Ridge Farm as it is known locally) are all in favor of more bike trails in greater Sebastopol. However, the proposed Apple Blossom Trail is mapped as bisecting Gold Ridge Farm.

This is a travesty that endangers the trees, shrubs and flowers developed by Luther Burbank, and violates the integrity of the remaining portion of the original Farm that honors the man who was responsible for the introduction of the Burbank Russet potato that you eat with every french fry. He created the Shasta Daisy and developed more than 800 new varieties of plants that benefitted humankind.

This part of the proposed trail may prevent the plan from being approved by the City Council because they recognize that the Farm is an attraction that brings tourists, and puts Sebastopol on the map for lovers of history and horticulture worldwide. It is also a jewel of quiet open space much enjoyed by locals.

The entrance to the Farm on the proposal uses the roads of Burbank Heights and Orchards Senior Housing. The Board of BHO is opposed to this use of their private property, making this section of the trail a pipe dream.

It behooves the designers of the map to remove mention of Gold Ridge Farm from the proposal because the volunteers who are responsible for maintaining the Farm are resisting and will continue to oppose any incursion into this property listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Erin Sheffield

[Barry]

...However, the proposed Apple Blossom Trail is mapped as bisecting Gold Ridge Farm. ...
It behooves the designers of the map to remove mention of Gold Ridge Farm from the proposal because the volunteers who are responsible for maintaining the Farm are resisting and will continue to oppose any incursion into this property listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Perhaps the people in that area can come up some ideas about how the trail could be rerouted.

[laho]

Perhaps the people in that area can come up some ideas about how the trail could be rerouted.

There is a road that connects the end of Robinson Road with Pleasant Hill Road; this would circumvent both Burbank Heights and Orchards senior residential community and the Luther Burbank Farm.

[nancypreb]

Perhaps the people in that area can come up some ideas about how the trail could be rerouted.

How is it their responsibility to come up with an alternative route?! Are they somehow less "civic minded" if they fail to come up with an alternative to an outside entity's proposal? In other words..." I want recreational passage through your property! What- no?! Well then, find me an alternative!" How "Sebastopol" of you.

[nancypreb]

It's not what "LIVING" in this community is about, it's what RETIRING/ VACATIONING in this community is about.

people like riding from santa rosa to sebastopol to forestville
riding through the countryside
avoiding city streets, traffic
preferring sounds of the birds, the wildlife, being physical, away from machines, in a more timeless state

it's part of what living in this community is about
why it is so desirable and appreciated
and rare

~yamah

[Barry]

How is it their responsibility to come up with an alternative route?! Are they somehow less "civic minded" if they fail to come up with an alternative to an outside entity's proposal? In other words..." I want recreational passage through your property! What- no?! Well then, find me an alternative!" How "Sebastopol" of you.

How quarrelsome of you, Nancy.

[nancypreb]

Again, not my fault to point out the obvious. Your proposed solution is to make it someone else's problem... the very people that have nothing to do with the proposal, other than the pressure of being labeled "uncivilized" if they say no. Part of the proposed trail goes straight through the middle of my private property, property that has been in my family for 5 generations in one of the oldest sections of Sebastopol, bisecting it like Gold Ridge Farm. Not gonna happen. But is it my problem to come up with an alternative?! No. But it is very passive aggressive behavior to suggest that I should come up with the alternative solution, just like it is of you to ask those private property owners like GRF or BH, those who say "NO," to do so. Sounds very open minded, but let's just be real.... its asking someone to solve a non-problem. Instead of your solution being pinning it on the "nay-sayers" to find a solution.... what solution do YOU propose?!

How quarrelsome of you, Nancy.

[Barry]

...Your proposed solution is to make it someone else's problem... the very people that have nothing to do with the proposal, other than the pressure of being labeled "uncivilized" if they say no. ...

Sheesh. Who said anything about be labeled "uncivilized" besides you?

Erin posted: "The volunteers at Luther Burbank's Experiment Farm (aka Gold Ridge Farm as it is known locally) are all in favor of more bike trails in greater Sebastopol. "

I merely suggested perhaps they had an idea for another route. It isn't their "responsibility" to do so, nor is it their problem, but being that they "are all in favor of more bike trails" perhaps they had an idea for another route.

Same goes for your property, Nancy. It's not your responsibility to come up with another route, but should you want to be helpful, perhaps you have an idea for another route.

I'm not familiar with either the Gold Ridge farm or your property, nor is this my project, but I am supportive of it and I hope a viable route can be found.

It would be very "Sebastopol" of those concerned to collaborate and try to find a way to make this happen!

I wonder how the neighbors of the bike trail that goes between Analy High School and 116 feel about it. Though, it's a bit of a special case because it attracts a lot of high school students.

[nancypreb]

How are you unfamiliar with Gold Ridge Farm? Do you live here, Barry?
And I have a solution with respect to my property.... use the ROAD! Problem solved.

but should you want to be helpful, perhaps you have an idea for another route.

[Rustie]

At the risk of continuing a tangent that may well be deemed not appropriate for this thread I have to say I question your commitment to the communitarian concept. It appears to me that you hold it up as a theory but perhaps not in practice, at least not for yourself. By your own words, you would “be pretty unhappy” if it was your property up for grabs. I realize that you did not indicate that you would refuse to give up what's yours for the collective but I would expect if one truly embodies the concept of communitarian rights it would be considered a gift to have the opportunity to give to the community. In truth I have yet to experience or observe a communal social structure where equality in rights, stature, distribution of property, responsibility, labor and opportunity actually exist.

There is no opportunity for equality at birth. A massive redistribution of wealth & power and the demise of elitist advantage would need to take place before any semblance of equality could percolate to the top. After that undertaking we would need to maintain a system of equal distribution – I believe most folks begin getting uncomfortable around this point in the conversation. The words “socialist” and “socialism” start squeaking out with an ample dusting of disdain. So rather than a genuinely organized collective society we look around to pick and choose the arenas in which we are comfortable applying the agenda of “good for the majority &/or common cause”. Case in point, the bike trail.

While the stated position of the pro bike-trailers is that the extended bike trails are a public good for the community I have yet to be convinced. The evidence indicates that it is a minority of our community that would actually use those trails with any degree of regularity. Certainly when you do a study and start polling people the stats are going to come back with a lot of lip service about using bikes on a regular basis. The evidence however does not coincide with the polls. Case in point, how many cyclists do you see, on a regular basis, utilizing the Joe Rodota Trail? Parks & Rec acknowledges that week-day use is minimal, the trail is primarily used for recreational activities. Is it your opinion that providing more bike specific recreational activities is a public good for the majority of the community?

Of course it goes without saying that the city would be required to compensate the landowners for the use of their property and loss of privacy. I question if there would be enough money in the budget of this proposal to adequately recompense all of the folks involved and I don't believe it would be compulsory for anyone to oblige with or without monetary compensation. That having been said I have my doubts that the proposed bike trails will fly as they exist.

The salient point in my opinion however is are these bike paths really a necessary "good for the majority"? I personally feel there are far more valuable "public good" projects worthy of the energy and funds needed to pull them off. One such example off the top of my head would be an electric, or better yet ethanol-fueled shuttle service that runs in 15 minute intervals throughout town with an eye on expanding into SR & RP. But perhaps I'm the one missing the point. Maybe the goal is not about improving our living conditions, reducing our carbon footprint and localizing our economy - maybe it's just about creating more fun stuff to do.....

first off, I agree that I'd be pretty unhappy if they put a public trail across my property too. And it always seems unfair when rules change. Finally on that line, I'm not implying that any individual's level of civilization is in question here. And since it's academic, not personal, for me, I do acknowledge that this reads differently for those who may have to deal with cast-off McDonald's wraps...

[laho]

Barry asked for some alternatives to the Apple Blossom Trail intruding into the senior community of Burbank Heights and the Luther Burbank Farm.

How about having the trail pop out from Ives Park and then proceed up Washington Avenue, thru Libby Park, up Pleasant Hill Road, to Bodega, then enter the Valley View complex at Ragle Road?

This way, the Calder Creek property, the heavily trafficked Leland Avenue, the senior community, and the precious Burbank Farm would not be touched... and has no one objected to a bike path through the cemetery???? I don't think I'd like being at my father's grave and having bikes, etc riding by...

[Rustie]

The road you are in reference to is actually a private road. Though many use it as a shortcut, none are welcome. I doubt that it will be a viable option.

There is a road that connects the end of Robinson Road with Pleasant Hill Road; this would circumvent both Burbank Heights and Orchards senior residential community and the Luther Burbank Farm.

[Rustie]

I'm not sure I can visualize all of the areas you are suggesting but it sounds to me like you are making an effort to avoid impacting non-consistent public use areas and private property. Bravo and Thank You!

Great point about the cemetery, as all the points of opposition have been. Bike paths are not inherently a public good for all. Nor are they bad, it's not a black and white issue and it's disingenuous of proponents to pose it as such. Again, thank you laho for taking the wider view.

Barry asked for some alternatives to the Apple Blossom Trail intruding into the senior community of Burbank Heights and the Luther Burbank Farm.

How about having the trail pop out from Ives Park and then proceed up Washington Avenue, thru Libby Park, up Pleasant Hill Road, to Bodega, then enter the Valley View complex at Ragle Road?

This way, the Calder Creek property, the heavily trafficked Leland Avenue, the senior community, and the precious Burbank Farm would not be touched... and has no one objected to a bike path through the cemetery???? I don't think I'd like being at my father's grave and having bikes, etc riding by...

[Rustie]

Actually Barry I suspect that nancypreb might be in reference to a comment made earlier by Podfish where he commented about societies more civilized than ours and their progressive right-of-way land use laws. I too interpreted Podfish's comment about the Brit's being “a bit more civilized” as an attempted under the radar dig at those who were not inclined to share their property and compromise their privacy for the sake of a public trail.

Regarding folks in favor of more bike trails – it appears that the misconception here is that if one is for more bike trails that also means they consider the project worthy of time & effort spent to devise a viable plan. You suggest that if she wants to be helpful, which comes with the hit of “good and civic minded”, she could suggest some alternatives. Perhaps she is good and civic minded, does not necessarily oppose more bike paths but is of the opinion that there are more important issues to address to better our community.

Sheesh. Who said anything about be labeled "uncivilized" besides you?

Erin posted: "The volunteers at Luther Burbank's Experiment Farm (aka Gold Ridge Farm as it is known locally) are all in favor of more bike trails in greater Sebastopol. "

I merely suggested perhaps they had an idea for another route. It isn't their "responsibility" to do so, nor is it their problem, but being that they "are all in favor of more bike trails" perhaps they had an idea for another route.

Same goes for your property, Nancy. It's not your responsibility to come up with another route, but should you want to be helpful, perhaps you have an idea for another route.

I'm not familiar with either the Gold Ridge farm or your property, nor is this my project, but I am supportive of it and I hope a viable route can be found.

It would be very "Sebastopol" of those concerned to collaborate and try to find a way to make this happen!

I wonder how the neighbors of the bike trail that goes between Analy High School and 116 feel about it. Though, it's a bit of a special case because it attracts a lot of high school students.

[laho]

The road you are in reference to is actually a private road. Though many use it as a shortcut, none are welcome. I doubt that it will be a viable option.

So isn't it better to consider an already used road (albeit private) than cutting thru a senior community and bisecting the Burbank Experimental Farm and the cemetery?

[podfish]

I too interpreted Podfish's comment about the Brit's being “a bit more civilized” as an attempted under the radar dig at those who were not inclined to share their property and compromise their privacy for the sake of a public trail.

nope, it's not aimed at any one idividual - it's expressing respect for the ethics of a country where they display more interest in communal values than us cowboys do, and they've embodied those ethics in their laws. Most Americans think that constraining individual rights is a weakness on their part - I don't.

[nancypreb]

nope, it's not aimed at any one idividual - it's expressing respect for the ethics of a country where they display more interest in communal values than us cowboys do, and they've embodied those ethics in their laws. Most Americans think that constraining individual rights is a weakness on their part - I don't.

Um....yeah....when EVERY response you've made has been preceded with a "Rustie wrote" or "Glia wrote"....THAT is the VERY THING that give the impression that you are responding to "any one individual." Just sayin'.

Rustie..... it's like you're inside my head. A compatriot in common sense. God bless you!

Iaho.... good point about the cemetery. I too thought the same thing..... "SURE! Let's bury my loved one while fat men in spandex and neon ride by!.... May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands. For the praise and the glory of his name. For our good and the good of all his.....HEY! Look at that lovely family taking a leisurely stroll on a Wednesday afternoon! Must be home schooled! At least THEY'RE 'staying healthy'.... Amen"

No thank you.

Podfish, do you rent or own? Where exactly do you live? Perhaps we could constrain YOUR individual rights and put the trail through your yard? Oh wait, you already said you wouldn't like that. But you WOULD use it on a daily basis as an option to your car....if it did go through your yard, right?! Because how they do in Britain is how we should do in America! .... Do we need to revisit Revolutionary War History?! BTW, I'm sure the Queen would LOVE you.

Barry, do you live here? Because I'm SUPER supportive of bike trail wherever you live, especially though your yard. Seriously, where do you live? I will TOTALLY work towards a bike trail.

Right about now, I'm thinkin'..... WOULDN'T IT BE LOVELY TO HAVE A HOSPITAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Actually, you know what I love?! A city council member who's spouse is/was on the hospital board who has an "Open Our Hospitals" sign on their front lawn. I SO want to say.... "YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CLOSED IT!" But wait.... we need bike trails! THAT's what I should have told my dying, 64 year old mother, as I drove her to Palm Drive Hospital, only to meet her death....." Sorry mom, now we need to drive to Santa Rosa. Please stay alive for another 30-60 minutes. By the way, did you know we need bike trails in Sebastopol?! Any person of civilized society knows this"

"Sheesh!"

[nancypreb]

Just in case anyone hasn't already caught on.... I love satire, sarcasm, and hyperbole. These are all veritable and valuable literary styles. While I would NEVER equate myself, let me remind you that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are praised masters of such techniques, even in regards to current events, and rightfully so. Note that THAT is the spirit in which I write. A lot of sarcasm, a healthy amount of confrontation, and a LOT of common/practical sense. The best part is.... I KNOW I'm not alone :-D

[podfish]

Um....yeah....when EVERY response you've made has been preceded with a "Rustie wrote" or "Glia wrote"....THAT is the VERY THING that give the impression that you are responding to "any one individual." Just sayin'.

and this will say "nancypreb wrote'... pretty cool how that HTML/interwebby stuff works. It's the online equivalent of body language in a group conversation; you typically turn toward the person whose comment you're responding to, but on the internet even a dog can't wag his tail.