Sebastopol Trail Makers needs your support for new bike trails

https://www.sebastopoltrailmakers.or...1406829401.png
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...3_12-38-56.png


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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdFs...fkJRIAXkSQjf_Q

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

https://www.sebastopoltrailmakers.or...1406829401.png
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...3_12-38-56.png


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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdFszIiUeoY&list=PL3Gs765GiOGRk8sxnTSfkJRIAXkSQjf_Q

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

What are people thinking - ....

---

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........

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

...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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

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."

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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."

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by erinsheff:

...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. :idea:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

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.

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?!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

How quarrelsome of you, Nancy.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

...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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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...

---

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by laho:

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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!"

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

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.

Sorry but I don't understand what your criteria is for discerning what areas would be more appropriate to invade with a bike path. It would appear that you see fit to impose a public trail on a private road that happens to have been violated by trespassers rather than imposing this invasion of privacy through areas that currently have legitimate public access such as the cemetery and the Burbank Experimental Farm. Could this be because you would personally be negatively impacted by a trail going through the cemetery and you would prefer and advocate for this personal violation to be imposed upon others? Just curious.......

Once again, all of the discourse on this topic exemplifies my original and continual point – the evidence does not support the premise that the bike path project is in service of and beneficial to the majority of our community. The responses thus far are not to dissimilar to the sentiments expressed when talk of a homeless shelter begins to surface – Wonderful, great idea, much needed – BUT Not in my backyard. In truth some of the arguments used in opposition to a homeless shelter apply here, in fact more so. Vandalism, trash, theft, increased transient activity etc. Unless the project has budgeted for 24 hour security you can count on public paths through private property to bring an unprecedented increase of homeless and mentally ill into those neighborhoods. With that reality in mind, I personally think a homeless shelter would be more productive and consistent in the spirit of building community.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by laho:

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?

---

Regarding this topic I'm unclear as to what communal values of the Brits you are referring to. I'm guessing it's not the constraint of individual rights put into practice by surveillance cameras throughout London that you are in admiration of - yes/no? I'm going to go out on a limb here and interpret that you are probably suggesting a respect for their common land laws and structure. If so you might be interested to learn that the common lands of the UK were actually established for the purpose of securing land ownership by the lords, the elites, the privileged & the wealthy class. The common land structure in the UK was in fact the foundation of our private property land laws in the US.

While I'm never hesitant to hold up the superiority of other countrymen over Americans I fail to see the enlightenment of the Brits in this particular instance. I do however accept on your word that your intentions were not a veiled attempt at manipulation by way of guilt. Unfortunately it's a frequently used method, in fact Gregory tried it on me once already in this thread. None-the-less, sorry to have misinterpreted your comments.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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.

---

Well, as someone who grew up on Robinson Road in the 50s and all decades forward, I can tell you that ALL traffic has gotten quite thick around the Robinson Road area. And that, while the owner of the private road at the end of Robinson currently allows pedestrian and bike traffic access to her property, an additional source of traffic of any sort would probably not be welcome. I get concerned when I see many of us offering our opinions so loudly about what should be done with other people's lands. There were many of us who hated to see orchards divided up and made into housing.

The Burbank land was a wonderland before Burbank Heights, the Cabral orchard (now Two Acre Woods) and my own family's orchard (now Stefenoni Court) held my entire childhood in their soil. Seeing them go was not easy and it's been a difficult transition for me on many levels. But if that hadn't happened, there are many who would never have been able to come here to live. It all just goes along... I am certain that there is a way for commerce and land to co-exist peacefully, just as there are ways for the vehicular traffic and the cycling traffic to do the same. We just need to keep minds open and the dialogue continuing...as kindly as possible. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by laho:

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?

---

Lots of long time residents of Sebastopol chiming in. Although it may not be the best solution, to get folks from downtown to the west all the way to Watertrough Road, I still think the Washington Avenue idea holds up well. Even though there is traffic on the street, there is only one steep hill to climb, just after Virginia Avenue. There would be no intrusion of private roads, private property, or sacred cemetery land. With proper signage and an acknowledgement of lower speeds, kids, cyclists, and walkers with pets could safely get from here to there with very little expense to the City and its citizens.

I was lucky enough to live 1 narrow parcel away from bike trail that goes from Analy High School to 116. Even though it was used by many high school kids, I never had a problem with it and used it often for both biking and walking.

The proposed trail heading south from downtown is also 1 parcel away from me and I would be delighted if it comes to be. In my case, I would use it alot to go downtown, instead of both driving and biking up Petaluma Ave. Sometimes this would remove a bike trip from a main highway, rather than a car trip, but this is still helpful.

The thought/hope is that biking as functional transportation will rise in the future as more people choose to be carless, or otherwise kind to the environment and their bodies. Bikes do have some impact on the traffic of a street, but not lots.

So on balance, I'd agree that the bike trails will be primarily useful as recreation opportunities rather than traffic reduction, but I do think they will be of some help in reducing both car and bike trips on congested roads.

I presume that Trail Makers will work with property owners to find some mutually agreeable route. Whereas I wouldn't be thrilled if a bike trail bisected my property, I wouldn't mind it if it ran along side my property as long as there was a reasonable set back, such as on the Analy High School trail.

So perhaps some property owners will grant/sell and easement along the edge of their property to make this possible. Adding some fencing, perhaps at the Trail Makers cost, might also be appropriate.

I still think this would be a major win for Sebastopol in terms of quality of life, recreation (including walking, and being pushed in a stroller or wheel chair, and skateboarding) and traffic reduction. I think bike trails serve a wider segment of the population many other forms of public recreation facilities.

I also appreciated the public walkways in England (where they are used fairly heavily and seemingly without issues) and would love to see them more widely used here. It also should be noted, at least the ones I saw/used, they are narrow dirt paths, rather than paved wide trails.

I've been visiting friends in Boulder for the past 15 years and remain totally impressed with the emphasis that city places on bike paths, roads, trails, and cycling in general. They are continually improving the existing bike roads, adding new ones, and building underpasses beneath the major roads for cyclists. They even have large mirrors at the ends of these tunnels so cyclists can see the oncoming bikes. The citizens of Boulder take their cycling and cyclists very seriously and are definitely not wishy-washy about their whole hearted support of cycling unlike some communities in other States.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

...
The thought/hope is that biking as functional transportation will rise in the future as more people choose to be carless, or otherwise kind to the environment and their bodies. ...

---

Then let's hold a fundraiser to relocate all of Sonoma County's bike nuts to Boulder! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ronaldo:

I've been visiting friends in Boulder for the past 15 years and remain totally impressed with the emphasis that city places on bike paths, roads, trails, and cycling in general. They are continually improving the existing bike roads, adding new ones, and building underpasses beneath the major roads for cyclists. They even have large mirrors at the ends of these tunnels so cyclists can see the oncoming bikes. The citizens of Boulder take their cycling and cyclists very seriously and are definitely not wishy-washy about their whole hearted support of cycling unlike some communities in other States.

---

Population Sebastopol, CA .... 7,596 (2013). Population Boulder, CO... 103,166 (2013).

Lynn Deedler asked me to post this for him:

---

Concerning comments on proposed multi use trails:

Several writers dismiss the value of having multi use trails in Sebastopol. In the recent Mayor’s (Jacob) survey about making Sebastopol a better place to live the number one wish was more bikeways and trails to connect our neighborhoods and town - ahead of reducing the down town core traffic congestion. Sebastopol is a town where nearly every destination is within a comfortable bike ride. But riding a bike to school, practice, or town is rare. It is not safe. To walk or ride most places requires going along the edge of one of our highways, and consequently our “green" town has a culture of driving everywhere.

It is a nearly impossible task to create multiuse trails through a community as developed as Sebastopol. But amazingly, two safe, scenic and direct cross town routes have been found. The really amazing thing is that of the many private parcels that these trails need to cross (in Sebastopol,) all but three property owners are supportive. These trails can create quiet, attractive, off road connections from the many neighborhood areas west and south of Sebastopol to the town core and the Joe Rodota Trail.

The concerns for property rights are misplaced. There is no “taking" of property for a multi use trail. Owner support is essential. Nancy holds a key piece in a trail, and the trail will not go through without her blessing. If she allows it, we will work to make Nancy come out ahead for her cooperation.

Burbank Farm is an essential link to connect adjoining pieces. This out of the way acreage is located next to Burbank Senior Housing. Though the property is a City owned park, it is thought of as belonging to the seniors across the road - understandable, for that is kind of the way it has been. And it is natural for many to fear and resist change, and to view strangers walking through and bikers as trouble. One imagines the worst. We hope that the residents will at least allow the discussion of how to mitigate their concerns.

Surveys of the actual numbers of users, elderly people in the farm, and traffic on the road suggest the statements of the existing situation are exaggerated. No one is suggesting creating a trail unlike others already in the farm area, and certainly not creating a situation that puts elderly at risk. There are acres of space to work with to find a solution.

A favorite study of mine is a Seattle trail study done years after a controversial trail was constructed to see how real the anticipated problems actually were. Results: no increase in crime or vandalism, property values went up 1 - 6%, and some of the strongest detractors thought it is was the best thing that happened to their neighborhood. Maybe this will be true with the Burbank folks. A trail through the area may turn out to be a asset for the seniors, the Farm, and the community. When good people work together they can find answers.

Lynn Deedler Representative for Sebastopol TrailMakers
Member of the Sebastopol Complete Streets Advisory Committee

Quote:

---

Several writers dismiss the value of having multi use trails in Sebastopol. In the recent Mayor’s (Jacob) survey about making Sebastopol a better place to live the number one wish was more bikeways and trails to connect our neighborhoods and town - ahead of reducing the down town core traffic congestion. Sebastopol is a town where nearly every destination is within a comfortable bike ride.

---

and let's not forget that the demographic on Wacco is, say, a bit skewed toward the, say, less agile and mobile parts of the population. So the appeal of bikes and their suitability for daily transport may be less obvious. But there's no denying that encouraging the use of bicycles helps limit the use of cars and is better for the community in so many ways.

For a full discussion on the various benefits of trails - economic, social and health - look here:

https://www.americantrails.org/resources/benefits/

My first question Lynn is what stats and surveys? How were the polls taken, what exactly were the questions asked and from whom & where was the information gathered? These are not rhetorical questions that I ask. The outcome of surveys, polls and stats are easily shaped with simple techniques. If you stand in front of Community Market or Whole Foods and query about bike trails vs traffic congestion you might get very different results than if you were to stand outside the doors of Safeway or Lucky Market. The framing of the questions, the demographics of the survey and the criteria used to analyze the results are basic factors that will determine the apparent outcome. This is old school, subtle and an extremely effective manipulation of public opinion. So until I have more information about the surveys you are citing my common sense and critical thinking skills keep me alert and skeptical regarding your claims as to the perceived value that your proposed multi-use trails will have for our greater community.

I have seen your promo video, I know several of the folks in it. Some of them don't live in Sebastopol and I know for a fact that they are not going to get on their bikes and ride into town from Occidental and the other outlying communities to attend to the business that brings them here on a daily basis. This is a great example of how the appearances of public desires and community benefits can be skewed to present a particular agenda though perhaps not an accurate perspective. If we're going to spend almost a quarter of a million dollars from city coffers I would suggest that it be used on a project that directly benefits a greater number or our residents while significantly addressing the number one factor negatively impacting our environment – vehicle usage.

The contradictions raised from this issue astounds me. You too Lynn have posited conflicting concepts. On the one hand you tell us that reducing traffic congestion is not a primary concern of our community and almost in the same breath you refer to our “green” town that has a culture of driving everywhere. I would think that the primary concern of a “green” town would be to significantly reduce traffic, which of course reduces congestion which ultimately would reduce our carbon foot-print. It is disturbing to witness the citizenry of a self-proclaimed “green” town placing lovely recreational bikes paths ahead of real solutions to dramatically reduce our dirty carbon foot-print.

For less than $200,000 the city could buy 5 low speed 15 passenger electric shuttle buses fully equipped with wheelchair ramps, floor mounts and tie downs. Throw on some bike racks and now you have a small fleet of non-petrol based local transportation that can service the entire community. Increase the bus/shuttle stops throughout our neighborhoods, core town and to the Joe Rodota Trail, establish a schedule that runs in 20 minute intervals seven days a week, provide door to door service for disabled folks and stop or limit downtown traffic. Apply for some grant funding and now we can expand the proposed project and still be under the bike path's tap into city coffers. If we were to partner with Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and our other city neighbors we could make some serious strides toward walking our talk (no pun intended) when it comes to being “green”.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Lynn Deedler asked me to post this for him:

---

...In the recent Mayor’s (Jacob) survey about making Sebastopol a better place to live the number one wish was more bikeways and trails to connect our neighborhoods and town - ahead of reducing the down town core traffic congestion. Sebastopol is a town where nearly every destination is within a comfortable bike ride. But riding a bike to school, practice, or town is rare. It is not safe. To walk or ride most places requires going along the edge of one of our highways, and consequently our “green" town has a culture of driving everywhere...

Surveys of the actual numbers of users, elderly people in the farm, and traffic on the road suggest the statements of the existing situation are exaggerated. No one is suggesting creating a trail unlike others already in the farm area, and certainly not creating a situation that puts elderly at risk. There are acres of space to work with to find a solution...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

... If we're going to spend almost a quarter of a million dollars from city coffers I would suggest that it be used on a project that directly benefits a greater number or our residents while significantly addressing the number one factor negatively impacting our environment – vehicle usage....

For less than $200,000 the city could buy 5 low speed 15 passenger electric shuttle buses fully equipped with wheelchair ramps, floor mounts and tie downs..

---

that's actually a great idea. Spend the extra fifty grand on five robot drivers and it's the same price! unfortunately for the comparison, google drivers aren't ready yet so the cost of operating the vehicles will be more. Still, it would be a public service worth supporting.

The nitpicking about the quality of the survey, or the conflicting goals she expresses, is just argument to discredit the poster - it's not really challenging the essential claims. Unless you really want to say the survey is completely off base and misleading, who cares if it's literally the number one concern? Similarly, the point on whether minimizing driving is a core aim or just a nice side effect - it's not a critical factor in his post. Too many debates get bogged down by the kind of stuff high-school debaters get graded on. It's why politicians are so mealy-mouthed these days. (well, only one reason. Some are just naturally weaselly anyway, I'm sure...) But that kind of parsing is a way to avoid tackling the heart of the issue.

I put this out earlier on this thread. A number of studies are posted at American Trails, all of them supporting the value of trails and greenways. Not all of these are just surveys or polling of people. There is rock solid evidence that homes closer to trails increase in value over those farther away. With all that said, after spending years working in the trails community, that if a property owner doesn't want a trail built near their house, no amount of data, polls, surveys or studies will change any minds.

https://www.americantrails.org/resources/benefits/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...The nitpicking about the quality of the survey, or the conflicting goals she expresses, is just argument to discredit the poster - it's not really challenging the essential claims...

---

Podfish please consider contributing something of value to this conversation instead of your weak attempt at under-the-radar sarcasm. You've mentioned these “google drivers” in another post on this thread and I still have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You however, obviously believe it's a clever response. I believe it goes without saying, there are operating costs associated with everything, including bike paths. However what is not associated with public bike paths but is commonly expected with public transit systems are revenues collected from passengers which help to offset operating costs. Most of us refer to this as bus fare. Are you familiar with this concept?

I'm not nitpicking the quality of any of the surveys mentioned, I'm questioning the validity of the tacit presentation that these surveys represent the desires and best interests of the majority of our community. Sorry to break the news to you Podfish but yes I am clearly challenging the essential claims and I'm not mincing words in the process. It obviously also went past you that I am in fact suggesting that the information presented is possibly misleading. I would suggest you put your “google drivers” on the back burner and read again what was written.

Apparently you also misunderstood my points about skewing survey results vs the priorities of our self-proclaimed “green” community. I thought I had clearly presented these as two distinctly separate comments, one having nothing to do with the other. I'm sorry if it was too confusing for you to discern.

I have never made the point that minimizing driving was either a core issue or a nice side effect of the bike paths. Quite the contrary Podfish, I believe the impact these proposed bike paths will have on minimizing traffic is virtually non-existent. And that my friend is the critical factor.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

that's actually a great idea. Spend the extra fifty grand on five robot drivers and it's the same price! unfortunately for the comparison, google drivers aren't ready yet so the cost of operating the vehicles will be more. Still, it would be a public service worth supporting.

The nitpicking about the quality of the survey, or the conflicting goals she expresses, is just argument to discredit the poster - it's not really challenging the essential claims. Unless you really want to say the survey is completely off base and misleading, who cares if it's literally the number one concern? Similarly, the point on whether minimizing driving is a core aim or just a nice side effect - it's not a critical factor in his post. Too many debates get bogged down by the kind of stuff high-school debaters get graded on. It's why politicians are so mealy-mouthed these days. (well, only one reason. Some are just naturally weaselly anyway, I'm sure...) But that kind of parsing is a way to avoid tackling the heart of the issue.

---

OK, I'm going to weigh in for the first time. I just moved to Santa Rosa from Boston, and I love it here (especially the kinder, gentler culture). I also knew there would be some adjustments. What I had NOT anticipated is that the biggest challenge would be trying to continue to live out a value central to me and to the planet we all share--namely, to live car-less.

I am astonished at how limited public transit is in this progressive part of the state. I am astonished when people here look at me like I'm insane when they find out I have no car. I'm speechless when I'm greeted by less-than-kind-and-gentle reactions such as: "Well, I'll drive you there this time but . . . ." and "Why don'tcha learn to drive?," said in an accusatory tone of voice. I know how to drive, I totally understand that no one wants to become my personal chauffeur, and I absolutely do not want to be a burden to people. I use my feet, an old bike, and the few available buses for transportation.

But there are SO many places out of my reach using these modes of transportation (including those lovely bike trails). I am hungry to get out and explore this new world of mine, but I find myself stymied at every turn by the lack of public transit.

Recently I came across this metaphor (in a book having nothing at all to do with carbon emissions): We are in love with our cars in this culture, but it's like a bad marriage that no one leaves because there's no alternative. (The comparison was the terrific train system in Europe.) I think Rustie's idea is great, or at least a great start! Let's put all our resources into creating alternatives. It's about the common good.

Re: my post (and those of others), I'd greatly appreciate it if responders would refrain from ad hominems.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occupyboston:

Re: my post (and those of others), I'd greatly appreciate it if responders would refrain from ad hominems.

---

??? are you referring to that under-the-radar stuff that you're implying you have a super-low radar to spot?? Cuz, sorry, I don't see that going on in this thread. Ad hominems are pretty common on the web in general and on Wacco in particular. Just take a look at the CVS threads for example. I've yet to see any comment discrediting the standing of anyone just because they're ignorant/evil/biased/useless/male/female/elected/furrin/white etc. anywhere in this thread.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occupyboston:

I think Rustie's idea is great, or at least a great start! Let's put all our resources into creating alternatives. It's about the common good.

---

I second that!! Rustie's proposal is truly emblematic of Lynn's moto, "When good people come together, good things happen." Brava Rustie!

As I watch a family of 5 ride their bike to school every day down Leland St., sometimes the mother carrying 3 up on her two-wheeled caravan (she's impressive!), and a host of other very regular bicyclists, I am reassured that bicycling through town is hardly a prohibitive act based on the lack of a trail cutting through private property, mine or anyone elses. When I ask my neighbors and the incredibly large number of visitors I have at my home on a daily basis, "Would you prefer having a bike path running through the middle of my property, or keep it as it is?" it is a resounding and unanimous "Keep it as is!" Why? Because, together with my neighbors, we have built something very unique and special, which has, in turn, both preserved a historical precedence and enhanced the general quality of life. I know this because people tell me every day. I am nothing, if not community and civic minded, and those who know me know this. So my opposition to the proposed trail is not because I lack breadth and scope in my mind-set, it is not just because I'm one of the property owners who would be directly effected (and there are more than three of us who are opposed), but genuinely I don't see the need in terms of addressing the boarder demographic of this community and the bigger issues we want to address, as so clearly stated by Rustie.

I am not remotely opposed to bike trails in general, but I am opposed to catering to a leisure class that is slowly and methodically chasing out a working middle class in this town. I have elderly friends who live in Burbank Heights who walk past my house every day, happily, without a bike trail, without a sidewalk. Traffic use to go 45 mph down Leland- now folks gladly slow down to 10. Why? Because this is the street where mothers and grandmothers stroll their children to pet and feed the goats, see a calf nurse, feed a horse a carrot. This is where the neighborhood kids get to fly a kite without the danger of hitting an electrical wire, set up a mini "cross-country" dressage course, and help bottle feed baby lambs. This is a veritable country lane where EVERYONE has learned to "share the road." Together we have outdoor Sunday Suppers, completely comprised of meat, vegetables, and dairy that we've grown ourselves, followed by a camp fire. We swap milk for eggs with our neighbors. Instead of filling a green yard waste bin for a petrol based vehicle to pick up as it idles between short trips, neighbors drag their branches or carry their rotting food to feed the pig. Kids are sent to shovel poop when they're behaving poorly at home, then their moms come and take buckets full of organic fertilizer when it comes to plant their gardens. And I'm not talking about me and my family... I have no family... they're either dead or moved far away.... this is the community's work, a quality of life that will not be enhanced by a bike path cutting through the middle of it. Here, people put up photos of their loved ones on the Dia de Los Muertos shrine along side the road, decorated by the neighborhood children, at top straw bales that will go towards ecological restoration. HERE, people of all ages can perfectly and reasonably walk, ride, stroll, and yes, even drive....

My point is, within town, you can very easily and safely get around town. If potholes, intersections, sidewalks are a problem, then the city need to use their resources to fix those problems...for everyone's benefit. NOW.... getting to/from Rohnert Park, Petaluma, or the coast? Bike trails would be very nice. But once you're in town, there are other options for "connectivity" that would serve a much broader demographic, more readily alleviate congestion, decrease the carbon footprint, and be a much more effective use of tax dollars than an "in town" bike path.

I would like to see Sebastopol Trail Makers work together with Rustie (or at least adopt her proposal) in their effort to be a more "green" and "connective" community, and as a demonstration of cooperation and compromise... because I too think that good people coming together can make good things happen. I think you would be far more impacting and garner far better support.

.... but what do I know?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by occupyboston:

OK, I'm going to weigh in for the first time. I just moved to Santa Rosa from Boston, and I love it here (especially the kinder, gentler culture). I also knew there would be some adjustments. What I had NOT anticipated is that the biggest challenge would be trying to continue to live out a value central to me and to the planet we all share--namely, to live car-less...

---

I appreciate your desire for better public transit. In Sonoma County a big problem to overcome is the fact that we live in a semi rural/rural area and there just aren't enough people to support a large bus system. It really takes living in a city to be able to do without a car for most activities.

That said, my children used the bus system for years, getting to and from the JC campuses in Petaluma and Santa Rosa. The bus system was cumbersome, inconsistent, unreliable, late, and sometimes, without advance notice, nonexistent. Some bus drivers were incredibly rude to my children, some riders would freely "hit on" my daughters, some riders urinated in seats sitting next to my children, and my children sometimes felt unsafe waiting for buses at bus stops. Routes can seem inefficiently designed and weekend routes are nearly nonexistent in areas. If my kids really needed to get to a job or a class on time, they would have to leave home many hours in advance. Not easy when a class starts at 8:00am. And the buses don't run late enough to get home from night classes.

While I was happy there was a bus system available, the huge waste of time and energy in taking it made it something they did only as long as they absolutely had to. Additionally, the only way for my husband to take public transit to downtown Oakland, a frequent destination for Sonoma County commuters, was to take a bus to San Francisco and then take Bart across the bay. 2.5 hours each way. It was a huge headache.

I don't think people choose cars necessarily because they want to, but rather because they need to. As to the accusatory tone taken by some people you ask for rides from, it is expensive to drive a car, with insurance and wear and tear costs, in addition to gas. Not all riders who don't drive compensate drivers with this in mind. Also, having a rider in your car affects your flexibility to run errands or stop for an impromptu activity while going to or from a destination. Driving may be the only time some people have for quiet time to think, mentally detox, listen to audiobooks, or whatever. I just think that people are overtaxed time wise and in other ways, and don't feel they can take on other responsibilities. They might be afraid that you would become too dependent upon them for rides. Don't take it personally.

Sounds to me that you have already created the community that I hear everyone talking about wanting to build. Bravo & Thank You!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

...together with my neighbors, we have built something very unique and special, which has, in turn, both preserved a historical precedence and enhanced the general quality of life....

---

While I appreciate and agree with your recitation of the flaws in our public transportation system, particularly those addressing inefficient, cumbersome, inconsistent, late and unreliable service, I have to say that I find your rationale for our pathetic example of public transit completely misplaced. Logic would more aptly point to the lack of support as a resultant effect of an inefficient system as opposed to the other way around as you suggest. Certainly for a small semi rural area a large bus system is not appropriate nor was it implied that such a system be considered. Obviously the size of the system must be tailored to the population and something that is appropriate in cities such as Boston, NY, Paris etc would be overkill here in Sebastopol, Santa Rosa or the entire county of Sonoma. To be cost effective and useful a public transit system must address the needs of the population, inclusive of an adequate efficient schedule designed to encourage use of that system. For instance the current Sebastopol bus schedule seems to run in 45 minute intervals to and from any single stop as opposed to the schedules I looked at in Boston where large capacity buses run every 15 minutes. I rarely see a bus in Sebastopol and on the few occasions that I do see one it is of medium size and less than half full. Occupancy on the SR buses also appear to be very low. I believe this is a resultant effect of the factors previously mentioned.

Smaller buses, more of them, additional bus stops and dramatically improved schedules would be positive first steps toward increasing the use of our public transit system and decreasing the use of our personal vehicles. Bikes are nice, they're healthy, fun and for some folks serve as a viable means of transpiration, but “some” is not sufficient when considering realistic solutions for the environmental problems that our communities face. Why wait until we have grown beyond our traffic carrying capacity and our blue skies have blackened before implementing an effective system of public transportation? Let's create those alternatives now. Imagine the effect this would have on our carbon foot-print, not to mention the building of community by way of helping our friends like occupyboston............. Welcome to Sonoma County by the way!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by carolynlb:

...The bus system was cumbersome, inconsistent, unreliable, late, and sometimes, without advance notice, nonexistent. ....

---

These proposed bike paths are the first step in exploring the possibilities. They are ideas based in the efforts to make Sebastopol a better community. A lot of people are up in arms with a "not in my neighborhood" mentality, and that's great. But what Sebastopol Trailmakers has done is more than anyone else has brought to the table. Let's get this thing in front of the City Council. Let's hear from the community. Let's get together with our concerns, our needs and our vision to have access to downtown and beyond without using an automobile and getting a little fresh air. The traffic situation is not going to improve as this county grows and this is the best idea I've heard.

Please view these videos...

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=...fkJRIAXkSQjf_Q

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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

---

I am optimistic that we can make wonderful trails where every legitimate issue is satisfied.

In a conversation with me, supporters of the trails last week, and representatives of Gold Ridge and Burbank Heights... suggested going around the front of the property along the highway. It looks possibly to be an answer. There is resident support for this idea. Let's insert this suggested modification for consideration to the planners. Pass conceptually, do the details later.

This is us, Sebastopol residents, not CVS. We all want what is good for the community. These trails are an improvement to life for lots of folks who live close to town. Let's relax, and make something as good as this happen for those of us wishing to breath better when out of our cars enjoying our town. Each and every concern can be addressed. And funding will still have to be found/raised.

When/if we have the draft design approved in November 18, at City Council, there will be years more to finish details for where it goes and lots more talking must occur. The greater the challenge, the more likely brilliance will occur. The full answer hasn't showed itself yet. Talk, listen, amend, talk, listen, include, talk, listen.... it goes on until it is perfect! The idea of so many generously offering egress is very encouraged.

I am also a senior living in a co-housing community on highway 116. Our community is a mixed age community. I love the interaction with all ages. If I can't join in sometime, I still enjoy watching others having fun! Change is something to take time getting our minds around.

To be successful new multiuse trails:
First, they must be safe, and I'm sure this will be true (where it goes, fencing, gates, etc). ;
Second functional ( keeping more people away from the highway is good). ;
Third aesthetic. Having all three, is a tripple win.

My own mobility has had set backs this year too. I can see how using these trails will do far more good than harm. If we keep open our minds until we figure it out, WE CAN DO THIS!

Kathryn

May I point out that a lot of the property owners who support this trail going though their property are long time residents. If their properties are sold at some point, there's a good chance that access would go away. Now is the time to make the important decisions to make the community a better place. I will echo what Kathryn said...

This is us, Sebastopol residents.

Sorry to be so dense but I have spent some time viewing the proposed trials and I do not see where they actually provide access to our downtown without traversing some of our most heavily congested streets. It appears that the closest you get to our core town via these pedestrian & bike friendly paths is the entrance to the Joe Rodota Trail at Petaluma Ave near Hop Monk. That leaves some of the most dangerous street crossings to get to downtown. I for one would not take comfort in letting my kids bike on the new safe trail only to expect them to navigate across the Hwy 12/Petaluma Ave intersection to get an ice cream. It is difficult for me to understand Eeeeeeow, how you perceive these bike trails as the "best idea" you've heard regarding our traffic situation. I feel confident to say that bike trails, especially those focused on scenic routes and park destinations, do little to nothing in relieving traffic. While I have no disagreement with the concept of bike trails in general I would suggest that for the sake of “building community” we have honest discourse on the goals and intentions of these proposed paths. Who will benefit and how? Considering the source of some of the funding, city revenues generated via our tax dollars, I can't help but wonder if this is a wise expenditure of public funds. Is this the best we can do to improve our community for the majority of our residents?

“Trails will make our town a better place to live in many ways: a healthier population, more social connection with our town, less traffic, less use of our resources, less pollution...”. Five worthy examples of how our community will benefit. It seems however that we have already demonstrated, and this has not been denied or dis-proven by anyone on this forum, that bike trails will not effectively reduce traffic in any significant manner that will have any measurable effect on reducing our resources used or the pollution caused by the use of those resources. At the risk of being redundant, a serious, well conceived electric shuttle system would significantly reduce traffic, resource use and pollution as well as serve a greater majority of our community. That having been said, let's move on, “more social connection with our town”. But these bike paths don't actually take us into our town. Instead they leave us stranded at the edges having to cross busy intersections and dodge heavy traffic loads, cars jockeying for parking and double parked delivery trucks. That leaves us with one out of the five examples cited by the Sebastopol Trailmakers, healthier population. I guess so, for those who actually use the trails which I doubt represents the majority of our community.

The next big value mentioned is tourism. “After wine, bicycling is the number two tourist attraction in So County.” The suggestion is that bike trails will attract tourists – yes? I thought you just told us that some of the important values in our community were to decrease traffic, pollution and the use of resources. Tourism is the antithesis of these core values. Why would we want to encourage this petrol based high carbon foot-print industry? Who is benefiting from this plan? Perhaps the hotel industry, local high-end restaurants and little shops that sell crystals, jewelry, silk scarves and expensive cookies, coffee and tea. But in the end when the working class locals need to get a new pair of tennis shoes, everyday work clothes, underwear, diapers for the baby, towels for the bath, etc, they are going to get in their cars and drive to Santa Rosa.

As I study the bike trails and read the discourse here on this thread my suspicions that these paths are intended for and will benefit a small segment of our community are confirmed. No one has sufficiently demonstrated how the greater Sebastopol will be a better community to have these trails. They won't help us produce food, build cooperative working relationships with our neighbors, provide essential goods and services, or help transport us to our daily necessary activities. They will be fun for the few, great, but I'm looking at the long view. If we don't get busy now addressing real issues I see a future Sebastopol in gridlock with several more hotels and a healthy smattering of big box stores lining Hwy 116 leading into our not-so-quaint-anymore town. Sorry but it's inevitable. If we don't start producing essential goods and services locally, addressing the needs of our working class families and implementing viable public transportation we will be consumed by the obvious. Of course the other possibility is that we will have created a community of privileged white elitists busying themselves painting murals and sidewalks and talking about building community while they sip their $8 cafe latte at the Barlow just after their healthy bike ride.......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

These proposed bike paths are the first step in exploring the possibilities. They are ideas based in the efforts to make Sebastopol a better community. A lot of people are up in arms with a "not in my neighborhood" mentality, and that's great. But what Sebastopol Trailmakers has done is more than anyone else has brought to the table. Let's get this thing in front of the City Council. Let's hear from the community. Let's get together with our concerns, our needs and our vision to have access to downtown and beyond without using an automobile and getting a little fresh air. The traffic situation is not going to improve as this county grows and this is the best idea I've heard.

Please view these videos...

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=...fkJRIAXkSQjf_Q

---

Boy, you sure spend a lot of time and energy saying, No.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Sorry to be so dense but ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

Boy, you sure spend a lot of time and energy saying, No.

---

at least you didn't say 'waste'. What, you'd rather there be less thought put into people's positions??

Well that's an intelligent well thought out response. To bad you missed the whole point, but thanks for sharing.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

Boy, you sure spend a lot of time and energy saying, No.

---

hey rustie -
i am hereby nominating you to step up and speak up in a larger forum than this here bb.
finding your knowledge base, articulateness and tone all to be top notch, i would love to see you take the 3 minutes council offers for public comments, as well as opinion columns in the bohemian and PD.
yes, i know: easy for me to tell you to get out there and do that, but really you are far more informed and considered than anyone i've heard speaking from that side of the table.
any seconds?
best, jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Well that's an intelligent well thought out response. To bad you missed the whole point, but thanks for sharing.....

---

Hi Rustie,

You bring up great questions and ideas. I have been wanting to respond for weeks, but my toddler has a tendency to get into something new and dangerous every time I approach the computer. He is currently playing with a flashlight. At least he is not climbing up to open the casement windows - as he did earlier. I am hoping he will give me 5 minutes, and my readers will forgive typos. : )

I am one of those moms who rides around town with a child (or sometimes children) on the back of my long tail bike. I know the other mom who rides down Leland and I invite anyone to talk to either of us about our experience and whether we have a need for safe walking/slow cycling/wheelchair routes into town. I have also been involved with the small group of community members who have been working on these neighborhood connectors for the last 5 years.

I have advocated for years to use different words and get away form the bike-centered imagery. But I have been very busy and have not had the time to write our PR content myself . . . so I offer gratitude to Lynn for dedicating much time to this vision AND I would like to clear up some misconceptions.

Are you willing to meet in person, preferably at a playground? That would work best for me, since I can talk while chasing a busy toddler but I cannot type on the computer while chasing him. Or on a weekend when

Nancy: I would love to meet you in person! I think we have a mutual friend. I will contact her and see if she will host us for a drink and conversation. Or, maybe you and Rustie (and anyone else interested) can find a time that works for all of us to get together.

In the mean time . . .

Please do not think of these as "bike trails". They were not conceived as recreational cycling speedways. This image has unfortunately been the first one to come to mind for a few people. Think of these as neighborhood connectors and safe(r) paths to town. These were conceived out of need and experience, not just a harebrained idea with no grounding in reality. Also, the proposal going before City Council is to ask them to adopt the concept of these connectors into the City's Master Plan. It is a vision, not a cemented blueprint. Actual alignment of the trails would be determined through a feasibility study.

Come hear my story.

Warm Regards,
Larkin

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Sorry to be so dense but I have spent some time viewing the proposed trials and I do not see where they actually provide access to our downtown without traversing some of our most heavily congested streets. It appears that the closest you get to our core town via these pedestrian & bike friendly paths is the entrance to the Joe Rodota Trail at Petaluma Ave near Hop Monk....

---

Rustie, Larkin and Nancy,

I am one of the Sebastopol residents who grew up here in the 50s and 60s. I have followed this thread and weighed in once or twice myself. I must say here how much I have enjoyed reading your posts; I find them well researched, clear and, mostly, without the hysteria that seems to often accompany words on this site. I appreciate passionate discussion; heck, I was reared on it. But it is really useful to see the kind of thoughtful attention you each bring to the table here.

I would be interested in being part of any discussion that transpires between the lot of you; I, too, am interested in keeping Sebastopol a small town. And I also remember when it was exactly what you, Rustie, have pointed out that it must be: a self sufficient place. Going to Santa Rosa was a big deal then. Sebastopol could offer much more than high end clothing, coffee, trinkets, etc. There were 5 car dealerships, 2 bakeries, high end dress shops, mid range dress shops, a men's clothing store and clothing for those who couldn't afford much. 3 grocery stores and a couple of mom and pop stores who allowed their customers' kids to pick up food and pay them later were here, as were furniture stores, Western Auto, a shoe store and all the apple canneries and packing houses that employed so many. Restaurants were places that families could afford and welcomed well behaved kids.

We had a lot of kids riding bikes then. We rode all over town and sometimes our parents rode, too. We were a different kind of rider: we knew that cars were bigger, faster and stronger than we were and so we stayed out of their way. We made sure to look both ways when we walked up to an intersection before we crossed and we walked our bikes on sidewalks and obeyed the rules of the road proudly because it meant that we were as important as the cars. But that was then, when most families had one car (and one truck for those of us in the country) and only the wealthiest families bought their 16 year olds cars when they got their licenses. That's a different Sebastopol than the Sebastopol of today where there are 3-6 cars parked in more than one driveway or on surrounding streets. So this Sebastopol needs something else and I'd like to explore those options with women such as yourselves.

The fact that you envision this conversation to be about making things easier for moms such as yourself, Larkin, and not about bike paths for fairly well off gentry heartens me. I am grateful to all those who have spent time trying to find a way to make this work. More than anything, I love to see things hammered out between folks who seem to be far apart but who really want the same things. i believe that this is one of those things.

Larkin, I appreciate your personal position as well as your taking the time to reach out and respond on the issue. I am certainly willing to meet with you and/or a group of folks to discuss the needs that best suit the majority of our community, our core goals and our future vision of Sebastopol. In my opinion the issue is more importantly about where and how do we see our town in the next 5 to 20 years and what we need to do to get there. I question if bike paths, regardless of what you call them, adequately respond to the stated goals of our outspoken citizenry not to mention those folks who are not so vocal. These are important conversations to have and I would look forward to discourse with that objective in mind.

On that note I am compelled to point out that renaming the bike paths to “neighborhood connectors” still does nothing to demonstrate how these “connectors” will benefit the masses of Sebastopol. You mention the need for safe walking/biking routes into town but you have not responded to the fact that the proposed “connectors” don't actually go into town. So what is the point? Or perhaps the objective was never intended to bring us safely into town via our bikes and feet but rather to serve as these “neighborhood connectors”. Great, what exactly does that mean? I am sure there is a contingent of folks who will find these connector paths of great value just as there are those who will make no use of them at all not to mention those who actually oppose them. I spoke with a mother of several young children the other day who told me that she is concerned about the bike paths that appear to be routed through her neighborhood. She is worried about the safety of her children left to play in their own yards, and those of their immediate neighbors, while strangers pass through on these new public thoroughfares. She is also concerned about security and safety issues at night and she informed me that there are many parents who share these same concerns. My point Larkin is that these trails seem to be a plus for only a small section of our community. I would suggest instead that we put our attention into a plan that services a larger segment of our population.

It is my contention that if the long term goal is to create a tourist town complete with hotels and increased traffic then we are on the right track and these “neighborhood connectors” play beautifully into that vision. The Barlow is a perfect example, it is considered the food, wine and art center of Sebastopol, perhaps even the West County. That's a wonderful attraction for the tourist industry, which dovetails beautifully with the new 60 room Barlow Hotel that is currently in the works. Of course that's not a done deal yet, they're still working out details like parking issues, lot line adjustments and permits for road work at Morris St & Sebastopol Ave. Sounds to me like we might be seeing an expansion of some kind in that quaint little area of our small town. I'm guessing that would be to enable the movement of increased traffic expected from our new found industry. Currently the course of “tourist town” appears to be our direction and the Sebastopol Trailmakers are seemingly proud to be a part of that destination.

If on the other hand we want our town to embody the concepts of neighborhood, community, environmental sustainability and self sufficiency, as in localizing our economy, then we need to be directing our attention toward the implementation of plans and policies that further those goals. Tourism, hotels, the wine industry and art centers do not lend themselves to a vision of a self sufficient, environmentally friendly, community oriented small towns. To consider the proposal going before city council to adopt these “connector” bike paths as an innocuous first step void of any significance in the bigger picture of our community is, in my opinion, willful ignorance. If our core goals are to reduce our carbon foot-print, build neighborhoods and community and localize our economy then we need to stand before our city council with ideas that promote those goals and demonstrate that those are the issues that are important to us, the community of working class people. I have yet to hear how these connector bike paths significantly address any of those issues which is why I am of the opinion that bringing the proposed trail before our city council is sending the wrong message.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Orm Embar:

...Are you willing to meet in person, preferably at a playground? That would work best for me, since I can talk while chasing a busy toddler but I cannot type on the computer while chasing him. Or on a weekend when...

---

Rustie,
I appreciate and envy your time and ability to express yourself so thoroughly with written word. I simply do not have the time. I cannot compromise the safety of my toddler in order to sit at the computer and answer all your very thought-filled questions, but I do want to get them answered and continue the conversation.

I will say that I believe we are congruent in our values and intents for our community. I am thinking longer term than 20 years, but the present and 5 years from now and 10 years from now and 200 years from now are all equally important to me.

When is a good time for you to meet?

Warm Regards,
Larkin

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

If on the other hand we want our town to embody the concepts of neighborhood, community, environmental sustainability and self sufficiency, as in localizing our economy, then we need to be directing our attention toward the implementation of plans and policies that further those goals.

---

Sorry to dash your delusions Larkin but I don't have a lot of discretionary time and I certainly don't spend an enviable portion of it on this forum. Please, put your green-eyed monster back in its cage. I will take this moment however to point out that in the time you spent with your kind response explaining to me how and why you do not have time to respond you could have instead addressed any one or two of my points. I'll make it easy for you:

Does your future vision of Sebastopol include tourism as its primary economy?

Do you consider the perception that we are moving toward a tourist based economy as valid ?

Does Sebastopol Trailmakers express the idea that tourism is one of the benefits of these proposed trails?

Do you agree that creating a tourist based economy is inconsistent with environmental sustainability?

I hope that responding to these four questions does not compromise the safety of your toddler. Try addressing these over the course of the day, or several days if necessary, whatever it takes to feel safe.

Regarding a meeting, it takes a great deal more of my time, which is precious to me, to attend a meeting as opposed to dashing off theses “thought-filled questions” and ideas on a forum such as this. Because, contrary to your belief, I don't have a lot of spare time, I would need to know what the objective of such a meeting would be.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Does your future vision of Sebastopol include tourism as its primary economy?

Do you consider the perception that we are moving toward a tourist based economy as valid ?

Does Sebastopol Trailmakers express the idea that tourism is one of the benefits of these proposed trails?

Do you agree that creating a tourist based economy is inconsistent with environmental sustainability?

---

Well shoot Rustie, I'll bite... if no one else cares to (and I do hope that others will...) This is the closest thing I've seen to a survey come across my path, so.... to answer your well thought out questions, which, might I add, are also poignant and concise to the argument....

1) No.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.

And I do not answer your questions merely out of a personal opinion that I wield in my hip holster, but rather, from the direct quotes taken from Sebastopol Trailmakers' Home Page.

"Plus tourism. Tourists love bike trails as a way to see a community. After wine, bicycling is the number two tourist attraction in Sonoma County. Bike enthusiasts contribute economic value to the County, but Sebastopol is seeing very little of that. These trails would change that. Tourists will appreciate them as much as the community will....Half the Sebastopol recreational bike riders drive their bikes to the Joe Rodota Trail. WHY, because they say there is not a safe way to bike to this trail."

You can't point out that Sebastopol is missing out on tourist money, but then say, in the face of a dissenting argument, that these trails are not conceived for the fast paced spandex riders, but rather, for the dawdling mothers just simply trying to get their children safely (and "greenly") to and from school. You can't claim that these trails are a significant practical solution when you admit that you are solving a problem for one half of Sebastopol's recreational riders.... which is exactly what percentage of our 7,500 population, or the 50,000 outlying population?! To be believable, the rhetoric needs to be consistent.

Now I might even go with you on the "if you build it, they will come," motif, because you claim that "The recent SDAT Report states that over 60% of the community would use bikes on a regular basis “if our town had safe places to walk and ride.” To follow Rustie's lead, how was the information for this report acquired exactly? I went to the SDAT home page and could find no reference as to how they solicited their findings for their report. I will tell you, though, that I did attend nearly every "Prelude to the General Plan Update" meeting, I did volunteer to be a scribe when the SDAT team was conducting their community workshops, I have attended the GPAC community forum meetings.... and let me say here what I have stood in front of the City Council and Planning Commission and said.... It's the same people, over and over again! It is not an accurate representation of the general population of Sebastopol!! And our council, our planning commission, and the regular attendees know this! So to say that "60% of the community"wants bike trails, according to the SDAT report, I believe you.... because it's not a far stretch to think that 60% of the same 60 people that attend these things want bike trails. They also want us to be wearing aluminum foil on our heads, to stop NASA's global Chemtrail agenda, and address the ever-growing Tick epidemic. All very valid agendas.

I think Rustie is onto something here, and that it is fool-hearty to look at just a spoke and not the whole wheel. The Barlow has yet to deliver on what it promised this community to be. Now, to add insult to injury, the city is laying the red carpet for an upscale hotel. Now scenic bike paths, to accommodate the number two attraction (remember... number one being "wine") to the number one growing industry in Sonoma County, tourism. And yet.... I am to believe that it is not part of the master plan to turn Sebastopol into another Healdsburg, Sonoma, Napa...reeeally?!

We have a special committee to determine what to do with the Tractor Supply Store/Old Lumber Yard and brochures being made in order to solicit developers accordingly. Here's a thought.... how about a tractor supply store.... or a lumber yard?! Because waaaaaay back when Sebastopol was a "quaint and quirky agricultural town," local yokels like myself needed drive belts, carburetors, air filters, 2x4's, 2x6's, et.al..... and we wanted to give our money to our neighbor, who's kids were on the same baseball team as our own, who's mothers knew our mothers, as oppose to driving to R.P., S.R., Pet. And excuse me if I don't ride a two-wheeler to pick up such items, but I would prefer to drive my truck to the other side of town as oppose to through town in order to get to the next, to get the one item I need. Fast forward to today and we'd rather complain about traffic congestion and lack of safety while cutting the red ribbon on another tasting room, up-scale hotel, and bike path. Meanwhile, our hospital is closed, 200 jobs LOST, and we don't have a bed-pan to piss in... but we have a bike path plan!!

It's the whole picture...

It's developers catering to a mono-culture that RELIES on tourism! It's a city council that would rather spend time thinking about painting fish on the streets instead of re-establishing a division of labor between our City Attorney and our City Manager (not that Mr. McLaughlin isn't doing a fine job... that's not my point.... rather, in the world of policy, we have become complacent to a high potential for lack of oversight/conflict of interest). It's city council appointing their spouses to the GPAC, representing an "independent voice" from the community.... not remotely double-dipping into the sphere of influence. Again, as individual people, make no mistake, I genuinely like and value all those to whom I refer, just like I respect and appreciate Lynn Deedler and others who have put a lot of work into conceiving these bike paths.... but as policy and priorities go.... I think these are poor, short-sighted, choices and I'm choosing not to drink from the well.

What the big picture is not.... is a bio-diverse, environmentally/economically sustainable, agricultural town that prides itself on commodities that support the local community and is ripe for expansion, including export! Instead, we're looking in our restaurants, our shops, our prime commercial real estate, to import tourists and the amenities that will attract their dollars.... because that's what you do when you're no longer sufficiently sustainable. If that truly, after exhausting all other options, is all we have left for the future of Sebastopol... well then pass me a glass.

My dad was into trains. My dad was also about creating safe and full-filling experiences for children, not just his own. He made our entire front yard a model railway for the neighborhood to enjoy. He helped to install the little passenger train at the Community Youth Park across from Piner High School. When he died, we asked for donations be made to Redwood Empire Live Steamers, so that children could experience the joy he found in trains, a joy he shared with his grandsons, one of whom, at 16 years old, is committed to becoming a freight engineer. My point is this.... I understand passion and good will. I know it when I see it. I see it whole-heartily in those who have conceived and are promoting these trails. I think the intention is right. I just want to make sure we're looking at the big picture, with realistic expectations, and a comprehensive agenda.

In the spirit of compromise, I have a few questions for the Trailmakers.

1) You state "This act declares the trail is a vision, goal, and objective for our town according to our Master Plan. Adoption comes down to adding a line on the map in the Master Plan and identifying the start and end points of the proposed trail." So, do the proposed and/or final paths have to seamlessly connected? If we say that we want the path to start at JRT and end at Sparks Rd. (an ending that deserves some explanation), does that mean that grant funding would not be available because residents on Eleanor Ave. say they don't want a designated bike path on their street, but you can pick up at Walker? Basically, can there be "gaps" in the trail and still be eligible for funding?

2) You state "The County Parks Department can then start planning County area extensions of the trail beyond the City limits (Like the trail along the old railroad path to Petaluma.)." Do you mean to say that the county intends to build on the old railroad, like the JRT, or along side it, leaving the railroad open for possible restoration? Because, see.... here again.... I would much rather have a commuter train that meets up with SMART. If a bike path can go along side the old RR tracks, leaving the options for an electric commuter train campaign... like that which use to actually exist (which will take another 20 years to possibly realize.... but hey, why not dream?), then I can be more supportive. Are we taking a multi-faceted approach to the bigger picture, locally and county-wide.

3) What does the path physically look like in concept? How wide? What does it look like on Eleanor Ave. and Leland St. vs. out amid the scenic Laguna and along Atascadero Creek?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

hey rustie -
i am hereby nominating you to step up and speak up in a larger forum than this here bb.
finding your knowledge base, articulateness and tone all to be top notch, i would love to see you take the 3 minutes council offers for public comments, as well as opinion columns in the bohemian and PD.
yes, i know: easy for me to tell you to get out there and do that, but really you are far more informed and considered than anyone i've heard speaking from that side of the table.
any seconds?
best, jude

---

Here's my second! Please, an opinion piece in the Bohemian and PD, Rustie. And I'd love to see you go back to your original alternative proposal--several small (electric, was it?) shuttle buses to expand the so-limited public transportation options in Sonoma County.
Car-less in SR

As a bike rider I am very much for more bike trails. However I have heard that the plan for the trail east west along HWY 12 goes right through the Burbank Garden and the old cemetery. I hope that a different route can be found.
Barrie

Why, Barrie? It would bring a lot of people through a community treasure (Burbank) and add a little "life" through a rather historic memorial lawn.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

As a bike rider I am very much for more bike trails. However I have heard that the plan for the trail east west along HWY 12 goes right through the Burbank Garden and the old cemetery. I hope that a different route can be found.
Barrie

---

I live directly across the drive from Luther Burbank's cottage at Burbank Heights; my windows overlook the drive and the R and S buildings on our property that this proposed "trail" would traverse. It is already very dangerous for our physically challenged residents to leave their R and S buildings and cross the drive to get to the rest of Burbank Heights & Orchards!

PLEASE be considerate of these fragile senior citizens having to deal with all the traffic we already have on our tiny private drive, which probably legally cannot accommodate more traffic! If people want to visit the "treasure" here, I suggest they park their car and take the shuttle bus that stops right outside the R building! They can enjoy Luther's cottage and the farm and catch the shuttle back to wherever there are parking spaces in this city... there are not enough here for the regular visitors (In Home Support Services, volunteers at the farm, various speakers and others making presentations to the Burbank residents, to say nothing of the large number of construction vehicles we're dealing with right now...) and FedEx and UPS and USPS trucks and whatnot! And perhaps someone could find out exactly how many emergency vehicles actually are on the property each week... especially now that we do not have a hospital nearby. Sometimes it is weekly and I've seen emergency vehicles more than once in some weeks! And, so far as I know, nobody has bothered to survey the actual residents of this property...


The desires of one small group of people should not impinge upon the safety and comfort and peaceful enjoyment of our premises for the 200 seniors who live here and those who volunteer at the Farm. Find a kinder way to get your way !!

Thank you!

A concerned Resident of Burbank Heights & Orchards,
Rev. BE

Good point, and good questions.

What would the trail look like going through Burbank Heights and Orchards and Luther Burbank's Farm and the Cemetery? Current paths here are approximately 3ft. wide. Ripping into Luther's hallowed ground to make a trail wide enough for the public to ride through the farm would pretty much desecrate it and cause it to be less of a "treasure" visitors would want to visit.

Are those promoting this trail through our property aware of the fact that our speed limit is 10mph on a steep hill, almost guaranteed to tempt bike riders (and skateboarders, etc.) to coast down the drive at speeds far above this limit?

It just doesn't work here.

Rev. BE :2cents:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

...In the spirit of compromise, I have a few questions for the Trailmakers.

1) You state "This act declares the trail is a vision, goal, and objective for our town according to our Master Plan. Adoption comes down to adding a line on the map in the Master Plan and identifying the start and end points of the proposed trail." So, do the proposed and/or final paths have to seamlessly connected? If we say that we want the path to start at JRT and end at Sparks Rd. (an ending that deserves some explanation), does that mean that grant funding would not be available because residents on Eleanor Ave. say they don't want a designated bike path on their street, but you can pick up at Walker? Basically, can there be "gaps" in the trail and still be eligible for funding?

2) You state "The County Parks Department can then start planning County area extensions of the trail beyond the City limits (Like the trail along the old railroad path to Petaluma.)." Do you mean to say that the county intends to build on the old railroad, like the JRT, or along side it, leaving the railroad open for possible restoration? Because, see.... here again.... I would much rather have a commuter train that meets up with SMART. If a bike path can go along side the old RR tracks, leaving the options for an electric commuter train campaign... like that which use to actually exist (which will take another 20 years to possibly realize.... but hey, why not dream?), then I can be more supportive. Are we taking a multi-faceted approach to the bigger picture, locally and county-wide.

3) What does the path physically look like in concept? How wide? What does it look like on Eleanor Ave. and Leland St. vs. out amid the scenic Laguna and along Atascadero Creek?

---

Okay, this is typical of people who respond with a negative viewpoint and no alternative ideas. This bike path proposal is a launching point for a vision to help get kids to school, families to our downtown and other access without exposing themselves to traffic on Bodega Highway or US 116 and without using the automobile. Burbank Heights has done everything in their power to crush this project. Why not invite Sebastopol Trailmakers to discuss this with the residents? I know ST has tried to do so, only to be rebuffed. Look, no one wants to see seniors flying through the air. But that's exactly the fear being conveyed to residents without the proposal being fairly represented. Hey, come up with a better idea. So far, all I've heard is NO.

Burbank Heights and their out of town owners seem to care little about the big picture; our community.

We need to explore this.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by AllorrahBe:

... Current paths here are approximately 3ft. wide. Ripping into Luther's hallowed ground to make a trail wide enough for the public to ride through the farm would pretty much desecrate it and cause it to be less of a "treasure" visitors would want to visit.

Are those promoting this trail through our property aware of the fact that our speed limit is 10mph on a steep hill, almost guaranteed to tempt bike riders (and skateboarders, etc.) to coast down the drive at speeds far above this limit?...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by carolynlb:

...
I don't think people choose cars necessarily because they want to, but rather because they need to. As to the accusatory tone taken by some people you ask for rides from, it is expensive to drive a car, with insurance and wear and tear costs, in addition to gas. ...Don't take it personally.

---

Oh, no, I certainly don't EXPECT rides from anyone, and MOST people here have been more than kind in offering a ride when they know that I can't get somewhere by foot, bike,or bus. And I always help pay for the gas. (Sorry, I seem to have given some wrong impressions before.)

What I did expect was that a place as progressive as the North Bay would be working very very hard to make viable public transit available--for the sake of the planet (not to mention to reduce the volume of traffic here). I'm still getting informed about this problem--and this thread is helping a lot, including your point about much of Sonoma County being rural or semi-rural. All I really wanted to say is that I think that Rustie's idea of spending limited resources on small fleets of small, clean, reliable, buses that run with some frequency (rather than on recreational bike trails, which I love as much as the next cyclist) is a very good place to start.

People come from around the world to see Burbank's Test Garden, it seems disrespectful to put a bike path through it, and even more so through a cemetery. Like I said, I ride a bike. I live near the Joe Rodota trail and see how it has become a camp ground for homeless people, how people litter, how people occasionally ride noisy motor bikes and motorized scooters. Not what you want in either of these places. Is there a wide path through the cemetery, or would graves have to be moved? How much of the garden would be paved over?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

Why, Barrie? It would bring a lot of people through a community treasure (Burbank) and add a little "life" through a rather historic memorial lawn.

---

Why would I have an alternative idea? I don't ride a bike and don't want to. I don't have children that need to get to school safely and neither do the other 199. Folks will have to get there the best way they can and perhaps find some other route than what has been proposed across our property. Your reference to out-of-town owners is misleading... making it sound like someone far away is objecting to something nearby... not so! We LIVE here. This is not a condo development. It is a senior apartment complex with many physically challenged residents. Sebastopol Trailmakers have been on the property and I believe are scheduled to make a presentation to residents who are interested. But this should have been done before they started making and distributing maps and all that.

The reason you're only hearing NO from residents is obvious! Apparently nobody here (residents) wants a public thoroughfare running through here or they would be writing comments on WaccoBB supporting it. I cannot understand why trailmakers think it a fine idea to plan to make trails across other peoples' properties without permission? Apparently quite a few others see the situation the way I do, or they would not be expressing Gratitude to me for taking the time to write all this.

There may be some of our residents, who ride bikes or will ride them when we build a place to keep them, who appreciate all the work and time and effort going into developing these trails, and that's wonderful for them, but I'd be willing to bet they would not vote for the trail to come into our driveway and across the Farm property!

And insulting all of us with this comment: "Burbank Heights and their out of town owners seem to care little about the big picture; our community".... certainly will not help the situation! BH&O residents care about our part of the community as much as anybody else. We are, in fact, often consulted by various groups to get our ideas and support BEFORE actions are taken that affect us and our community. It's just plain unfriendly to be so insulting and refusing to consider all points of view!
Rev. BE

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

Okay, this is typical of people who respond with a negative viewpoint and no alternative ideas. ...

Burbank Heights and their out of town owners seem to care little about the big picture; our community.

We need to explore this.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

People come from around the world to see Burbank's Test Garden, it seems disrespectful to put a bike path through it, and even more so through a cemetery. Like I said, I ride a bike. I live near the Joe Rodota trail and see how it has become a camp ground for homeless people, how people litter, how people occasionally ride noisy motor bikes and motorized scooters. Not what you want in either of these places. Is there a wide path through the cemetery, or would graves have to be moved? How much of the garden would be paved over?

---

I agree that these are very legitimate questions that need to be asked and to be answered, even at this stage of the game.

And "eeeeeow".... all I can say is "Hell hath no fury like a mob of angry elders!" Your post may have been your opinion, but it was disrespectful to the wrong people. Someone at some point in your life should have taught you better. I'm sorry that didn't happen. But now you know.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

Why the change of spirit, Barrie? What got to you? Or should I say- who? In a prior post you said you were unfamiliar with the farm, now you're calling it "Burbank's Test Garden?" Did you suddenly realize that the trail was going by your house too? Because now, if I may, your words sound almost ....what's the term..... oh, yes.... "quarrelsome."

---

Hey Barr I-E,

Sorry about my little lash back. I thought you were Barr-Y. Hope you can see how I was easily confused. I should have taken better notice with the reference to where you live, because I knew better; that Barr-Y doesn't live around there. Sorry, my good man.... or good woman.... friend.....whatever....

(Barr-y informed me that he thinks you are female, and surely is having a lovely little chuckle at my series of missteps. As long as my apology is conveyed, we should all enjoy a little chuckle at my expense. I've never claimed to be above being wrong or making mistakes. It's rare, but it has been known to happen, and I'm always happy to apologize! :wink:)

Pretty wild swinging there regarding the Rodota Trail. Some homeless folks do spend the night in some thickets. I sometimes see one, at most two, when walking from Sebastopol to the outskirts of Santa Rosa and back (about 6 miles). Perhaps you would like them in your yard?

When I walk I make a point of picking up litter and except for cigarette stubs I see very little of it. Especially on the part between Sebastopol and Llano. I have never seen a motorized vehicle on it other than the occasional police car or vehicle driven by maintenance. Your post is seriously misleading and should be 100% ignored by people who do not often use the trail unless some other frequent user has back up information I do not.

Trails should be built with consultation of landowners, and it was apparently a serious failing for its advocates not to do it more. But here is a little perspective. In European countries such as England and Norway for many many hundreds of years the law has given pedestrians access to crossing private land as a right. There is no reasonable case for saying someone has 100% right to control everything on their land regardless of its impact on the public at large. That is libertarian twaddle, which admittedly they are good at making sound reasonable.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

People come from around the world to see Burbank's Test Garden, it seems disrespectful to put a bike path through it, and even more so through a cemetery. Like I said, I ride a bike. I live near the Joe Rodota trail and see how it has become a camp ground for homeless people, how people litter, how people occasionally ride noisy motor bikes and motorized scooters. Not what you want in either of these places. Is there a wide path through the cemetery, or would graves have to be moved? How much of the garden would be paved over?

---

English footpaths are phenomenal. Like you said, they have been in place for hundreds of years.

UK.gov states: "You can only use private land with permission from the landowner."
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/overview

British "libertarian twaddle," I suppose.:hmmm:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

Trails should be built with consultation of landowners, and it was apparently a serious failing for its advocates not to do it more. But here is a little perspective. In European countries such as England and Norway for many many hundreds of years the law has given pedestrians access to crossing private land as a right. There is no reasonable case for saying someone has 100% right to control everything on their land regardless of its impact on the public at large. That is libertarian twaddle, which admittedly they are good at making sound reasonable.

---

QuestForHarmony-
The footpaths are not considered private land in this legal sense, even though they exist across private land.

What constitutes private land is a social decision that is based on interests broader than the owner alone. The classic case for private property in land - John Locke's - argues it was justified so long as "as much and as good" was left for others. Today there is never as much and as good left for anyone, and so the right is not complete even from as absolute a standard as Locke's.

Whether there are bicycle and foot paths should be decided democratically and if they receive democratic approval they should be created with as much approval by landowners as can reasonably be attained. That said, if the people of Sebastopol want them, there is no principled reason why a landowner, particularly one benefiting from previous decisions made by the city, can stop it. He or she has a principled case for recompense if there are serious negative effects, but that's it.

And yes- arguments for absolute control without reference to the good of society as a whole are libertarian twaddle.

Gus

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by QuestForHarmony:

English footpaths are phenomenal. Like you said, they have been in place for hundreds of years.

UK.gov states: "You can only use private land with permission from the landowner."
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/overview

British "libertarian twaddle," I suppose.:hmmm:

---

You must not listen very well, “all I've heard is NO” seems to be your knee-jerk reaction to any form of opposition on this issue. You attempt to appear to be fair minded by requesting alternative ideas but when presented with an alternative idea you blow it off with sarcasm. You give lip service to exploring the issue but when presented with direct observations of flaws and deficiencies in the proposal you neglect to address any of those points. Laughingly enough, mixed with your weak attempt at sarcasm, you simply restate the proposal's claims that have been called to question as though saying them over and over again will give them substance and magically resolve the problems.

I'm going to try this one more time Eeeeeow and for your sake I'm going to try to make this very simple, for everyone else, I'm sorry for the repetition. For less than $200,000 the city could purchase five low speed 15 passenger electric shuttle buses fully equipped with wheelchair ramps, floor mounts and tie downs. Add bike racks, increase the bus/shuttle stops throughout our neighborhoods, core town and to the Joe Rodota Trail, establish a schedule that runs in 15 - 20 minute intervals seven days a week, provide door to door service for disabled folks and stop or limit downtown traffic. Now we have a system that is safely addressing our transportation needs while accommodating a wider demographic of our community as well as reducing our carbon foot-print. There you go Eeeeeow, there's an alternative idea.

Now to address some of the other questionable elements in this proposal and its claims. Once again, considering I've said all this before, and quite specifically to you Eeeeeow, I'll try to simplify. It does not appear to me that these proposed trails actually provide access to our downtown without traversing some of our most heavily congested streets. The closest anyone will get to our core town on this route is the entrance to the Joe Rodata Trail. This is a far cry from safe access to downtown “without exposing themselves to traffic” as you have presented.

Your additional suggestion that this is a vision to “help get kids to school” is equally an exaggerated distortion of the actual benefit and value to be realized by the greater community. Apple Blossom is the only school in the proposal that has the potential to be serviced by this trail. That's great for the 420 kids that attend that school but what about the rest of the “kids” in our community? I don't think I would be too far off the mark to suggest that the students of Brook Haven, Anally and Twin Hills represent a greater number of our community's kids than the 420 at Apple Blossom.

The residents at Burbank Heights, the folks with loved ones laid to rest at the cemetery, several of the critical landowners, and many of our taxpaying community members have expressed opposition to this trail for a multitude of legitimate reasons. The best response you are able to muster is “all I've heard is No”, coupled with some rhetoric about the “need to explore this”. I would suggest that you now take a moment, actually read and digest the information and issues presented and then try responding directly with something of substance.

No one has stepped forward and provided a single shred of credible evidence to discredit the objections to these trails. In the hopes of generating some intelligent discourse from the pro side of the fence here's a summary of issues. They will not significantly impact our vehicle and resource use nor will they have any measurable effect on reducing our carbon foot-print. They do nothing to address our core values and goals if in fact those goals are to create a sustainable working class community with an environmentally friendly ethic and a localized economy. Quite the contrary, they provide additional benefit to the potential tourist industry that is quietly working to co-opt this community. They do not address the needs of the majority of our citizens. They present a potential safety risk and increase of transient activity in our outlying neighborhoods. And finally they are being imposed in areas where they are not welcome, which seems to me to be the antithesis of building community. And if I may ask, as a curiosity, why is the Sebastopol Trailmakers' online petition anonymous? If you are gathering signatures to take to city council to demonstrate support is it not customary to actually have signatures?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

Okay, this is typical of people who respond with a negative viewpoint and no alternative ideas. This bike path proposal is a launching point for a vision to help get kids to school, families to our downtown and other access without exposing themselves to traffic on Bodega Highway or US 116 and without using the automobile. Burbank Heights has done everything in their power to crush this project. Why not invite Sebastopol Trailmakers to discuss this with the residents? I know ST has tried to do so, only to be rebuffed. Look, no one wants to see seniors flying through the air. But that's exactly the fear being conveyed to residents without the proposal being fairly represented. Hey, come up with a better idea. So far, all I've heard is NO.

Burbank Heights and their out of town owners seem to care little about the big picture; our community.

We need to explore this.

---

I very much support a bike path for people along Hwy 12 west of Sebastopol, I just think the location needs continued work. The European walking paths across private land aren't paved paths, they are people just walking across fields. I can't imagine Europeans building a paved bike path through a historic cemetery. I think we need to talk about PRIVATE land, not public parks and community cemeteries, or through a well established senior complex. What is south of this route, but on private land?

I live near South Wright Road and ride my bike on the Joe Rodota Trail several times a week. There has been a mentally ill man living on one of the benches for at least 18 months. The rangers are well aware of him and he doesn't leave a mess. Between So.Wright Road and Stony Point there are several camp sites. They get cleaned up by the police routinely, they sprout up again. There is always quite a bit of litter. This area is probably more littered than a Sebastopol site would be because a lot of people walk along here coming back from shopping. Barrie

What happened to your original post? I put my favorite portion in bold. Replace her with ST and Indians with... well, you get the idea.

"The footpaths are not considered private land in this legal sense, even though they exist cross private land.
What constitutes private land is a social decision that is based on interests broader than the owner alone. The classic case of private property- Locke's - argues that it was justified so long as "as much and as good" was left for others. For example, how far below and far above the ground do ownership rights extend? That is a social decision, best made in some sense democratically.

Yes- arguments for absolute control without reference to the good of society as a while are libertarian twaddle. For example, Ayn Rand argued for absolute rights. She also argued Indians had no right to the land they lived on because they did not use it in ways approved by her. Under the surface of absolute rights- libertarian twaddle and, in her case, something much worse.

Whether there are bicycle and foot paths should be decided democratically and if they receive democratic approval they should be created with as much approval by landowners as can reasonably be attained. That said, if the people of Sebastopol want them there is no principledreason why a landowner, particularly one benefiting from previous decisions made by the city, can stop it."

This whole thread is (or at least should be) about finding a solution that we can all be pleased with. Maybe map out the properties of all in favor and "connect" their land? I am not here to get involved in some online battle, but rather seeking solid facts to better understand both sides of the issue. I wish the best to both sides.

HI! How did I let myself get sucked into this discussion! I don't think the argument should be public transportation vs. bike paths! We need both and both are less expensive that the private automobile. In Washington DC they have bike lanes down the CENTER of busy streets. I was amazed, but they work. They also have red bikes that you can rent using a debit or credit card and return to a rental station near your destination. Very cool!

I am grateful for the continued discussion of this topic on this site. That said, I believe that it does us well to remember that it is just that: a topic of conversation on this site. The people of Sebastopol are no more represented here than 'the American people' are represented by whichever politician decides to use the phrase to underscore his right to make his point. We who read this site are represented. And perhaps we are Margaret Mead's small group of people who get things done. Nonetheless, we are only that...a small group of Sebastopol residents who are trying to sort out the best way to address the present and future needs of our town. OK. I'm off my soapbox now. Thanks to you all for the excellent and (mostly) well mannered discussion. It's great to hear all sides of this conversation. (BTW, I weigh in on the side of no bike path through the Burbank Heights and the Sebastopol Cemetery. But I wasn't thrilled with the building of Burbank Heights [mostly because I didn't want to change the Burbank Orchard where I had many a childhood adventure] and you see how that vote of mine turned out! So, I will continue to read and listen and will live with wherever we end up.)

With all due respect Barrie, it is my opinion that this conversation is completely on point in considering public transportation as an alternative to the bike paths because the proponents of the path suggest that several of the benefits to our community from these paths will be to provide a transportation alternative that will reduce our vehicle and resource use as well as decrease pollution. In addition it is suggested that these paths will provide safe routes into our downtown. If these are some of the goals than bike paths are an inadequate response to these issues. That having been said it would seem fair to suggest and include in the discourse an alternative that would actually meet the stated goals. If on the other hand these paths are really conceived with the intent of providing more recreational opportunities for the few then I simply question if it is appropriate to consider city revenues, collected from the entire community, to satisfy a small segment of that population.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barrie:

HI! How did I let myself get sucked into this discussion! I don't think the argument should be public transportation vs. bike paths! We need both and both are less expensive that the private automobile. In Washington DC they have bike lanes down the CENTER of busy streets. I was amazed, but they work. They also have red bikes that you can rent using a debit or credit card and return to a rental station near your destination. Very cool!

---

The huge majority is people in private cars, the most expensive and environmentally damaging form of transportation. If you check out public transportation, look on buses, they are often almost empty. If you look around Santa Rosa you will probably find more people on bikes than on the buses. This is partially because there are so few buses which run infrequently so they aren't very convenient. The roads are heavily subsidized which makes it affordable get around by car. In a dense area bikes are very convenient. I use my bike to go to the post office, bank, to feed at two feral cat colonies, and if I need to shop at the small local market. If more people biked there would be more bike consciousness amongst drivers which would make cycling safer. Also, people would be in better health, there'd be less diabetes, depression, etc. which are extremely expensive for our society. I see quite elderly people on bikes. Clearly not everyone will want to ride on the bike trail, but I think it will be much more popular than you think. Go walk along the Joe Rodota Trail on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. Also, in the morning and evening during commute hours there many people riding east and west. I think that the Joe Rodota Trail is one of the busiest parks in Sonoma County. Barrie

Barrie, thank you very much for your considered response, much appreciated. You are absolutely correct to cite private cars as the most damaging form of transportation. In truth private automobile use trumps any other activity we do as individuals that negatively impacts the environment. That means if you put solar cells on your house generating 100% of your power needs and still get in your car everyday and drive, comparatively, you will have done very little to impact your carbon foot-print. In my opinion the name of the game is getting the largest number of people out of their individual cars.

I agree with you regarding our empty buses and in an earlier post I have already addressed that sad reality. Again, you and I are in agreement, empty buses have a great deal to do with too few of them and inadequate schedules and bus stops. These are shortcomings of a system that could be rectified. Smaller (electric) buses, more of them, additional bus stops and a dramatically improved schedule would be positive first steps toward increasing the use of our public transit system and decreasing the use of our personal vehicles. Granted we can no more force people to use a bus than we can force them to ride a bike but it is my opinion that we would have a lot more takers on the buses as opposed to jumping on bikes. We could push the issue of bus use if we were so inclined by closing downtown to all vehicle traffic with the exception of the electric shuttle buses and delivery vehicles. This would go a long way in gently “pushing” the majority into using the system. Additionally downtown would transform into a safe place to bike and walk. As an aside we would be creating a small smattering of new job opportunities in our community, which is also desperately needed.

The problem I have with your position is that it comes from the perspective of personal benefit and does not seek to service a larger demographic and/or the greater needs of our community. I am not at all suggesting that you &/or others who hold your beliefs on this subject are selfish. Quite the contrary, it is clear that you believe these bike paths will help others as you know they will help you. People who bike seem to believe that if you build it they will come, but that is not necessarily true. You cite the JR Trail as an example, during commute hours there are “many” riding east and west. Many is of course a bit ambiguous to say the least and I think we can all agree that the “many” on that trail during commute hours comes no where close to having significantly impacted the number of private vehicles in use during those same hours. In truth the JR Trail use comes nowhere near it's carrying capacity while Hwy 12 sits in gridlock. That suggests that the overwhelming majority of our population is simply not going to switch to bikes for their transportation needs.

Again I will ask, what are the goals and intentions of these trails? Are we trying to effectively reduce our carbon foot-print and provide alternatives to our masses or are we seeking to accommodate the bike riders in our community and create more recreational opportunities?

You are absolutely correct Cynthi, this forum is far from representational of our community. Dishearteningly I have heard that this is also the typical scenario at our city council meetings, the same small few advocating for their interests leaving the needs and desires of the greater community possibly unaddressed. There are those who would be quick to tell us that participation is open to all and those who don't get involved have no place to complain. I personally believe that there is not enough attention and effort put toward enabling civic participation by &/or for the larger majority.

Take for instance the upcoming city council meeting where the bike trail issue will be addressed, Tuesday, November 18 at 6pm. How many working class folks are going to be able to get home, feed their kids and make it to a 6pm town meeting? In my opinion civic participation is reserved for the privileged. I can't help but wonder what kind of response our city council would get if they were to engage the larger community by way of door to door communication on issues or multiple small neighborhood informational meetings held on Saturday afternoons. These are just ideas in an attempt to address the lack of representation of our greater community. On that note, any takers on pulling together a public meeting to discuss the bike trails, the future vision of our town, our core goals & values and/or how to bring the vision and needs of our greater community into the fold?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by cynctysings:

I am grateful for the continued discussion of this topic on this site. That said, I believe that it does us well to remember that it is just that: a topic of conversation on this site. The people of Sebastopol are no more represented here than 'the American people' are represented by whichever politician decides to use the phrase to underscore his right to make his point. We who read this site are represented. And perhaps we are Margaret Mead's small group of people who get things done. Nonetheless, ...

---

:thumbsup:
Thank you, Rustie, for reiterating your previous iterations and helping me understand some issues I hadn't even considered yet and others I hadn't heard of. I know there is a meeting Wednesday night at 6:30 at the Veterans Memorial Building; I am praying you will attend and speak your truths as eloquently as you've presented them here. :heart:
Rev. BE

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

You must not listen very well, ....

---

I've been lurking here on this conversation for a while, not wanting to weather the negativity of the naysayers, but Rustie has made it too easy with this line: I can't help but wonder what kind of response our city council would get if they were to engage the larger community by way of door to door communication on issues or multiple small neighborhood informational meetings held on Saturday afternoons.

While others have been busy writing clever rebuttals to strangers in anonymity, I've spent a few hours on each of the last three Saturdays (the best time to find people at home), carrying a big map and telling my neighbors about the proposed Gravenstein Trail. I found it satisfying to catch up with old friends and meet new arrivals, collecting a few dozen email addresses to keep them informed of our progress. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but my neighbors ALL think it's a great idea, for a variety of reasons. Some saw it as a way to walk to enjoy the Laguna, others would use it to commute to work, still others to get their kids to the charter school. Many saw it as an opportunity to get out of the car, out in the neighborhood and into nature, get some exercise. The most enthusiastic were the parents of young children. These were not the spandex-wearing tourists that you all seem to despise, but real people that live and work in our community, so thankful that a few neighbors have seen this as a problem we can solve.

I don't see multi-use trails as the answer to all of Sebastopol's transportation problems, far from it, but it's a step in the right direction. Many other commenters have brought up the walking paths in Europe, especially England, and I have to agree. The sense of community and neighborliness that these paths foster is sorely lacking in our community.

I've lived here south of town for 25 years, but I had never been to Luther Burbank Goldridge Farm until this past summer, when the Slow Food "Save the Gravenstein" project hosted community apple pressings at the farm. In an effort to raise awareness of the plight of our last remaining apple farmers (surely the grape-haters can love this), anyone could bring local apples from home or a local supplier and use hand crank apple presses for free. What a great project, the presses were in use churning out juice every weekend into October. What struck me was what a great educational resource we have in our community, a city-owned historical park, staffed by volunteers, teaching about one of our founding farmers. Underutilized and inaccessible, the farm could be easily linked to downtown, a 15 minute Saturday afternoon stroll through our town. Unfortunately the Burbank residents' newsletter raised the alarm a few months ago, making it look like we were proposing to tear out the plants and replace it with a freeway full of Tour de France cyclists hell-bent on running seniors off the road. Many seniors complain that they are shut off from children and neighbors; a reasonable path can be designed that can allow locals to get to town and children to visit the farm, and the process shouldn't be used to scare residents.

So yes, I agree with you that this forum is far from representational of our community, but maybe not in the way you think.

-Paul

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

You are absolutely correct Cynthi, this forum is far from representational of our community. Dishearteningly I have heard that this is also the typical scenario at our city council meetings, the same small few advocating for their interests leaving the needs and desires of the greater community possibly unaddressed...

---

79Paul--That is GREAT news! Actual feedback from actual residents. The negativity of naysayers aside, I am really happy to hear that this kind of asking has been done and that the proposed bike trails are getting response from living, breathing residents. I spent quite a lot of my childhood south of Sebastopol on Lone Pine Road at my grandparents' house and we rode our bikes a lot there. I would love for you to come to my house with your map and talk to me about it as well.

I haven't found this thread an exercise in the positive, trail loving versus the naysayers. Instead, I have found it to be a forum where everyone's diverse opinions and views have been aired. Without it, I wouldn't have found out about your Saturday, feet on the ground, research nor would I have heard Rustie's articulate views or the views of many others. I value them all. I may not agree with them, but I value the fact that folks care enough to weigh in.

Thanks for doing that. Oh, and my name is Cynthi Stefenoni. I've called the same house 'home' for 61 years. And I am 100% in favor of change that serves Sebastopol. And I've been known to change my mind on things once I understand them.

Oh, and one other thing: because both roads that intersect our town at Main and Bodega are highways, not just streets, it is my understanding that they are under the jurisdiction of Cal Trans and that any change of direction of the traffic pattern must be approved by Cal Trans. When the two way Main Street became the one way Main Street it was a big deal and I believe that there are some time constraints on when it can be addressed again. I also remember there being a plan to have the downtown become a walking mall kind of place then, too. That's why the parking lot behind Carlson's Department Store (now Silk Moon) became a park and a plaza, to make downtown more accessible to all. I think the dream then was to have a downtown like Santa Cruz. Instead, we got something else. My point is this: our best laid plans may or may not turn out as we envision them. So having a forum like this to hear many points of view is truly useful. For oh so many reasons.

Thanks to all of you for being willing to give voice to your opinions, feelings, thoughts and factual findings.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 79paul:

...my neighbors ALL think it's a great idea, for a variety of reasons...

---

I have to disagree that it is difficult to get involved or express your views in Sebastopol. Sebastopol is a very small town and I find it remarkably easy to be involved locally. Yes, the city council meetings begin at 6 but they go until 9:00 or later often, and many agenda items are scheduled later than 6 - you can show up or leave at any time. In addition, our council members are remarkably available in the community to be talked with. They show up everywhere at events and civic happenings. Some of them hold office hours. There are also planning commission meetings and design review board meetings that happen at different hours.

Many special workshops are scheduled to gather citizen input - a current example is the series of General Plan Update meetings being held now - one of them is tomorrow night (GPAC meeting on Circulation and TRAILS). There is email and the good old telephone for communicating with them. Also letters to the editor of the local paper. I really think it is a cop out to claim that there is no way to affect local decisions. It is our responsibility as citizens to be involved if we care what is happening in our community.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

...
Take for instance the upcoming city council meeting where the bike trail issue will be addressed, Tuesday, November 18 at 6pm. How many working class folks are going to be able to get home, feed their kids and make it to a 6pm town meeting? In my opinion civic participation is reserved for the privileged. I ...

---

Barry thanks for adding that link to the GP meeting tomorrow night! The subject happens to be transportation, circulation and TRAILS!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

...Many special workshops are scheduled to gather citizen input - a current example is the series of General Plan Update meetings being held now - one of them is tomorrow night (GPAC meeting on Circulation)...

---

I too am very happy to hear that you've been out, door to door. I hope you are trying to make it to the doors of those who might potentially be "negatively" impacted as well as those who live outside of downtown and see the trail as a great access they might use. I only say this because I know that nobody has spoken to the residents on Eleanor St.. I know because a friend of mine who lives there just found out about it two days ago. Whereas she wasn't remotely interested in weighing in before (because it wouldn't affect her), she sure is interested now, and not necessarily in a good way. I've spoken to Lynn on many occasions, but thats because you want the trail to go through my property.

I don't think anyone as asked my neighbors what they think about the idea. Cynthi is up the street from me, and she hasn't been approached. The lovely lady from Burbank Heights mentioned that the residents there haven't been approached.... I'm just hoping that you're speaking to the people who might be inclined to say no as much as the people who are probably very likely to say yes. I understand not wanting to "weather the negativity of naysayers," but that is exactly what you have to do if you want to dispel any misunderstandings, delusions, unwarranted concerns people might have.... if you truly want to garner "community support." But definitely, kuddos to you for putting in the time you have.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 79paul:

IWhile others have been busy writing clever rebuttals to strangers in anonymity, I've spent a few hours on each of the last three Saturdays (the best time to find people at home), carrying a big map and telling my neighbors about the proposed Gravenstein Trail.

---

I've never been called or considered myself "privileged" before. If working in and with the community for over 30 years, going to meetings, co-founding an activist committee, and working to get good people elected, makes me privileged then I guess I'm that, along with a whole bunch of other ordinary people who do extraordinary things.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

... In my opinion civic participation is reserved for the privileged. ...

---

Thank you Paul, I'm delighted that I was the one that brought you out of hiding, it gives me a sense that there might be a point to all of this. Kudos to you to put your feet to the pavement to engage your neighborhood on the issue. I do hope that you were presenting a well rounded perspective of both the pros and cons if your intent was to get an accurate barometer reading. I also want to thank you to have demonstrated that my suggestion of outreach by way of door to door is well within the realm of possibility. I hope our city officials will realize that they have a responsibility to engage all members of our community not just those with the ability to attend evening council meetings.

On the subject of the Gravenstein Trail – I'm not as familiar with that area of the trail so perhaps you can help me. I don't see a connection to any of our schools on this map nor do I see how this trail provides a great resource for commuters, commuting to where? I did notice that this trail conveniently runs almost past the front door of the Marriott Hotel on Lynch Rd & Hwy 116. That will certainly be a plus for the tourist industry as would be linking an easy stroll from downtown to the Luther Burbank Goldridge Farm. As it is I question your observation that this historic resource is “underutilized and inaccessible”. Apparently not if multitudes of our local residents were out there every weekend churning out apple juice. And just for the record, as I recall, albeit from this thread, in addition to the Burbank residents the Goldridge Farm volunteers themselves have opposed these trails, at least the portion that passes through the Farm.

I'm not opposed to bike & foot paths. I'm opposed to being swept along in what appears to be a short sited vision. If we don't stand back and take the long view before we pull the trigger on a series of individual projects we risk having ultimately created a Frankenstein. Let's take the Barlow as an example. Way back in the day many were up in arms and were actively trying to stop that project. Long story short, concessions were made and voila. Now I'm not sure if many have noticed but the Barlow buildings are some of the most non-environmentally friendly structures that could have been built. In a town that touts itself as being “green” this is disturbing to say the least. Steel structures with enormously tall ceilings, lots of huge windows and quaint clerestory atop for extra light. Unfortunately the entire facility is poorly oriented for any solar gain, which would have been nice in a “green” community.

Furthermore, as I understand it, this facility was supposed to house some local and essential industry; a creamery, a meat processing facility and maybe even a cannery. But alas the rent was too high for working class residents with businesses providing essential goods and services. So instead we have more wineries and breweries &/or their affiliated tasting rooms, some art studios, and a lovely offering of more restaurants and cafes. Round all this out with eco-friendly clothes from around the world, plus organic fair trade clothing, specialty books from the 15^th to 19^th century, a store dedicated solely to organic bay leaves, Waldorf toys & gifts and hand made herbal soap. Bundle this up right outside the Hotel Barlow's doorstep and you've got the makings of a serious tourist trap.

ST has told us that these trails will be a great attraction for tourists and the Marriott Hotel at the other end of town is sitting pretty to take immediate advantage of that opportunity. Couple all this with our existing wine industry and we're taking some definitive steps toward drawing in powerful players that could care less about our goals, our ethics and our vision. So is this what you really want, to take family walks with hundreds of strangers passing through on their way to the next Disneyland?

Be careful what you are seeking, you just might find it........

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 79paul:

I've been lurking here on this conversation for a while, not wanting to weather the negativity of the naysayers, but Rustie has made it too easy with this line: I can't help but wonder what kind of response our city council would get if they were to engage the larger community by way of door to door communication on issues or multiple small neighborhood informational meetings held on Saturday afternoons.
...

---

I've noticed that the negative comments on this subject seem to come from folks who dictate fear and rumor from their keyboard. If they really want to be heard (i wonder), then they'd get off their butts and go to a meeting, email a city official (which should be a piece of cake for them) or pay attention and go to an event where they can speak eyeball to eyeball with a city council member.

To say, "Not in my neighborhood" from the desktop is easy. To say it in front of the community at the GPAC meeting tomorrow night (Veteran's Bldg.) or the City Council meeting next Tuesday at the Youth Annex would take some effort.

These multi-use trails represent a responsible and thoughtful approach to cautious and insightful development. Sebastopol will be growing. SPEAK UP as to how you want it to progress.

Multiuse Trails Across Sebastopol will be discussed at the GPAC this Wednesday (see below)...

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12 AT 6:30 PM
at Sebastopol Center for the Arts
Veterans building at 282 South High Street

Will discuss circulation: vehicles, transit, walking, bikes, etc.

Agenda materials are posted on the City web site at:

https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/node/3197

The General Plan update web site is at: https://sebastopol.generalplan.org/

If you have any written comments on circulation issues for the Committee, feel free to email them to [email protected] or come to the meeting and speak to the Committee.

Then the Council takes up this matter...
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, November 18th at 6:00PM
Youth Annex 425 Morris St.

Join us in urging the City Council to create cross-town multiuse trails. A strong showing of public support is essential to get the Council to adopt these trails as part of the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan on November 18th.

With the full support of the Council, our community could have safe scenic trails connecting neighborhoods, the town core and the Joe Rodota Trail. The Apple Blossom and Gravenstein Multiuse Trails are possible only with the amazing cooperation of many private property owners.

What we need: Most Sebastopol destinations are within walking or biking distance from home, but in our community people drive their kids and themselves everywhere. That is because we have no safe alternatives. This can change.

The Answer: The Apple Blossom and Gravenstein Trails will provide safe, scenic routes to town. These multi-use trails will make Sebastopol a better place to live. It starts with the City Council adopting these trails into the Sebastopol Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

View the videos here: www.sebastopoltrailmakers.org

Feel free to contact us: [email protected]. We would like your email address to add to our list of supporters.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

I've noticed that the negative comments on this subject seem to come from folks who dictate fear and rumor from their keyboard. ....
To say, "Not in my neighborhood" from the desktop is easy.

---

that's a little harsh. By the standards of modern political discourse, there's been very limited fear expressed. No-one's claimed that ebola-laden waste will be left trailside where kids can find it. There's only been limited concern expressed about homeless encampments springing up in previously insulated neighborhoods. Those making the case against the paths have been remarkably focused on making rational arguments. That's not the kind of fear-mongering I've come to expect when most public issues are being "debated". This one actually seems to be getting a debate that doesn't require quotations around it.