SF bans bikes from trails within park system with no notice

[dolface]

Reminder the meeting is tonight, please show up if you're able: https://www.facebook.com/events/357351211114631

[BurritoGuru]

Was a good presence tonight at the PROSAC meeting. Good presentations were made. The PROSAC committee showed concern for the lack of community input. There was a excerpt read from an email that Phil Ginsburg sent. It said

"Currently mountain biking is allowed on earthen trails in the Interior Greenbelt and in portions of the Oak Woodlands in Golden Gate Park. In all other parklands, bikes are not allowed on earthen trails.
Recently, newly designed parks signs went up in a variety of park locations and admittedly have created some confusion. Incorrect signs were posted in the Interior Greenbelt; mountain biking is permitted on the Interior Greenbelt trails. We are in the process of fixing those and expect to have that work completed in the next two weeks."

SF RPD(phil ginsburg) and Natural Areas Program(lisa wayne) acted without community input. RPD has money to put up signs, but not enough time or effort to clean up trash,graffiti, homeless camps, dangerous trees or other basic requests in the very same areas that the signs were posted.
They use the volunteer efforts of the bicycling community to help create and maintain existing multi-use trails then tell them they can't use them. The same trails that have been active for decades.
They take away recreation, put up signs, install fences, restrict access. Doesn't sound like a park.
Please send an email asking for the signs to be taken down.


Phil Ginsburg--GM SF Parks Phil.Ginsburg@sfgov.org
Lisa Wayne-Natural Area lisa.wayne@sfgov.org
Dennis Kern--Director Operations Dennis.Kern@sfgov.org
Dawn Kamalanathan--Director Capital and Planning dawn.kamalanathan@sfgov.org
Rec and Park Commission-- recpark.commission@sfgov.org
Mayor Ed Lee-- mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org

[BurritoGuru]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M67ZMCh_6W8

[DukeHorn]

Originally Posted by The B

Work for the city, eh?

Nope, a lawyer who doesn't appreciate hyperbole.

As for doing my research on dog leash laws. Pretty simple

http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfi...%20in%20SF.pdf

Boom, those are the areas allowed off-leash. Everywhere else, the leash law applies. Try again.

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by DukeHorn

Nope, a lawyer

...for the city?

Sounds like the city is acknowledging errors and/or injustices .... so perhaps your sentiment is not well based. Lawyer or not (whatever that has to do with it).

[DukeHorn]

Originally Posted by The B

...for the city?

Sounds like the city is acknowledging errors and/or injustices .... so perhaps your sentiment is not well based. Lawyer or not (whatever that has to do with it).

Not for the city. The lawyer comment was just pointing out I tend to read the codes before saying something exists when it doesn't. Like this.

SEC. 41.12. DUTIES OF OWNERS.

(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal, other than a domestic cat, to permit said animal to run at large within the City and County; provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable to any area under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission of the City and County, and which has been designated by said Commission as an animal exercise area.

If you go back to my post I noted that the signs were probably for all the parks and that McLaren has a specific exemption and was probably an oversight. All the city did was acknowledge that the signs are incorrect for the greenbelt trails (which are in McLaren Park). All I was saying is that the OP's contention that the city was out to get everyone was misplaced.

The stuff about dog and leashes is city-code so I'm right on that as well.

If you want to continue your douche-baggery, let's keep on going.

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by DukeHorn

If you want to continue your douche-baggery, let's keep on going.

lol.. All I did was call BS on your douchebaggery, esquire. I don't even live in sanfran and have no dog in this fight. No emotional connection to this at all. You, however, busted up in this thread with a big fat sack of arrogant pretentiousness, trying to make it sound like all these other guys are idiots.

[BurritoGuru]

@dukehorn

No one is disputing general leash laws. The part of McLaren Park that is effected by these new signs has been an off leash area for decades. If you are trying to make a point that there is off and on leash areas, I am not disputing that. Fort Funston is part of GGNRA and not SFRPD and they have different leash laws.


There are still trails that have been open to bicycles that are closed due to these signs. Since you live in SF and ride a bike, you should be concerned. You should also send an email if you care.

This is about process not being done in the public's best interest. Since you are a lawyer, you should understand this.

[brando]

Originally Posted by DukeHorn

If you go back to my post I noted that the signs were probably for all the parks and that McLaren has a specific exemption and was probably an oversight. All the city did was acknowledge that the signs are incorrect for the greenbelt trails (which are in McLaren Park). All I was saying is that the OP's contention that the city was out to get everyone was misplaced.

The greenbelt is Mt. Sutro.

[BurritoGuru]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aSdGiMhEQg

Note the language about RPD, Natural Areas and that this is a multi-use trail.

RPD and Natural Areas does not have the public interest in mind.

[brando]

Originally Posted by BurritoGuru

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aSdGiMhEQg

Thanks for sharing the video, I got a chuckle that both the SF Rec and Parks General Manager and President of the Parks Commission admitted to having never been on those trails before in their lives.

Originally Posted by BurritoGuru

Note the language about RPD, Natural Areas and that this is a multi-use trail.

RPD and Natural Areas does not have the public interest in mind.

SF Rec and Parks commission is not accountable to the public, so it's natural that the public is not a priority. Somehow the current mayor-appointed commission model needs to be replaced by an elected commission or one that answers to the board of supervisors. How to do this? A ballot initiative? I am not a political wonk, so I can only wonder why the local insiders haven't done this. They are very vocal in their criticism of the greed and skewed priorities of SF Rec and Park.

[BurritoGuru]

Here is an excerpt from the response Phil Ginsburg sent to the SF Urban Riders.


"Many of the trails in McLaren are too narrow, run through sensitive natural habitat and are not constructed to support mountain biking".

If RPD and Natural Areas wants wider trails, all they had to do is ask and it would be done. I think the trails are fine, but improvements work to. RPD did create a trail to nowhere and it is the same width as other trails in this area. That time and effort could have been spent to fix their concerns.

Bikes stay on the trail and will not ruin sensitive natural habitat. Natural Areas has chopped down healthy trees. Natural Areas does not pick up trash, clean homeless camps and feces. I and others have.

Use the volunteer efforts of a bike community then tell them to take a hike. Not nice. Not professional. Not forthcoming.

RPD prefers the pay to play game. RPD does not listen to the community. Soccer Gate. RPD pits users against one another. This is one of many examples of failure under Phil Ginsburg.

Money dictates what is allowed, not community needs. Seems to be a trend in SF.

[brando]

Originally Posted by BurritoGuru

Money dictates what is allowed, not community needs. Seems to be a trend in SF.

Thanks for sharing that blog, it brings a lot of facts to light. I still don't understand the complicity but I guess there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we may never get to the bottom of.

[djg21]

Originally Posted by classtimesailer

No Smoking? Really? They did that to our beaches too!

It costs a lot to have park workers clean up cigarette butts left behind by smokers who view the world as their personal ashtray. There is also an issue of avoiding conflicts between smokers and non-smokers, especially where people tend to congregate, like at beaches, around building entrances, etc. I don't sympathize at all, and I have been known to smoke cigars at appropriate times.

[BurritoGuru]

Wanted to send an update to off road biking in San Francisco, specifically McLaren Park.

I filed a complaint with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force challenging Phil Ginsburg’s assertion that there is long standing regulations that bikes are not allowed on earthen trails.

The SOTF found that SFRPD did not have any codified regulations that back up Phil Ginsburg’s assertion. SFRPD only provided Park Code 3.02 as the regulation. No where does that park code state bicycles are not allowed on earthen trails. There was no public input, no community meeting, nothing. Everything done in private. SFRPD did have plenty of time to look for information and only provided 3.02.

SFRPD spent over 500,00 dollars on signs for enforcement, while ignoring requests for wayfinder signs. SFRPD can’t fully enforce some of these signs because the ‘policy’ does not exist. If anybody received a citation or was asked to leave the trail while riding a bike by a SFRPD employee please contact me with all the details.

SFRPD was found in violation of SOTF ordinance 67.21(b) failure to provide a record in 10 days. Eric Pawlowsky, SFRPD interim person in charge of Sunshine requests, confirmed that there is no additional codified policy regarding bicycles forbidden on earthen trails during the hearing.

Please stay patient, there is more to come. I and 3 others are working on this issue that is discussed on this post.


Links to the issue are
Filed complaint with full email correspondence


complaint #15087 on Page 3 has hearing info