Forest Park committee to present recommendations tonight

Forest Park Singletrack Cycling Open House-15

Committee member Les Blaize at a recent
open house.
(Photo © J. Maus)

After nine months of meetings, the 15-member Forest Park Single Track Cycling Advisory Committee will present their recommendations to Parks Commissioner Nick Fish and Parks Director Zari Santner tonight.

According to a statement put out by Portland Parks & Recreation, the report, “will represent the diversity of perspectives of the committee members, and they will each have the opportunity to share their opinions about the recommendations and the report directly with Commissioner Fish and Director Santner.”

Those opinions are likely to be very different, as there remain divergent views about how cycling opportunities should be expanded in the 5,000 acre park. Both sides of the debate have expressed dissatisfaction with the City’s process, a process that has been strained in part thanks to high-profile media coverage of an illegal trail and a report by the City Club calling for no expanded bike access until a battery of studies are completed (that report has been roundly criticized by bike advocates).

Following the presentation tonight, there will be a “brief period” for public comments on the committee’s recommendations and then Commissioner Fish and Director Santner will outline the next steps in the process. From here, Fish and Santner are expected to come up with their final set of recommendations to be put forward for implementation following a planning review by the Bureau of Development Services.

Stay tuned, and try to show up tonight if you’d like to weigh in. Sorry for the late notice, but details are below:

    Forest Park Single Track Cycling Committee Recommendations Presentation
    When: 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday, June 14
    Where: Room B, 2nd floor, Portland Building, 1120 SW 5th Avenue, downtown Portland

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car owner and driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

79 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
karl
karl
13 years ago

Don’t you mean this afternoon?

Lisa
Lisa
13 years ago

Was it really the “high profile media coverage” of the illegally built trail that was a straining factor in this process?

Or was it the fact that a group of mountain bikers built an illegal trail in Forest Park with no authority or permission that strained the process?

Which is it?

Jim Labbe
Jim Labbe
13 years ago

It sure would be helpful if Bikeportland focused on the areas of agreement on the Task Force and elsewhere rather than the personalities and rancor. It would allow the community to begin to focus on solutions for the appropriate expansion of single-track in Forest Park rather than the pronouncements of grandstanders.

DirtLover
DirtLover
13 years ago

Lisa,

To answer your question, it was, in fact, the “high profile media coverage” that retarded the process. Forest Park has been riddled with illegally built trails, encroachments, neglect, irresponsible trail use and other challenges for decades. Irresponsible cyclists have contributed only a small fraction. All are issues that deserve serious attention, but it’s obvious enough to anyone following this process that the illegal “bike” trail was seized upon by the anti-bicycle folks in an effort to promote their individual agendas, which are not – despite their assertions – necessarily for the good of the park or the community.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

Lisa,
it was both.

Jim,
I’m all for figuring out solutions, but I’m also for pointing out what’s going on. Thanks for the feedback.

Lisa
Lisa
13 years ago

Then why not write that?

Why highlight “high profile media coverage” while neglecting to equally highlight the illegality and contentiousness of the deed that summoned the coverage and strained the process in the first place?

Blaming the media coverage for straining the process is reminiscent of the Catholic church blaming the media for the coverage and resulting furor over the pedophile priest cases.

DirtLover
DirtLover
13 years ago

Lisa,

Your Catholic Church analogy doesn’t really work here. When it comes to public lands and trails, EVERY user group is guilty of abuse. Singling one out for special blame and vilification is its own brand of perversion.

Lisa
Lisa
13 years ago

Thanks for your point of view.

It just seems there is a willful lack of facing the truth about that illegal trail. Pointing out all the other “abuses” or reasons for those perceived abuses does not in fact wipe this particular one away.

To say that the media strained the process seems to be ignoring the reality that the building of the trail is what strained the process.

Just my perspective.

DirtLover
DirtLover
13 years ago

Lisa,

You and I are walking the same thin line. You don’t want the politics to obscure the underlying fact, and I don’t want the underlying fact to obscure the politics.

As a conservationist and trail builder, I have spent countless hours undoing the sins of poor/illegal trail builders and users, so I have little sympathy for any hacks who take it upon themselves to build unauthorized trails. There are fair and reasonable remedies for virtually all the challenges faced by land managers, but if the trails community is busy attacking itself then very little gets done, which is exactly what some folks would like just as long as the status quo favors their view of things (i.e., no bicycles on singletrack).

Trek 3900
Trek 3900
13 years ago

Anyone can see by a visit to FP that it is in serious trouble from over use: last time I visited I saw pebbles and pine needles on the trails, dog doo, and some trash near the porta-potty. As you can imagine I was horrified! I believe that with a little help from government bureaucrats things can be improved. I suggest that Sam Adams submit a proposal for a federal porkulus grant to save FP.

Clearly it is time to limit access using a system similar to the one used for climbing Mt. St. Helens: go online, find a date that isn’t full, pay your $15, and hope it doesn’t rain on that day. Keep permit visible at all times.

Be careful what you wish for.
🙂

Trek 3900
Trek 3900
13 years ago

It is clear that the mountain bikers of the community are out-gunned by the walkers and joggers as far as access to FP is concerned. There is an organization that might help the bikers, or at least they’ll take your money:
http://www.sharetrails.org/

They are very active in the Rocky Mountain region.

Bjorn
Bjorn
13 years ago

Great analogy Lisa, building an illegal trail in a park that will probably be deforested by ivy is exactly the same as raping a child. I hadn’t noticed that, but now that you mention it they are exactly the same. I wonder though what you will compare to child rape next? Are people who don’t pick up their dogs poop also on par with child rapists in your mind? Perhaps when caught they can be prevented from living within 500 yards of a dog park.

The whole statement is ridiculous and offensive. The only part of your analogy that is accurate is that most priests don’t rape kids, and most people who mtn bike in the park don’t build illegal trails. However it falls apart quickly from there. No one has been going around trying to cover up the facts, or encouraging people to build more trails. In fact Jonathan has highlighted the damage and how bad it is, precisely the opposite of the response the catholic church had. We all condemn the damage, but using the actions of a couple of people operating completely on their own to disrupt this process was inappropriate, not as inappropriate as comparing building a trail to raping a child, but pretty inappropriate all the same.

151
151
13 years ago

As interesting as the debate about the article’s language is, if anyone was at this meeting I’d be interested to read a recap of how it went.

ecohuman
ecohuman
13 years ago

“As a conservationist and trail builder, I have spent countless hours undoing the sins of poor/illegal trail builders and users”

I need to get up to speed. Can you point me towards some examples of “illegally built trails” in Forest Park that were constructed for walkers?

Also, I’m confused about why “construct no new bike trails” is such a completely unacceptable choice for readers here to consider, especially ones like “DirtLover” who claim to be conservationists.

Another way of asking that question might be: how many bike trails are enough? In other words, what are your criteria for determining how many we should build before we stop? Five? Ten? A hundred?

Brian E
13 years ago

ecohuman,

Their are 100’s of non-named trails in Forrest Park along Lief Erikson and Lower Fire Lane 1. Most are less than 100 feet in length. They most often lead to a remote spot that is likely used for pee-ing, homeless camping or “whatever”.

Bjorn
Bjorn
13 years ago

I don’t know of any for hikers in forest park, although I have seen some trails that look like more than just deer are using them. I do however know about miles of illegal trails built by ultra-marathon runners on state land. I’m not going to call out the exact location since there is no need to draw attention to it, but cyclists aren’t the only ones building trails in Oregon.

DirtLover
DirtLover
13 years ago

Bjorn,

In Lisa’s defense, I don’t think her analogy was intended to compare illegal trail building to child rape. I think she was comparing the Catholic Church’s blaming of the media to BikePortland’s partial blaming of “high-profile media coverage” of the illegal trail. Still, Lisa might agree that we’d all be better off with less inflammatory analogies.

DirtLover
DirtLover
13 years ago

Ecohuman,

My “sins” of the past comment wasn’t actually directed at Forest Park specifically. Maybe I should have limited my focus but I do think the broader context is important here, especially when anti-bike voices are screaming bloody murder about illegal trail construction.

The plain fact on public lands everywhere – and this no doubt applies to some (many? most?) trails in FP – is that the vast majority of recreational trails were put on the ground illegally (i.e., without proper permissions, environmental assessments, permits, etc.). Today we appreciate, applaud, enjoy and defend most of those trails. So decrying irresponsible mountain bikers for their relatively minor (albeit recent) contribution to illegal trail building (however wrong they might be) is at best hypocritical.

In the case of FP, I understand that most trail construction probably took place prior to adoption of the 1992 Management Plan, and some perhaps even prior to the City’s acquisition of the Park in 1948. Maybe all that trail building was done in perfect compliance with all applicable laws and regulations in force at the time, but that would be an anomaly in the universe of trail building.

ecohuman
ecohuman
13 years ago

Today we appreciate, applaud, enjoy and defend most of those trails. So decrying irresponsible mountain bikers for their relatively minor (albeit recent) contribution to illegal trail building (however wrong they might be) is at best hypocritical.

I’d propose a different way of looking at it: what you do today about it matters more than justifying actions with past mistakes. That means instead of saying “but the other kid did it!”, and mimicing the 4th grade playground defence (which never seemed to work for me), you make a grownup decision to decide to stop.

ecohuman
ecohuman
13 years ago

Their are 100’s of non-named trails in Forrest Park along Lief Erikson and Lower Fire Lane 1. Most are less than 100 feet in length. They most often lead to a remote spot that is likely used for pee-ing, homeless camping or “whatever”.

That’s actually not true, for the most part. And the “trails”, typically forged by homeless folks, are ad hoc walking paths, not cut, carved, and improved trails. Left alone, they disappear in a season or two. Should they be there? No. And there are laws about the homeless making a campsite of it.

DirtLover
DirtLover
13 years ago

Ecohuman,

I’m not defending illegal trail construction; I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-bike folks. Yes, it’s possible to do both at the same time.

Yes, everybody should stop illegal trail building right away. Yes, there are many creative and environmentally sound options available to address the recreational demands and pressures being put of FP and other public lands. Derailing the entire process in order to point fingers at the just the last guy to build an illegal trail gets us no closer to any solution.

Lisa
Lisa
13 years ago

Bjorn @12: Nowhere did I compare the illegal trail to the raping of a child. You might want to reread my comment.

“Blaming the media” as an offense is generally a non-winning strategy. Those who have used that strategy, like the Catholic church blaming the New York Times for its troubles, generally have to concede that the “media” in fact had no hand in the nettlesome issue. Sometimes sunlight exposes some hard truths.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

Lisa,

I disagree with your characterization that I’m simply “blaming the media.” Are you new to this site? If so, perhaps you’ve missed the many other stories I’ve written on this issue — several of them detailing the illegal trail and its aftermath.

You are taking one line out of one story and trying to say I am “blaming the media.” Yes, I am blaming the vast amount of coverage the illegal trail got for making this process more contentious. That fact is true. Obviously if there was no illegal trail, there would be no media coverage, I think we’re all intelligent enough to understand that.

So, my one line in one story is far from a “strategy.”

Also, if you think that the media in this town has “no hand” in biking issues you are very much mistaken. Because biking is so popular it is ripe for sensationalism and nearly every local media outlet has been guilty of playing up the “bikes vs. (blank)” dichotomy at one time or another.

In particular, at the outset of this process, The Oregonian took a letter from committee member Marci Houle (who has spread lies and fear-mongered about bikes because she does not want them on trails) and used that letter to publish a story saying the talks on the issue had reached an “impasse” and mischaracterized the actual situation simply because it sounded better to make it seem like there was a fight going on when there wasn’t.

I’ll stop here for now. Thanks for your feedback on my work.

wsbob
wsbob
13 years ago

I second the thoughts of Jim Labbe #3 and 151 #13. Important to everyone, would be far less attention paid to the contentious exchange between 2-3 members of the 17 member committee, and more information reported on the committee majority’s efforts to assemble recommendations for possible bike access to single track in the park.

There most likely are people reading bikeportland that would be interested in hearing more on the substance of the committee’s means of determining what recommendations it can reliably make.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

wsbob and others,

i will definitely be publishing many more stories on this issue.

Also, please see this link which takes you to all the stories I’ve written about biking in Forest Park.

Among those stories you’ll find a lot of helpful information about the committee.

Anonymous
Anonymous
13 years ago

My fear is that after the two years and all the debate and discussion, we’ll actually end up with less biking opportunities than before.

When the re-branded PUMP got involved in the process, the first thing they did was to advocate the closure/reclosure of Fire Lane 7. Signs were posted and they posted volunteers to diswade folks from riding on this road.

When I look at the new trail map and see the loss of miles roads/trails I have been riding for years in light of the addition of a half mile in the industrial area around FL1, I get really upset.

Normally I am a law and order guy, but I side with the guys jsut going out and building the new trails. The only progress is to get enough people out there to a point of critical mass and force the solution.

In the mean time, I’ll keep riding where I have, pruning trials, clearing brush, etc. etc. and fight it out when push comes to shove.

wsbob
wsbob
13 years ago

maus…thanks for the link. I’ve read all of those stories, and all of the comments in response to them. In them there has been not so much coverage devoted to the substance of the committee’s efforts, but a whole lot of coverage on the contentious exchanges between a certain 2-3 members of the committee.

…I checked Lisa’s comments. In none of them is she suggesting that you…editor of bikeportland…are “… simply “blaming the media.” “. Her comments seem more to me like earnest questions for which there aren’t particularly simple answers.

The Oregonian and the local tv stations have some notoriety for sensationalizing conflicts between bike and motor vehicle operators on the road. Sensationalism in their coverage about conflicts between people traveling on foot in the park, and those illegally riding bikes in the park has been nominal in comparison.

Lisa and other people with questions to hers posted in comments # 2 and 6 …two particular members of the single track advisory committee whose views on the issue of off-road bike use of single track in Forest Park is not what off-road bike enthusiasts are hoping for from the committee as a whole, have been repeatedly focused on here on bikeportland by off-road bike enthusiasts. Jonathan Maus, bikeportland Publisher/Editor, notes one of them in his comment #23.

If you’re so inclined, I’d suggest you search out the original letter he speaks of in that comment(I believe a link to it may be in one of the earlier bikeportland stories), and decide for yourselves whether what he says about that person is valid as fact rather than mere opinion of someone that apparently very much favors off-road biking on single track/single width trail in Forest Park.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

wsbob,

points taken. I appreciate your comment.

I feel it’s a fact that contention between members of the committee is one of the most important take-aways of the committee process. the “substance” of their work has been deteriorated precisely because there has been so much contention in the discussion — most of it by 2-3 people on the committee.

I agree with you i could report more on the minutiae of what’s being agreed upon and so on, but it’s been constantly changing throughout the process and i’ve been waiting for definitive steps/agreements to be made.

As for your point about that letter I refer to, Ms. Houle spreading mis-information and fear-mongering is not my opinion. It is fact. I have read it myself, I just have not yet reported about it.

thanks again for your feedback.

Trek 3900
Trek 3900
13 years ago

That does it! I’ve had it with this bickering! I’m going to ride on the roads in FP and shut up!

🙂

frank
frank
13 years ago

I can’t wait to read wsbob’s last word in this thread, as we know he’ll do his best to get it.

Lunchrider
Lunchrider
13 years ago

I think it is outrageous that you characterize Marle Houle as telling lies. She is one of the most thoughtful intelligent people you will ever meet. You might not agree with her but I challenge you to show that she told “lies”.
I for one am glad that Marcie was on the committee and has forced them to look at the reality not the pie in the sky that the mt bike community thinks they deserve.
I do believe that that this was a very flawed process right from the start. Setting up a committee and then not inviting all of the stakeholders. The Mt Bike folks are whining because they didn’t get what they wanted, well tough luck. just because you want it doesn’t make it right.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

Lunchrider,

you might think it’s ‘outrageous’ to say that about Ms. Houle, but it’s true. She has tried to tell people that the Forest Park Management Plan says there can be no bikes on trails because of safety risks. That is patently false. The entire safety argument is a red herring with no factual backing, yet it has been used repeatedly by Ms. Houle to the detriment of the entire process.

Lisa
Lisa
13 years ago

Jonathan @ 23: Your thoughts are interesting. Thank you.

a.O
a.O
13 years ago

It should be clear by now to anyone with a brain that the opponents of mtn biking in FP are liars who have hijacked a legitimate public process for their own agenda and used procedural loopholes and passive-aggressive tactics to prevent a rational and informed conversation about mtn biking in the park. Marle Houle and the rest of these clowns should be ashamed of themselves. We see what you are doing, and we are not fooled.

Maybe now that Maus is finally saying it some of you will pay attention.

More likely, the anti-bike zealots like wsbob will simply continue their crusade against mtn biking under the same tired guise of “fairness” and endless process.

Lunchrider
Lunchrider
13 years ago

I don’t think the safety argument is a red herring. I think that people are deaf to ideas that they don’t like. And that can certainly be said for both sides.
I don’t think that rises to the point of “lies” Sounds like libel to me.
As to a.O #34 its is the single track people that hijacked the process and tried to ram though and idea that had not yet been vetted by the people of the city. Without the vision and passion of people like Marcie Houle you would not even have a park like this to argue over
It is not even possible that bikes don’t belong everywhere.
(and just in case you wonder I ride over 8000 miles per year)

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

Lunchrider,

saying that the Forest Park Management Plan is against sharing trails due to safety concern is untrue, a.k.a. it’s a lie to say that it does. Not sure how I can clearer about that.

When asked to validate safety concerns, no one can back it up with real data, studies, etc… Trails are shared all over the country safely and w/o issue.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

Regardless of how you feel about biking in Forest Park, the issue deserves a fair hearing where all sides can present fact-based arguments and our elected leaders can make the final decision.

The fact remains that some people in this process have perpetuated information not based on fact but based on emotion and agenda. That action has poisoned the process and influenced people. We’ll see how this turns out but it’s unfortunate that a discussion of the issue that is separate from personal agendas and mischaracterizations had to occur.

ecohuman
ecohuman
13 years ago

The fact remains that some people in this process have perpetuated information not based on fact but based on emotion and agenda.

The “single track” proponents did exactly that, Jonathan. There is no “fact based” reason for demanding additional bike trails in Forest Park–it’s based entirely on emotion and agenda.

That you seem to sidestep the irony of that is an odd way of supporting “a fair hearing where all sides can present fact-based arguments”.

Lisa
Lisa
13 years ago

Jonathan, have you ever sat down and had a face to face conversation with Marcie Houle?

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

ecohuman,

people pushing for improved and expanded bike access in the park have had their intentions mischaracterized repeatedly by those who want to maintain the status quo.

no “fact-based” reason for additional bike trails? I don’t really understand that. The fact is that there are people who want to ride their bikes on trails in Forest Park and there are many reasonable ways to make it happen — but because some very active and influential people don’t want it to happen, those reasonable views have been drowned out.

of course there’s emotion and agenda on both sides… but the proof is in the pudding. No one on the committee who wants better trail access for biking has resorted to the kind of tactics being used by people on the committee who do not want more bikes on trails.

Zimmerman
Zimmerman
13 years ago

There is data that suggests that mountain biking has an equal amount of impact, (and sometimes less) than hiking. Links to the studies have been posted on Bikeportland.

Here’s just one: http://www.imba.com/news/news_releases/10_06/10_24_mtb_impacts.html

It is possible to have an agenda, be passionate and come equipped with facts.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

Lisa,

no. I have not. I have spoken at length with Les (the two of them are sort of tag-team partners in putting up road-blocks to bike access in the park), but not to Marcy yet. I regret saying she has lied (it’s not very polite and perhaps it’s too strong of a word for what she actually said), but I think her poor conduct throughout this process is something people should be more aware of.

ecohuman
ecohuman
13 years ago

The fact is that there are people who want to ride their bikes on trails in Forest Park

And the fact is that there are people who want to preserve Forest Park with the current amount of trails (or fewer).

No one on the committee who wants better trail access for biking has resorted to the kind of tactics being used by people on the committee who do not want more bikes on trails.

So? Does that mean proponents wanting trails have some sort of moral superiority over those that don’t? I’m confused, Jonathan, because it seems that you’re looking for a reason to slant the story in a particular direction, but being fairly intellectually dishonest about what *your* obvious bias is–which is more bike trails.

If nothing else, I’d thoughtfully consider whether or not *you* are “mischaracterizing” the views of some participants.

If you want to truly bring people together (you do, right?), then you start by seeing beyond the foibles and missteps of the so-called opponents, and start considering their intentions. People opposed to more single track trails aren’t necessarily “anti-bike”–but even if they were, so what? Does their bias make a pro-track view more valid?

In fact, the entire issue is an emotional one. Attempting to reduce it to some sort of wonkish, faux-scientific weighing of “facts” is one ofthe worst possible ways of approaching such a matter. That approach is what gets us into trouble with the ecosystem in the first place; nature isn’t a resource, Jonathan. That mindset–that the planet is a bank made just for humans for balance debits and credits and exercise its “rights” over–is at the root of it.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

ecohuman,

i am not trying to reduce this to a wonkish weighing of facts and I am not trying to say I have zero bias or emotion around this issue. I’ve made it known several times that I’ve worked on mountain bike advocacy issues in the past. My heart is clearly on the side of having more places to ride bikes on trails in Forest Park.

I am not looking for a reason to slant the story. I have seen and heard Ms. Houle in action on several occasions and I simply feel she is not allowing a fair discussion to take place.

And no, i said nothing about any moral superiority. I’m merely making the point that I feel wanting more trail access for bikes in Forest Park is an absolutely reasonable request that has been made out to be otherwise by people who don’t want it.

As usual, I feel like you put a lot of words into my mouth that I never said. I do not see Forest Park as a resource for people to use up… you are falling into the dichotomy perpetuated by people like Ms. Houle who think that anyone who wants improved biking in the Park is then somehow against the ecology and preservation of the park.

Improved trail access for biking is not mutually exclusive with preserving the park and being a steward of the park!

thanks for your comments.

Lisa
Lisa
13 years ago

Jonathan @ 42: Ok. Maybe it’s time for a sit down conversation/interview with her.

Divisiveness comes in many forms. You have a large platform here. Your heart wants what it wants. I would imagine Marcie’s wants what it wants. Why not turn that into something productive so your audience can see and hear for themselves?

To continue to lob divisive words at someone from the safety of a computer wouldn’t seem to be a productive approach. Don’t add to all the divisiveness around this issue. It’s not doing the mountain bikes in Forest Park issue and conversation any favors.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)

Lisa,

Thanks for that. I agree with some of what you’re saying.

As you can tell, this issue is very close to my heart and it has been extremely frustrating for me to sit in meetings and watch Ms. Houle in action.

I agree my approach in these comments today have maybe not been the best way to move this issue forward. Point taken.

I hope people read my comments as illuminating the situation and not simply me being divisive — although I understand how that is not what comes across for some.

Stay tuned for more reporting on this issue.

Nostradamus
Nostradamus
13 years ago

I like to ride in FP just the way it is. I go up to the top of Thurman, ride on Leif to Saltzman then up to Skyline and back. It is a good 1 hour workout and in places is plenty fast to be a lot of fun. You have to watch for peds and for poop, but that’s just part of the territory.

I also hike in FP. In the wet season (Sept thru June) the trails can be absolute boot-pulling slop holes of mud. I would not want to ride a bike there. I would be concerned for my safety on a single track trail if bikes were allowed. Some bikers would ride fast and hit people, or almost hit them. There just isn’t room for both on the existing trails.

I would not be opposed to a plan to add more trails only for bikes, or to have an even/odd days schedule for bikers and walkers. If the bikes end up causing too much damage, then the trails could either be hardened or they could stop biking and say that they tried and it didn’t work.

DirtLover
DirtLover
13 years ago

Ecohuman,

Your arguments here are becoming strained – especially for a smart person like you. Your assertions that Maus is suggesting moral authority on the part of access proponents (simply by virtue of their advocacy) smells like more political misdirection.

Contrary to your characterization, what Maus seemed to be saying is that people who don’t resort to dishonesty and obfuscation are, in fact, morally superior (your words, not Maus’) to those who do. Is that not a reasonable view of things?

If you’re still asserting that the bike opponents are innocent of anything but an honest defense of the public interest, then I suppose we simply have a very different interpretation of their documented behavior. You seem to be willing to label some of their behavior as merely “foibles and missteps” rather than the well-managed and deliberate perversion of the public policy process that it actually is. It’s not reasonable to suggest that Marcy Houle and others have “accidentally” been inserting half-truths, mis-statements and unfounded fear into the process. When someone is giving public testimony and submitting “facts” for publication in the Oregonian and other important forums, “Oops, I did it again” is not an excuse that can be made for them.

As for the role that facts should or should not play in the process, refusing to examine or acknowledge them at all might be one reasonable indication of who actually does or does not have morality on their side.

ecohuman
ecohuman
13 years ago

Your assertions that Maus is suggesting moral authority on the part of access proponents

Nice try at paraphrasing, but wrong. What I said was: “So? Does that mean proponents wanting trails have some sort of moral superiority over those that don’t?”

That mark at the end of the sentence means I’m asking Jonathan a question, not telling him what he’s saying.

If you’re still asserting that the bike opponents are innocent of anything but an honest defense of the public interest

I’m confused. Can you point me to where I asserted that?

You seem to be willing to label some of their behavior as merely “foibles and missteps”

I am. I’m also willing to label the behavior of *others* as “foibles and missteps”. The rest of what I said was to look at intentions–if you want to bring people together.

When someone is giving public testimony and submitting “facts” for publication in the Oregonian and other important forums, “Oops, I did it again” is not an excuse that can be made for them.

I really don’t care who has decided to set themselves up as deciders of Forest Park’s fate, and haven’t defended anybody on any “side”. I also don’t believe that just because somebody has an idea that they get a “fair and honest” public discussion about it. And that’s rarely true anyway; political agendas of locally elected leaders normally trump that sort of faux equanimity.

As for the role that facts should or should not play in the process, refusing to examine or acknowledge them at all might be one reasonable indication of who actually does or does not have morality on their side.

Honestly, I think you may not be paying attention. the end of my comment #43 explains what I think about the “fact-based” approach to an issue like this. Do with it what you will.

wsbob
wsbob
13 years ago

maus #28…thanks for your comments in that post.

Regarding your comments in posts #32 and #36; Are you sure Ms. Houle is lying rather than simply expressing a heartfelt opinion? It seems to be your opinion that she’s lying, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she is lying. You’ve got no quotes from the gal to back up your claims against her. That puts you in hearsay territory.

At any rate, as just one member of the committee, it shouldn’t affect the committee’s work that much whether she’s lying or not. If the vast majority of committee members are being honest and forthright, possible lies on the part of one member or another likely won’t derail the work the committee’s assigned to do.

I looked on the committee’s web page. There doesn’t seem to be a chairperson listed for this committee. Is there one? Such a person could help to keep the committee’s efforts on track and exchanges between members on a higher, more productive plain.

Single Track Cycling Advisory Committee Frequently Asked Questions

note: just noticed your comment #42:

“…I regret saying she has lied …” maus #42

That’s good. In reporting details related to what people say in the committee meetings, a clearer distinction made between ‘lie’, ‘opinion’, and ‘conduct’ should result in a higher quality of information to people reading here.

I agree with Lisa’s #45 comment; perhaps you should sit down and have a discussion with Houle.

“…As you can tell, this issue is very close to my heart and it has been extremely frustrating for me to sit in meetings and watch Ms. Houle in action. …” maus #46

For crying out loud…it’s one person out of 17 on that committee. I assume the other 16 have something in their noggins that allows them to make an independent appraisal of affairs in the face of an overbearing personality…assuming that is the situation.