UPDATE, 10/18: The original post and photos on Nextdoor have been removed by Mel L.
People who live near Rose City Golf Course in northeast Portland awoke Monday morning to large scars of damage criss-crossing the grassy turf. The deep skidmarks and tread patterns make it clear the damage was done by people riding some sort of two-wheeled vehicle. Witnesses claimed the vehicles were electric and one Rose City Park resident, “Mel L.,” posted photos to Nextdoor and falsely blamed the damage on “e-bikes.”
“Just wait until bikes are allowed on the golf course,” Mel L. wrote. “Sorry, PP&R, but signage won’t stop this.”
The damage to the golf course has ramped up emotions surrounding a current proposal from Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) to build new bike trails in and around the golf course and adjacent Rose City Park.
It’s clear Mel L. is using this terrible behavior and vandalism to further a position shared by other nearby residents who’ve made it clear they do not support any new bike access as part of the PP&R trail project. Another person on Nextdoor, Janet Loughery, who’s been a loud voice against the bike trails in the past, piled onto the anti-bike sentiment in the thread: “These are the people the city wants to legally allow on the golf course by building trails they can have easier access to. This behavior will be come commonplace. Just say NO to trails on the golf course.”
Both Mel L. and Loughery are spreading misinformation and/or willfully misleading other residents because they don’t want more and/or certain type of people using the park.
The products used in the park were not “e-bikes.” As I recently explained in reporting on a tragic electric motorcycle crash in Tualatin, it’s common for people to use the term “e-bike” for vehicles that are not technically or legally bicycles in an way, shape or form other than having two wheels and a handlebar. For some folks, like law enforcement officials who write crash statements, it’s simply a matter of being ignorant of Oregon laws and/or not thinking the words we used to describe things matters. For others, like with these Nextdoor posters, it’s a matter of willfully painting a group with the wrong brush to further an agenda.
The discovery of this damage just as new access for bicycling is being considered, reminds me of the debate around bicycling in Forest Park. Back in 2010, as the conversation was shifting to support new and improved bike trails in Forest Park, someone tipped off PP&R staff about an illegal, handbuilt bike trail in a remote section of the park. The trail damaged a creek and was sloppily cut into the hillside. Bike advocates condemned the unsanctioned trail, but more importantly, PP&R staff and people who opposed cycling in Forest Park used it as a way to thwart forward progress on the biking plans. To this day, almost nothing has come from years of earnest advocacy to improve cycling in Forest Park thanks in large part to how some people leverage irresponsible actions of a few into an agenda that excludes all.
When it comes to the damage to Rose City Golf Course, a PP&R spokesperson told BikePortland this morning the greens have been repaired and the damage had no impact on golfers. As for what they were riding? “Some sort of vehicle,” the PP&R staffer shared. “We cannot confirm that e-bikes were used as someone claimed.”
We’ll get our first sense of how this damage might influence the city’s trail project tonight when PP&R hosts its second community meeting for the Rose City Recreational Trail Project. On the agenda is a discussion of trail designs, proposed trail locations, and more. The meeting will be held online from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. Find the meeting Zoom link and learn more here.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I also don’t distinguish between the various kinds of e-bikes. Anything with a motor and a non-human power source is something different than a bicycle.
I doubt that a human powered bike, or e-bike has the torque to make ruts so deep. Look more for a trail bike with off road knobby tires and a 200 cubic inch or greater engine.
An e-bike is not a bike any more than a motorbike is a bike. A motorbike has an engine, and an e-bike has a motor. An e-bike can be transformed into a moped with a trivial and invisible software modification, but a conventional moped has no motor, rather an engine.
The lingo is confusing.
Don’t get me started on “scooter”.
The electric motorcycles that caused this damage were likely Surron’s. E-bikes have motors that are less than 750 watts, bosch units as an example only put out 250 watts of continuous power, 600 watts peak. The surron has 8600 stock and can put out 30000 watts with upgrades. The Surron-X also weighs over 100 pounds.
You should care about the difference between an e-bike and an electric motorcycle because they are very different and if we pretend they are the same then we will end up with rules allowing both to be used in the same places.
I absolutely do care; I’ve made numerous posts trying to differentiate them, and I’m glad that this incident may finally give me more traction in that quest.
More traction than a surron in a grass field, you might say…
That would be my guess as well. They are popular and imho we should give them a place to ride, much like skate parks were created to help reduce skating in unwanted areas.
The city has a motocross track at PIR but unfortunately it is closed except thursdays for racing and there is no class for Sur-rons. imho we should get the city to allow them there at least as a start.
Maybe consider other areas were we could have trails / tracks / jumps designated for these vehicles.
I don’t distinguish between golfers and classist, NIMBYs; so I guess fair is fair
In reading through all of these comments, my conclusion is that it really doesn’t matter what used to cause the vandalism. Destroying public property is a shitty thing to do. Some neighbors claimed it was bikes of some sort to bolster their argument against public trails, and Jonathan took the bait and tried to parse a legal difference between different levels of power on EV’s. But it really doesn’t matter. Vandals can use all sorts of tools_ paint, stickers, machetes, regular old bikes, cars, motorcycles, herbicide, their own hands and feet, the list of possibilities is endless. And a new public path barley increases the access for bad behavior, it is already simple to access the golf course. My conclusion, lets unify behind the condemnation of treating our public assets poorly, and support increased access.
Imagine the kind of society we could have if people got as angry about the human death, environmental destruction and poverty caused by our transportation system as they do about some damaged grass on a golf course.
Everything is on a spectrum, so I’m told.
This statement seems to be based on your assessment they were calling something an e-bike when it in fact had a top speed higher than 28MPH. What vehicle were the vandals riding? If you don’t know, how can you be sure that Mel and Janet were spreading misinformation and lying, willfully or not?
You’re using very strong language, using your “power of the press” to make a serious public accusation, but not presenting any evidence at all to back it up.
That sucks.
I also wonder how Jonathan knows what vehicle was used – but those ruts look like more damage than a class 2 ebike would be capable of doing. BUT – I DO know that Janet is confrontational, disruptive, spreads accusations, and makes up data and insults people when they ask for her sources. I quit Nextdoor largely due to her drumming up drama in a lovely, quiet, friendly neighborhood. Never met her … maybe she’s also lovely in real life, but not on Nextdoor.
I don’t know what various bike will do to soft turf (though I have myself left fairly deep ruts cutting across Waterfront park on a bog-standard bicycle), and it may well be that these were not caused by something an ordinary person would call an “e-bike”. If that turns out to be true, and Janet knew that, then she would indeed be guilty of “willfully lying”.
My condemnation of making unfounded public accusations does not change based on the personality of the accused.
As pointed out by PP&R, they do not know what kind of vehicle was used, e-bike, electric motorcycle, or a 2 stroke gas dirtbike. So Mel and Janet are, in fact, spreading misinformation and lying. They don’t know the truth of their statements. That’s lying.
Huh… that’s a new definition.
It seems reasonable to believe that the speakers believe what they’re saying, but I agree that, using the technical/legal definition of an e-bike, it’s impossible for them to know for sure if they’re right. So they’re “willfully lying”.
Personally, I’ll wait for some actual evidence that someone is intentionally lying before making such a strong public condemnation, but then I cling to the old ways.
Just FYI I’ve edited the post and removed the “willfully lying” part. It now reads “Both Mel L. and Loughery are spreading misinformation and/or willfully misleading other residents because they don’t want more and/or certain type of people using the park.”
That’s not much better: How do you know they’re spreading misinformation and/or willfully misleading anyone?
She seemed to know how many vehicles there were, and that they were “jumping” so I’m guessing she either saw or talked to someone who saw what happened. If that’s true, then her statements are probably accurate within the bounds of lay language. If it’s not true, the strongest description that would (in my opinion) be justified is “unsubstantiated”.
It’s absolutely clear you want to discredit this person because you tangled with her on NextDoor and disagree with about whether the city should create a bike trail around the golf course.
I don’t care if she is a terrible person; I keep wanting BikePortland to be better than that.
I wish. After more than fifty years depending only on my bike or a bus; I would like to see true advocacy for bike use first for transit and not to demand “parity” in recreation when that equality is demanded with walkers. The kind of vehicle doing this damage was witnessed as an e-bike. The kind is irrelevant. I don’t believe bike advocates did the damage. How these criminals can be prevented from returning or accessing any trail recklessly is critical.
Meg’s response has a tinge of AI bot-like incoherence.
The kind is relevant, because many people will call something that is essentially an “electric motorcycle” an e-bike. A line has been drawn about the power that is generated for a reason. One can help a grandma or grandpa make it up a hill, the other can help someone hit 50 mph on a city street. The argument that is being made on nextdoor is that bikes powerful enough to be motorcycles are going to be permitted on multi-use trails. It is a lie. The “witness” is also a canard. Mel and Janet have ignored all of the facts that have been presented to them to maintain the lie that suits their agenda. They also were supportive of vandalizing PBOT diverters and signage a while ago.
Problem is you can’t look at a bike and know the power. Power is set by the software / firmware settings on the motor controller.
So things like this can meet the definition of an ebike.
Good point. It would be hilarious if one of these was capped at 800W.
Hi Watts,
Thanks for caring about BikePortland and wanting it to “be better.” Me too!
I think what I’ve written is accurate and reflects the tone and information that I want it to. And yes, I want to discredit these two because they are bending an incident of vandalism that has nothing to do and trying to unfairly paint bike riders as being responsible and then connecting it to the trail project. That is some BS and I have always called stuff out like that on here.
When I disagree with someone online, I don’t spread discriminatory, irresponsible words and make false accusations to further my argument. These two folks are saying some really bad things that have impacts way beyond me and I think the community should be aware of them.
And yet even after revising the story you include the line:
without providing any substantiation. You present no evidence that they’re wrong, and none that they know they are wrong and yet continue to “willfully mislead”.
You’re letting your personal feelings about these people color your judgement. The story describes the situation perfectly well (and clearly makes your point) without the personal sniping, and would be better without it.
It’s your call, of course, but it’s stuff like this that separates a news source from a newsy personal blog.
Thanks for your feedback Watts!
I have my style and yes this is certainly not just a “news source”! You say that as if I’m trying to be some serious news source. I like to have it both/all ways and sometimes I get a bit more personal when I feel like the situation warrants it.
And yes, you’re damn right I’m letting personal feelings color my judgment. But I’m also coloring it with what these folks are saying. So there’s that. I’ve made myself as clear as I can.
No, I say that from the perspective of someone who wishes you would be more of a news source, because that’s what Portland needs.
I can get all the unsubstantiated personal attacks I want on NextDoor.
This old Portland occasional bike rider views e-bikes and sidewalk scooters as an example of the same sort of people who drive cars recklessly; “Get out of my way or I’ll run you over.” My proffered solution for cyclists is dedicated bikeways safe from traffic hazards and slow-paced recreational bike trail rides to enjoy natural settings Oregon offers. Machines kill whether they be a ton or two motorcar or a motocross E-bike.
Totally disagree – in Motocross riders get hit by other bikes all the time and run over. I ran over someone on my 260 lb motocross bike a month ago at about 30 mph after they fell in front of me during a race. They were bruised but relatively fine.
Is that a known or accepted hazard of motocross racing? I guess that racers are mostly young, athletic and wearing protective gear. I take a certain amount of chance in life but at no time do I expect a motocross race to break out.
Generally the only protective gear is helmets, boots and very light gloves, nothing really protecting most of your body – like the part I ran over :/
I don’t expect motocross races to break out either. I also don’t generally expect to get hit by a car riding my bike in the bike lane but it’s happened twice…
My main point is e-motos are a lot safer to get hit by than cars not that anyone should expect to get hit by one 🙂
OK fair, but deliberately making a factual claim about something they know they don’t know is at least spreading misinformation. Maybe not lying. At some point if you get strict enough with the definition of lying it means you can never know if someone is lying unless they say they are lying, so the term is meaningless.
How do you know what they do or do not know? Perhaps they saw the riders; perhaps they talked to someone who did. How do you know?
Are you deliberately spreading misinformation? Or just lying outright?
They were informed in the next door thread, they don’t care about the truth they opposed the trails before the vandalism they oppose them now.
I saw the post you’re referring to. It was conjecture, not “truth”.
Of course, the original post had a fair bit of conjecture as well, but that doesn’t make them liars, and the possible misclassification of electric bike-like vehicles doesn’t really merit all the energy that’s been spent on it.
Witnesses saw a group of people joyriding Surron electric motorcycles in the neighborhood at the time the damage occurred, also the damage is simply not something that an e-bike as defined by oregon law could produce. Mel and Janet are both aware of this, both have a history of opposing the trails proposed around the golf course, and both appear to be seizing on this incident to put the blame on cyclists to try and block the trails from being built. As someone from the neighborhood who has been following the improvements that have been made and proposed for the park closely I think Jonathan’s reporting here is accurate.
Agreed. There are pedal kits for Surrons that would effectively make them “e-bikes” despite ostensibly being an electric dirt bike
keep in mind a lot of this word choice stuff has to do with context and the messenger and the implications and such. It’s an inexact science and prone to messiness.
I am confused about why you are convinced this was not caused by e-bikes. Can you add to the story and post some visuals of what you are talking about? I see what I consider e-bike s on our bike lanes and bike paths all the time. Many have fat bike tires and the go really fast with little or no input from the riders. I saw these type of vehicles ripping around and tearing up the grass in multiple parks on the west side of the river throughout last year. The photos look exactly like damage caused by these vehicles that I think of as e-bikes. What am I missing?
FWIW, I 100% support paths around the golf course for people biking and walking.
I feel like we need to base our use of terms on Oregon law. “E bike” has a specific definition in law, and many of these small electric motorcycles/mopeds simply don’t fit the definition due to the size of their motor(s) and other features. If a bike has a throttle AND can go over 20 mph, it’s not technically an “e-bike” and if we are sloppy with the terms we use, bike advocates are going to spend years of work combatting the misdeeds and problems created by e-motorcycle users.
I’m added an image from Oregon DMV that compares the legal definitions and requirements of the various two-wheeled vehicles on the market today
I doubt it will catch on with the wider public, but I completely support you calling two-wheeled e-vehicles with a throttle and capable of travel over 20 mph “motorcycles”.
There are a lot of these around, and, following from your nomenclature, the people who ride them are not cyclists, but motorcyclists, and they have no right to complain when bike shops decline to repair their motorcycles. Motorcycles should not use bike lanes or MUPs, and should not be allowed to transport their motorcycles on Max or the bus in space reserved for bicycles. I don’t want them to be counted by the city as “bicyclists”, thus watering down our goal of getting 25% bicycle mode share by 2030.
Please stick with it! It would be a useful service to me and other readers if you could do a writeup that tells us how to distinguish motorcycles from bicycles by sight because, to my eyes, they often look exactly the same, and I don’t want to be called out for using the wrong terminology.
this isn’t just about “being called out for using the wrong terminology.”
When it comes to word choices and language – something I feel very strongly about and have a track record of covering here – context really matters. And when the context includes the person saying it having clear intentions of making a group of people look bad, guilty, etc… then I call them out.
The messenger matters.
If someone misspoke about the type of vehicle someone was riding, but was just talking about something they saw and wasn’t trying to push an anti-bike agenda and argue for why bike riders shouldn’t have access to trails, then I wouldn’t mind if they said it at all.
Does that make sense? I don’t police words. I police people who use them with intentions that hurt stuff I care about.
Isn’t it? That’s the entirety of your accusation, and you provide no evidence to support that they’re even wrong.
I fully accept that the people you named are hoping to use this event to derail the bike trail project… of course they are, just as you or I would in a different situation.
On second thought, I think you’re right. This isn’t really about using the wrong terminology; it’s about trying to slander people you don’t like who are advocating against an outcome you (and I) want.
My point is I wish you’d stick to reporting the facts, and not policing people, regardless of their intentions. We’re smart enough to figure it out.
Keep wishing because that’s not how I handle this type of thing. It is a fact that Mel and Janet are spreading incorrect information with an explicit intention of unfairly harming a bicycle project. I will police people who do that. and “regardless of their intentions”? What? Intentions are everything when it comes to communication in my opinion.
Is it a fact? Why not show us the evidence you have that they are indeed wrong.
They are using the wrong terminology in order to mislead people. They know enough to know better.
Show me the evidence this is true. Otherwise, by your own standard, this is a deliberate lie.
Note that there are also legal e-scooters which can heave seats (might look like motorcycles) the can be capable of 24 mph and output up to 1000 watts. These are also allowed on bike lanes or paths but are supposed to be operated at 15 mph.
These regulations apply to the lime and biketown scooters for example.
thanks!
One thing that’s confusing is how do they define “not capable of going faster than 20 mph”
– All the e bikes I’ve ever bought have easily programmable cut-off speeds and the Sur-rons are no exception you can set one up to have a mode that cuts off at 20 mph but you can flash them on the fly from your phone to change the cuts or programming.
Really all the ebikes have the 20 mph cut off programmed in.
And to be clear maxD, what I think you’re missing (since you asked) is that I believe we must educated ourselves and be very careful about when we use the term “e-bikes.” What you describe as “e-bikes” are simply not “e-bikes”. They are something else. Like “e-motos” or just EVs. I don’t know, but I do know, calling them e-bikes is and will continue to be very very bad for bicycling in America.
thanks for the follow-up! Our bike infrastructure is being overrun with EV’s!
Considering that “motos” are very commonly referred to as bikes (and have been called bikes for generations) your comment is an example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
As cycling becomes increasingly motorized, I think it’s almost a certainty that this type of overpowered bike predominates. And anyone who owns a bloody SUV or “pickup” truck should not doubt this maximalist consumer tendency at all…
Probably not a popular opinion here but imho we should encourage portland / OR to embrace these. They have a lot of advantages.
It used to be that you could get a motorcycle license at 14, before you could get a car license. I think that’s still the case in some countries where you see a lot more transport being low power motor-scooters etc. I hope maybe they can bring more 2-wheel riding to the US and I think the youth is embracing them at a time when they are less likely to drive cars.
I very much agree.
These were electric motorcycles. It’s obvious from the pictures.
There are many ebikes out there with whatever type of tire that can go fast, but it doesn’t take a lot of power to go fast on a hard level surface. What these ebikes don’t have is a ton of torque – the ability to accelerate quickly and plow through resistance. Many of these bikes will slow down dramatically on steep hills around town because of their low power rating. They can’t power their way into ‘wheelies’ only way they could cause extensive damage to grass is if someone supported their motorized wheels off the ground, activated the throttle and then lowered the wheel onto the turf just enough that the resistance won’t pull them out of their power band. I haven’t seen the pictures on NextDoor because they’ve apparently been taken down, but it sounds as if they were the type caused by ‘joy riders’, not people using their ebikes in such a particular way. If the ruts were particularly thin and represent more ‘sinking’ than ‘tearing’, then that is an indication they also could have been made with regular bikes, which will sink into soft loam just under human power.
Pretty damn convenient timing – being able to present local news coverage of criminal activity to denounce something the neighbors are against at just the right time is suspect in my mind. Occam’s razor would suggest a local “community member” curated or caused this event to use as evidence of their NIMBY arguments. How often does the course get damaged in a year for example? Is this an common occurrence or was this one time just very well documented and then forwarded to local news agencies? Was a police report even made?
“How convvvvvenient.” ?
Looks more like a trail motorcycle track to me, certainly not something you’d call an e-bike. Are there any pictures of the vehicles?
Personally I think it’s absurd that the city owns this property and people want to be so exclusionary with who can access it. Would love to see it turned into a park with access for all instead of people with time/money for golf.
It’s about as “exclusive” as a paid parking spot downtown.
That example is fine. Personally, I don’t think our natural areas should be treated like paid parking spots, but that’s just me.
I agree, but a golf course is not a natural area.
Try walking across it. Non-golfers are only welcome on the muddy periphery. It may be more welcoming to golfers who are not wealthy enough to use country club courses, but non-golfers are not welcome in this beautiful, publicly-owned part of the city where there are no comparable parks.
If they would not let you use the space as it was intended, I might agree it was exclusive. But just as I cannot walk across Powell Park when there is a Little League game going on, I cannot walk across a golf course when people are playing golf. I’ll bet we could each come up with dozens of examples of ways we can’t use public spaces outside of their designated intent.
I have never played golf, but I am pretty sure I could go and gain access to one of these “exclusive” areas on the same terms as anyone else.
you cannot bike down the hill on Mt Tabor when the bike race is going on, even if you end up there between races- I have tried!. That being said, I would love to see the golf course and other parks experiment more with scheduling to meet recreational needs. Maybe one day a week the golf course is closed for golf, but open for disc golf. Or only open to walks and bikers provided they stay on the path. Or maybe every Friday and Saturday for 5 til 10 the golf course is closed for golfing, but open to picnicking. This could be expanded to have seasonal access for bikes o certain trails in Forest Park, or certain days when certain trails could be off-leash. PP&R could be so much more creative and responsive to meeting the recreational needs of the City
At least one area golf course has a place you can play “soccer golf”. Never tried that either but might be fun. There are lots of disc golf courses around if you play that, but I don’t think that would work on a standard golf course.
It is AMAZING to see Rose City Park Golf Course on a snow day. The whole neighborhood comes out and there are hundreds of people using the parts of the golf course that are usually “off limits.” Sledding, XC skiing, snowshoeing, walking, etc. Snowy weather is the only time I’ve explored the course.
Mel and friends on ND seem to walk the course almost daily, but either early morning or late in the day. It’s OK for them to be able to do that, but not “the general public.”
How do they get access to the course when it’s off limits to others?
Technically, you aren’t supposed to be on the golf course during operating hours of 7am to 7pm. Many people walk the area before 7am, or after 7pm. Mel has taken a lot of great pics of wildlife during those times.
I have seen non-golfers walking out there after 7am, and before 7pm. A lot of them are likely neighbors with a “don’t hassle me, I’m local” attitude. Regardless, most people would like access to the greenspace during the more usable/daylight hours between 7am and 7pm, especially families with kids. The comments made on ND regarding “the general public” have to do with fears around what allowing more access will do to the park. People are opposed to having more people walking around the space, an access gate at the east end, a path along Tillamook, etc. If too many people started walking around the course right now, pre-trails, the neighbors wouldn’t be able to continue walking it “unofficially” as they have been for years. There is quite a bit of “do as I say, not as I do” happening with neighboring people.
Let’s apply this to the other city sports facilities. Would a pedestrian be welcomed if they walked through a little league baseball game? What if they stood in the middle of a tennis court while a match was being played?
Please also remember that as a public course, Rose City is amongst the most affordable options in the area for non-“wealthy” people to play the sport. Invoking class issues to demonize the players at city-owned courses is wildly ignorant.
Ok I will bite, lets take a similar example that is working great Wilshire Park. The park has a jogging track that goes around the exterior and also has several baseball fields. The city was fairly easily able to create a dual use park (actually more as there is also a playground and a dog area) where there aren’t major issues between user groups. One of the main misinformation points the folks who oppose any trails whether just for walking or ones that would also allow cycling have been pushing is that people will be regularly hit by golf balls but anyone who has ever golfed or run at Glendoveer Golf course knows that this same type of setup can work great and I look forward to being able to use the trails at Rose City Park.
I like their argument, actually. Golf requires massive amounts of space for a relatively small number of Portland citizens, and, by their own assessment, is wholly incompatible with other uses. This is a very strong argument to eliminate gold courses from City Parks. It just isn’t worth the space and the risk.
I’m guessing your point is that both are public spaces that anyone who pays (understanding that the golf fee is more than a parking fee) can use for the intended use, and I agree.
But is also makes for an interesting comparison beyond that.
A golf course is a place that could be used for many activities, but only golf is allowed (even with trails added, almost all the land is exclusively for golfing), and people pay for doing that.
A paid downtown parking space (assuming it’s a public on-street space) is a place that could be used for many activities, but only parking is allowed, and people pay for doing that.
However, there are some programs that allow the parking spaces to be used for other things–making deliveries, construction vehicle use, dining tables…). I don’t know of any programs that allow golf courses (at least this one) to be used for frisbee gold, dogs playing, races, etc.) so in that sense you could say the golf courses are more exclusive.
Personally, I’m with people who question the City setting aside so much land for one activity, when that land could be enjoyed by many more people if it were opened up to other uses. I can see why people argue for keeping the golf courses, but the neighbor’s idea that there shouldn’t even be trails around the perimeter for non-golf use is extreme.
Yes.
I agree.
Golf is very exclusive, even if a city owned course is less exclusive than a country club. Using public land as a golf course excludes everyone who doesn’t play golf, which is a far greater proportion of Portlanders than those who don’t drive
If you define exclusive as excluding anyone who doesn’t want to do the thing you’re offering, then bars are exclusive, homeless shelters are exclusive, parks, museums, sporting events are all exclusive… everything is exclusive.
That’s not a particularly useful definition.
Let’s switch things up:
Using public land as a baseball field excludes everyone who doesn’t play baseball, which is a far greater proportion of Portlanders than those who don’t drive
Do you realize how ridiculous this argument is? It’s like people who see a bike facility and say “well, I don’t use that, why should I have to pay for it?”
His post is about as dumb as stuff you read on Next Door…
It’s not a ridiculous argument about this golf course, which is 144 acres. A typical Little League baseball field is less than one acre.
If Rose City Golf Course were replaced with 144 baseball fields, it wouldn’t be a ridiculous comment about baseball fields, either.
Also, unlike the golf course, baseball fields in Portland Parks can still be used by non-baseball players when they’re not in use for baseball.
More importantly, typically baseball fields in Portland Parks take up only a portion of the park. There’s no incentive to try to use a baseball field during a game–and not much incentive even outside of game time–for non-baseball use, because the rest of the park (which often is a majority of the park’s space) is available for other uses.
The same applies to most park facilities other than golf courses. Many are open to other users when not occupied by their primary user group, and most take up only a portion of their park’s space. Golf is unusual in that it takes up dozens or hundreds of acres, on which no other use is allowed.
Further, my guess is many other park facilities serve a much higher number of park users per acre than golf.
So I don’t see blumdrew’s comment as ridiculous.
Good comment. The “golf courses are just like baseball fields” is probably one of the silliest arguments I’ve read on here in a while.
We’re talking a factor of ten difference in size, and golf courses require exclusive use at all hours, because you can’t hurt the fancy grass. The only time I’ve used Rose City is on snow days.
My kids practice soccer on the outfield of a baseball field near our house. That same field hosts little league games, adult kickball softball, and countless dog owners on off hours.
Golf courses are a horribly inefficient use of public money and public space, and people who play golf need to accept this reality.
The Portland golf fund has had taxpayer bailouts in the past, and the potential sale of RedTail has exposed that the rest of the system requires subsidy:
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/13/selling-redtail-golf-course-portland/
These were the same people making a stink over the closure of 72nd to drivers northbound. Fortunately they’re a minority unfortunately they’re very vocal about it and are happy to lie and exaggerate about things to get their way.
Trolls that live under bridges or next to golf courses don’t understand that reasonable access to public spaces can create strong supportive coalitions to protect those spaces. Overly exclusionary policies can weaken protection. Nextdoor is a platform for some of the worst ideas in Portland and these two exploit that platform to spread lies and their narrow, petty view of Portland.
These same people are claiming that Bike Portland has taken over this project. “The glaring issue is that Bike Portland, a powerful lobby group, has taken over the project from Fain, who also has a conflict of interest and no expertise in land use, environment or wildlife. PP&R was handed $4 million.”
Haha wow that is a new one. I mean, I don’t even know where to begin if someone has such strong feelings about something yet they lack basic critical thinking skills.
Have you seen the bikeportland business reviews?
E-bikes didn’t cause the damage. Idiots did.
Janet is the reason I stopped using Nextdoor.
I live in the neighborhood but am traveling so won’t be able to attend the community meeting. I hope you’ll be reporting on it!
Hi Basiluzzo,
I’m not sure how much of it I’ll catch since I’ll be at Bike Happy Hour when it starts. But I’ll watch as soon as I can and will definitely report back if anything of substance happens. At this point, I don’t expect too much. Seems more like just reviewing latest designs and so on, and no major decisions will be made.
It just ended. Lots of positivity and support. The Mel’s and Janet’s of the world either didn’t show up or didn’t comment/make accusations as they so freely do on Nextdoor. Me thinks they realized when they can’t lie without being corrected publicly, they didn’t want to do it. Classic bully/fearmongering behavior.
Glad to hear that, thanks.
Isn’t vandalizing a golf course a right of passage for teenagers? Isn’t complaining more loudly about damage to a golf course than human rights abuses a right of passage for middle age? Isn’t growing up to feel guilty about the stupid things you did as a kid a sign of maturity?
Please enjoy Martín Espada’s “Not Here.”
http://www.martinespada.net/uploads/6/9/9/8/69989673/not_here.pdf
Whataboutism.
We apparently can’t condemn vandalism until all human rights abuses are abolished from Planet Earth?
What about it?
The idea that this has anything to do with trails is ludicrous. It was just obvious vandalism. Someone may or may not be able to do that kind of damage with an actual e-bike – I expect a bike that can go 28mph assisted probably has the torque to tear up a wet golf course. And since there are no (that I know of) torque limits, even a 20mph max bike should be able to do it. But it’s not like it’s unheard of for someone to do donuts in a grassy area in a truck or car, causing far more damage. I’d like to see this be used to advocate against having automobile access entirely encircling (and going through) any park!
I feel terrible about this, but in high school, my buddies and I drove my El Camino onto the football field late one night and completely destroyed the field.
I’m sorry, we weren’t bad kids, just being dumb.
Absolutely. When I was in high school, I made a crop circle.
Those posters on nextdoor are referring to the vandals as “animals”. It’s insanely overboard. Probably some culture war brain worms.
Oh we did one other thing, maybe I was a little bad.
At the baseball field, the keeper left the white line machine out. Of course we drew a pair of very very large, very voluptuous set of, well I leave I’ll it at that…
Wonder how the farmer felt having part of their crop destroyed by you so that all the farmer’s time and effort to grow it and sell it to pay bills was for naught since you took it upon yourself to destroy other people’s property.
Good show!
I think you’re completely missing the point, good show!
Kids in high school do stupid things. This isn’t some new scourge of Portland that people damage the golf course. People on that thread are acting like vandalism isn’t as old as human civilization. Or that dumb kids doing dumb things are animals that should be held in prison (literally someone commented this).
In high school my buddy Jason and I would drive around the empty, rural roads of Orchards, Brush Prairie and Hockinson (when that was very rural Clark County) and blow up mail boxes with dry ice bombs. If you had a novelty mail box, we’d blow it up. So incredibly dumb.
Legal ebikes limited to 750 watts are about as powerful as many a blender. It doesn’t take many watts to move a light vehicle with a skinny cross-section on hard, flat ground – my ebikes dramatically limit their power output in a variety of situations, but you’d hardly notice any impact on speed unless you’re trying to go up a hill. Just as with a blender, if you wanted to gouge grass with an ebike motor, you could, but you’d be holding the motor up off the ground so that there wasn’t enough resistance to pull it out of its power band.
***Comment deleted by moderator. – JM***
Amazing how comments supporting and encouraging destruction of public property are approved and published by BikePortland. This isn’t the only one so far…
Yeah , Next Door has nothing on Bikeportland…
Yes, if you dont live in reality.
Grass grows back. No actual damage was done.
Lots of pearl clutching over a massive waste of public land.
I am sure plenty of people see Gateway Green as a massive waste of space.
It was literally wasted land before Gateway Green went in. What could they build there anyway? A golf course wouldn’t fit. It has no access for a business.
Delusional Portlanders will demand that anything and everything should be turned into a homeless camp, so that’s always an option
This is a bike site, so no reason you should be expected to know how the landscaping works, but it’s not just a matter of dead grass; it’s the ruts formed in the underlying soil that are the real problem.
It won’t “grow back”; it needs to be repaired.
If someone tears up your yard, I suspect your opinion would be different. Remediation takes time and money.
Can’t see the comment now because it was removed. Are you talking about the people who repeatedly destroyed the northbound barriers on 72nd when it was closed to cars?
The comment applauded the golf course vandalism.
It’s those damn bikes, sneaking out late at night from their owner’s garages and apartments! Rampaging gangs of boomer acoustic Schwinn Varsities fighting those newfangled aluminum power-punks, snorting CO2 cartridges to get high, trading illicit stolen lithium batteries for their next fix. Portland needs bike cops to get the situation under control!
I had a Schwinn Continental when I was about 12 (so we’re taking around 1972). I loved that bike so much! Giant step up from my Sting-Ray.
Just desserts.
This is what happens when cycling advocacy is so thoroughly warped by e-bike industry lobbying that it ends up aligning itself with vandals who trash public parks on motorcycles.
The activists could have fought against the embrace of electrified vehicles from the start, especially the throttle variety. Instead they made excuses and downplayed the impact this would have on our facilities, from bike lanes to MUPs to MTB trail systems.
Now you’re trying to put the genie back in the bottle, asking the general public to differentiate between the fine lines of “Class I, II and III” and asking us to believe that the owners of one type of device would never ride irresponsibly– why, it must be those terrible users of that other kind of electric motorcycle!
Nah, I don’t think the public’s going to buy that. Bicycles will soon be a thing of the past, and we helped usher in the era. We are the electric motorcycling community now, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Their behavior is our behavior. We brought it on ourselves, ushered in by waves of venture capitalist lobbying, sweatshop labor and destructive lithium mining. This. Is. Us.
Where are you seeing cycling advocacy aligning itself with vandals? Jonathan called it :large scars of damage” and “terrible behavior”.
Where are you seeing that? It looked to me like skepticism that it wasn’t some types of devices was due to the type of damage they left. I don’t see a suggestion that riders of one type of vehicle are more or less likely to ride irresponsibly than another.
We have tolerated and excused electric motorcycles as they’ve invaded our paths, trails and other bike facilities. Take the Springwater on just about any day and you’ll count numerous examples.
Small electric vehicles are now accepted in every location that bikes are, and cycling advocates have been rooting for them since day one. Y’all cheered when Lime, Bird, and others began operating illegally (taking a page from the Uber and Lyft playbooks). You hailed them as last-mile solutions, something that would replace cars. Every time an electric motorcycle passed us in the bike lane at 30mph we wanted to tell them off– but the “cycling advocates” told us to stand down: “just happy to see more people on two wheels! at least it isn’t a car!” and so on.
Well, now we find ourselves lumped in with the people destroying a park… and predictably the “advocates” have fired up the Mental Gymnastics Machine to try and distance themselves from the destructive toys that they’ve championed for ages now. Good luck with that.
Happy electric motorcycling!
Dude, read the DMV infographic. Cyclists aren’t rooting for electric motorcycles on MUPs.
This blog has carried water for anything with an electric motor and advocated against regulation of ebikes in particular.
Now we enjoy the fruits of all that labor.
Another Jeff translation…and a lesson on “those people”
Thank you. It’s exactly as overwrought as it looks.
*Shakes fist*
Get your e-bike off my lawn!
The vast majority of bikes on the road are still fully human powered, and I dont see thar changing any time soon.
“and asking us to believe that the owners of one type of device would never ride irresponsibly”
BP didnt say that at all. They, and others are pointing out that the vehicles that did this are motorcycles and not e-bikes defined by law.
Theres a reason we differentiant between mopeds and motorcycles. Its the same reason we want to differentiate between e-bikes and elecyric motorcycles. They are different things.
You are intentially trying to conflate the two because of your agenda against e-bikes, which have helped plenty of people get out if cars.
There is zero evidence that e-bikes are getting people out of cars.
In my neighborhood about the only e-anything I see are fat tired motorcycles riding in bike lanes. There was a brief period of what people call e-bikes but they have mostly disappeared in favor of motorcycles.
The size of the tire has nothing to do with whether a vehicle is an ebike or an emotorbike. Fat tires may be having a heyday, as ebike motors help compensate for the extra rolling resistance of the larger tires, but those also generally offer more stability and traction for braking, which aren’t bad things when you are moving faster.
There are a huge diversity of different kinds of bikes (the market for wider tires was built by frames being designed for off-road and downhill use), and there are going to be a huge variety of ebikes as well. But legal ebikes don’t have enough power to do the kind of damage described in this article.
Mopeds and motorcycles (ICE or actual electric motorcycles like Zero Motorcycles) look fundamentally different and have a different scale. The visual difference between the Classes of e-bikes not so much. Hard to be outraged when a bicycle looking thing is described as a bicycle.
No one is “pointing this out” because there is no evidence that it is (or is not) true.
Use whatever definitions you want to call them technically wrong, but to most people, if it has pedals and an electric motor, it is an e-bike. I really don’t see how that popular definition is going to change.
Sur Ron’s don’t have pedals, the one witness who had said e-bikes said that the reason they thought that was that the vehicle was quiet not because it was being pedaled, Sur Rons are advertised as near silent. Witness saw a group of people joyriding Sur Rons in the neighborhood when this happened. Damage was reported from folks riding Sur Rons at gateway green in a mtb group I follow recently as well FWIW. This isn’t a technical difference, these vehicles weigh over 100 pounds, can travel more than twice as fast as an ebike and have motors that are many times more powerful. Some might say Apples and Oranges, but in this case maybe a better comparison is Golf Carts to Jeep Wranglers.
I’m totally open to the idea that it was electric motorcycles. But someone saying they saw some in the neighborhood that evening is hardly dispositive. It’s a possible theory, and nothing more. Responsible people don’t publicly accuse others of lying because they have a possible theory that they may be mistaken.
I don’t know what happened, and I’m happily resigned to going to my grave with this mystery unsolved. This whole thing should have stayed on NextDoor.
Sur-rons can have pedals, some are sold with them. You can also get a pedal kit for them.
Also depending on where you buy them they usually come set limited to near legal ebike speeds, certainly not 2x as fast.
To be fair, the width of the ruts (as I perceive them) are a line of evidence (not proof) that the vehicles that did this more closely resemble motorcycles than the bike Eddy Merck set the hour record on.
I dunno, when I go to Westmoreland park, millennial parents that ride up with their kids are almost exclusively riding e-bikes.
When I ride the trails in Sunriver, baby boomers are almost exclusively riding e-bikes.
They’re ubiquitous.
You’re off your rocker.
Get ahold of yourself, you’re raving.
You’re describing a group of precisely zero people.
The realistic line in practice is really getting blurry between gutless electric motorcycles vs power assisted. There’s no difference between scooters and e-bikes that can operate without pedaling besides tire size, because scooters can be used as a kick scooter and ebike can be pedaled.
Plenty of e-bikes and scooters go 40 mph+.
For context; it’s worth noting that this NextDoor thread is one of MANY that Melanie “Mel” L. has been posting since the NE 72nd closure started shaping up. Most of the threads start out about some seemingly unrelated topic at the golf course, like birds or a pretty sunset, but then Mel ties it into why the lane closure/trail/bikes are bad. MANY of those posts get deleted by ND moderators after they predictably spin out of control with falsehoods and divisiveness. At first glance this latest post seems benign enough, but taken in the context of the others, the intent is very clear. I’m amazed that it hasn’t been deleted yet, but it was closed to comments this morning with 279 comments. 40+ of them are from Mel and Janet, with another 40+ from Ginger. They are BUSY spewing misinformation, all aimed at keeping “the public” off of trails around the golf course.
Yep, a handful of people who live near the park have come to view it as an extension of their yards and think that no one else should be able to use it.
In the vernacular of Reddit, ESH (everybody sucks here). People on electric whatever-you-wanna-call-thems riding recklessly are a scourge on society. But the amount of land and resources wasted by maintaining a golf course is also a scourge on society.
I’d be happiest if this parcel of land were turned into a mountain bike park like Gateway Green–and with no motors allowed.
In all honesty, the course should be turned into a tiny village.
That would be a terrible use of a popular park enjoyed by thousands of regular everyday Portlanders.
Would it be a terrible use? We have thousands of unhoused Portland residents, and judging by the general attitude that many have towards the unhoused, it would probably improve everybody’s overall enjoyment of the city if those unhoused people were given a safe space to go that isn’t a campsite in the central city. Maybe this golf course isn’t the best location, but I wouldn’t reject the concept out of hand just because a relatively small number of people periodically spend their free time and disposable income in that location.
Also, glendoveer and rose city golf courses are relatively unpopular golf courses. They have in recent decades been money losers on an annual basis. The newer, fancier , heron lakes attracts many, many more golfers and turns a profit despite charging higher fees.
The only logical argument for continuing to maintain Rose City as a public golf course that I can think of is if we think that providing public golfing opportunities at discounted prices is so important that we should be subsidizing golfing with public funds. And maybe we should be doing that. Obviously, we expect to subsidize most public parks. But by that same token, the expectation is that public parks will be open to the general public and will not exclude people during operating hours. Some activities, such as baseball, require exclusive spaces for certain periods of time. But the remainder of the park typically remains open, even if the baseball fields are only accessible to playing teams. It seems that many in this neighborhood are making it their mission to try to keep the nonpaying public out of the park, even in spaces where public access wouldn’t impede golfing activities.
Yeah, maybe. I’d certainly use it more that way, as I don’t golf, but other forms of recreation (including golf) have their place. I bring my kid to the playground here from time to time, and I honestly don’t feel like the rest of us are lacking space because the golf course exists.
I feel like this whole thing would be a lot less contentious if there were meaningful, legal mountain biking opportunities in our more suitable natural spaces within riding distance of people’s homes in Portland. It feels like a shame that we’re fighting over maybe a mile or two of trail along a relatively flat golf course.
Just wait until Mel and Janet learn about these things we call “cars” and the carnage they cause when they drive donuts on park fields all over the city. Using their logic, we’d need to ban cars from roads and parking lots next to parks…
… on second thought, maybe they’re on to something!
Counterpoint: golf courses are a bad use of land because 1. they are not a very biodiverse form of greenspace 2. as a greenspace they require you to buy a bunch of stuff to play golf (as opposed to just a regular park) and 3. rather than a kind of crappy version of a greenspace they should either be a good version or housing
In conclusion, who cares?
Nothing is stopping you (and others) from buying this land and converting it into a use more to your liking.
I’m not a player of Golf, what a boring sport, but there are people who obviously like it and pay for it and don’t deserve to have what they enjoy destroyed by others.
Is it easy to buy city owned property?
???Nothing is stopping you from buying this land???
Hahaha. Is that a joke? It’s a city park. Portland doesn’t just sell off public parks to private citizens.
Didn’t the city offer to sell off the Colwood Golf Facility for industrial development? How about that golf course in Sullivan’s Gulch – wasn’t it sold to build Lloyd Center? Or was that private property?
https://portlandparksgolf.com/
Colwood is a formerly private course that was purchased by the city and reopened as a public course and nature preserve. I think there was formerly talk of industrial redevelopment at one time, but it never came to pass.
The Lloyd golf course in Sullivan’s gulch was on the other side of the gulch from where Lloyd center was built. It was a private course. I-84 and a 70s era office park occupy a lot of the former golf course space.
Part of Colwood north of Cornfoot road was sold to a developer, who then sold it to the city for the new post office facility.
Cost of moving post office out of Pearl? $13.9 million above market value – oregonlive.com
Right,I forgot about that
Don’t forget the massive amount of fertilizers that are used (and then wash out into the environment) to keep the course “lush”. Really, they aren’t much of a greenspace at all as they are dependent on a lot of chemicals to keep them that way. Completely agree with you and others that they are a bad use of land and would be better as a general use park.
The tread marks in the last photo sure look like a dirt bike tire.
Ugh, NextDoor is a toxic cesspool, worse even than Facebook.
Amazing that vandalism is not recognized as vandalism but as an opportunity to limit recreational opportunities. Imagine if we all had the same reaction – banning the vehicle that made the mess – every time we see auto tracks on someones grass!
Seems like this should be a sign we need more trails and areas to ride not less.
These riders were clearly looking for a place to ride and jump apparently. Reminds me of trying to stop skaters – best way is to give them designated places to skate.
Assuming they are higher powered ebikes, sur-rons or motorcycles, how else would you stop them? Cops generally can’t catch them.