Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > East Lake Sammamish trail is a go!
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed May 18, 2005 10:36 pm 
I found the regulations concerning trail construction and expect that the county will follow them, they specifically include responsibilty for keeping users on trails, signage, etc.
Quote:
C. Trails shall be constructed and designed to keep users on the designated trail. Construction and design techniques may include, but not be limited to, the placement of signs, the creation of distinct trail edges or the construction of vegetative or other barriers or fences, as authorized by the department.
http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/pub_rule/acrobat/21a-24trails.pdf This meets part of my concerns concerning mitigation, and I expect the county will follow it's own requirements so these costs will be paid by the public demanding the trail. I hope the homeowners are aware of the counties responsibility for at least this one chunk of code, and I'm sure there is more. I am sure this meets Quark's requirement that I show that there are rules concerning the exact same situations.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostWed May 18, 2005 10:48 pm 
Lagerman wrote:
You know these people in apartment complexs .
Good point. It's very clear that anyone discussing these issues with MtnGoat must live in an apartment. And this is somehow relevant. MtnGoat- one final question. You seem convinced the county will not follow its own standards regarding mitigation along this trail. What evidence do you have that this is the case? It may be true, but I have seen nothing that would indicate it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed May 18, 2005 10:50 pm 
wow, damian is on the prowl. you junkyard dog you!

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
PostWed May 18, 2005 11:56 pm 
Lagerman wrote:
Poor Goat, fighting a losing battle. You know these people in apartment complexs care nothing about property rights. If they get stuff they like, at others expense....why not go for it? They will throw a fit with the apartment manager when someone has there stereo on past 10, but something like this isnt an inconvience at all.
Property rights arguments support the trail and are against the neighbors. The neighbors are the ones trying to grab the use of someone else's property. And nothing is happening at "other's expense". The county is building the trail and paying for it, not the neighbors.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 12:49 am 
Damian wrote:
Lagerman wrote:
You know these people in apartment complexs .
Good point. It's very clear that anyone discussing these issues with MtnGoat must live in an apartment. And this is somehow relevant. MtnGoat- one final question. You seem convinced the county will not follow its own standards regarding mitigation along this trail. What evidence do you have that this is the case? It may be true, but I have seen nothing that would indicate it.
i am less convinced now that I have seen this, but have been appalled by people here claiming 1) there is no negative impact 2)that it shouldn't make any difference because it is less than another impact 3)one which is worse but doesn't exist should be considered as a reason to accept increased noise and lowered privacy 4) or that the county shouldn't pay for what it causes. 5) that because of the claim that it benefits everyone, they should just "suck up" negative impacts....... 6) that because they may be rich, it doesn't matter I'm hopeful the county will follow all applicable rules, but i'm also going to search out any site linked to these homeowners and suggest they and their attorneys make sure the county does just that with this document for starters. It's very detailed, and I'm sure the county will appreciate the help.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 12:56 am 
And I'm STILL waiting to see who supports the RR's *unrestricted* right to build tracks if *it* decides it can make a profit doing so. We have so many people here who are happy proponents of the property rights of the owners of this right of way, I'm certain they'll agree that the contract binding both sides is the letter of the law and should be followed to the letter. After all, we have had person after person here making very, very clear we need to follow the rules concerning how the control of this railbed is handled, and those rules detail, according to one poster, an unrestricted right to build rails. Of course this entire post rests upon that statement, and if it's untrue, i'll withdraw it . So how committed to property rights and contracts are the folks that have been using those facts for their arguments, or is it just as long as property rights and contracts allow a trail to be built, but will change sides when the *controlling* owner decides to use it for rails? My guess is some property rights advocates here will suddenly turn to demanding the county force the railroad to sell. tongue.gif

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
solohiker
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 1075 | TRs | Pics
Location: issaquah
solohiker
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 6:50 am 
I know I promised to shut up - fwiw, I answered that question way upthread:
Quote:
At that point the bikers would have to kiss the trail good bye, and be glad for the time they had.
Of course I would support the terms that put the trail there in the first place. Of course I understand that to be part of the bargain, and part of why the land wasn't parceled up to begin with. I've never indicated I wouldn't accept this. To the contrary, I thought I made it clear that I do. Honestly, mass transit up and down that corridor taking pressure off traffic on 228 would be almost as lovely as a bike trail. I also said:
Quote:
A little of me wonders if it is that possibility more than the trail itself that the homeowners oppose.
My own perspective lines up with Damian, I see the trail as a huge windfall for residents. They have it at their disposal, where other users have to drive to the state park and pay to park their car before using it. But the possibility of reverting this thing to a working railway - now that's probably scary. Legal. But scary. It's benevolent that you want to help the homeowners in thier battle. I'm doubting you've come up with new material since they had highly paid lawyers working on it for years, but who knows?

I have never been lost, but I'll admit to being confused for several weeks. - Daniel Boone
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 6:54 am 
fair enough, thanks for the comments, sh, glad to see the additional ones this morning. up.gif

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostThu May 19, 2005 7:35 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
and the landowners get screwed while those doing so seem to defend shirking public payment for their impacts
Clarify this statement, please.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostThu May 19, 2005 7:55 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
I found the regulations concerning trail construction and expect that the county will follow them,
OK, so where did the idea come from that no one expects the county to follow the same rules regarding the trail construction? They haven't even started it, so why would you assume. It's as if you're on a witch-hunt, trying to find a glaring mistake. The RR, County and the homeowners have been hashing this for at least close to a decade (I tagged along with a freind, who attended a homeowners' meeting with the County back in about 1997). They're probably all tapped out of ideas, and will be glad to hear from you.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 9:22 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
i am less convinced now that I have seen this, but have been appalled by people here claiming 1) there is no negative impact 2)that it shouldn't make any difference because it is less than another impact 3)one which is worse but doesn't exist should be considered as a reason to accept increased noise and lowered privacy 4) or that the county shouldn't pay for what it causes. 5) that because of the claim that it benefits everyone, they should just "suck up" negative impacts....... 6) that because they may be rich, it doesn't matter .
I think you are doing an injustice to the sources of these by taking these items out of context and stating them as comprehensive positions of the posters. Looking back at the context from which they were taken shows there was more thought and flexibility on the part of the posters than this list would indicate. The suck up comment was mine I think. And I stand by the message I intended to convey. Take it too far, or out of context, and you've changed the message.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
solohiker
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 1075 | TRs | Pics
Location: issaquah
solohiker
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 10:29 am 
Hey guys, I think we need to give MtG a rest. He has opinions, we have opinions, everybody knows more about all of our opinions than they'll ever need to know. Not that I don't agree with your statement, Damian, just that I appreciated goat's morning assesment, and figured it was a great place to leave things:
MtnGoat wrote:
fair enough, thanks for the comments .... up.gif

I have never been lost, but I'll admit to being confused for several weeks. - Daniel Boone
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 4:33 pm 
Solo- I hear ya. I get into one good argument with MtnGoat a year. He's a tough warrior and a pleasure to argue with. But don't under-estimate his stamina. He'll keep going till the cows come home. Trust me. Good thread. Good discussion all. Damian out.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
touron
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 10293 | TRs | Pics
Location: Plymouth Rock
touron
Member
PostThu May 19, 2005 7:52 pm 
I haven't contributed to this thread yet, and I have a right to (still, I think). With regards to the Renton to Redmond train track, I would hate to see that go. There aren't alot of places in the city where we can still see a train crawling along. I've often wondered what it would be like to hitch a ride on the S of W, or maybe have my own track speeder and commute form Renton to Totem Lake on it. hmmm.gif It really adds something in my opinion. Don't we have enough walker trails already? Maybe if they would quit trying to cram so many shoebox houses on a lot, people would have biggger yards and we wouldn't have to create these skinny corridors for exercise. Save our trains!

Touron is a nougat of Arabic origin made with almonds and honey or sugar, without which it would just not be Christmas in Spain.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
touron
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 10293 | TRs | Pics
Location: Plymouth Rock
touron
Member
PostWed Mar 22, 2006 8:30 am 
Sammamish trail opens

Touron is a nougat of Arabic origin made with almonds and honey or sugar, without which it would just not be Christmas in Spain.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > East Lake Sammamish trail is a go!
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum