[MtnGoat]

so authorization of railbanking means those affected by it must eat all costs resulting from it? Is this in the statute? I doubt it. This places an interesting light on your respect for those who disagree with you concerning impacts to their property. If you don't like their reasons, does that make it "frivolous"? Just when is it the people who act for the "benefit of the community" should bear the costs they impose on those they are acting against? You want the trail, so they should pay the costs? You seem very willing to support them sacrificing for the trail you want, what do *you* sacrifice in getting it? Looks pretty one sided to me. Take heart, now that you've defined this as a situation of "frivolous" lawsuits, I look forward to keeping an eye peeled for your thinking on similar lawsuits!

[Backpacker Joe]

[MtnGoat]

Heck, even I wouldn't go that far, the property in question has value and if there was a transfer as you suggest, i'd want to see that homeowners pay the county fair market value. after all, it's still property and giving it to homeowners at county expense is just as unacceptable as transferral of private property and the private owners expense.

[greg]

Funny all the people on "nwhikers.net" who are against a trail...

[Damian]

[aestivate]

[Tom]

[Tom]

[Malachai Constant]

[Tom]

I seriously doubt many families will be hiking by the homes in dispute. Bikers will be the primary users of these sections of trail, not necessarily hikers, and that was my point.

[greg]

Tom, all kinds of people will use that trail, walkers, joggers, skaters, bikers. These are all good and healthy uses of public land. Look at the existing Sammamish Valley Trail on a sunny Saturday. And I can categorically state I am not opposed to access to any trailhead. The plan I believe you're referring to does not close access to any trailhead or any trail anywhere at any time.

[Tom]

[greg]

I think that is in the plan yes, but might be mistaken.

[Slugman]

The lawsuit was frivolous because it was pointless and doomed to failure from the very beginning. See, funny thing is, if you have no legal basis for your claim, no legal grounds to stand on, when you're fighting something perfectly legal, it's frivolous. Duh. I notice that Mtn Goat assigns a false motive to me for my claim of frivolity. He says I think it's frivolous just because I don't agree with it. Funny how in all the world, only Mtn Goat can read minds. Unfortunately he reads them wrong. He'd be a better debater if he stuck to making his own points, instead of trying to falsify the points of other people to fit his agenda. But I guess when your 100% in the wrong, making up false points to argue against is your only hope. Then he "threatens" to hold me to his own fantasy of my motive in the future on the subject of frivolous lawsuits. Amazing. Tom, who exactly is it that is asking for closing off access to existing trailheads? (plural). If you mean the Midlle fork road (just one trailhead), and the position of people like me, you are mistaken. We want the road fixed, not closed. We also must choose between the options presented, so some of us are choosing the lesser of several evils, that is, fix it to Dingford and then close it there. I can't recall a single person's post who said they'd rather see it closed than fixed to the end.

[Tom]