Wow! After all I got a web site from where I be able to really obtain valuable facts concerning my study and knowledge.
Really now. - 12 years ago
And yes, this poll is absolute crap, I did vote more than once, therefore it is invalid.
Sentinel, you gotta put up a proper polling system.
Really now. - 12 years ago
ONE trail open for cyclists to be able to reach the U-Con trail...
remind me, how many "trails" in the 'nip are fire roads used by offical vehicles?
Can people please focus on UCSC's unsustainable expansion instead of arguing about some people rolling through the pogonip?
The downhillers will go to Soquel Demo anyhow, this will be such a mellow trail.
D.B. Cooper - 12 years ago
@ Bogus Pole, just how do you know that it is possible to vote more than once.
Don - 12 years ago
These polls are useless because you can vote as many times as you want, and the Sentinel knows that. The real problem lies when the Sentinel uses the poll as a basis for a news article, representing the poll as an accurate measure of community response. Just goes to show that the reputation of our local newspaper is again proven to be tarnished.
Bogus Poll - 12 years ago
I'm not against the trail, but this is a totally bogus poll because it allows repeated voting. Many online polls bounce you if you try to vote more than once. This one doesn't. So, I don't buy the numbers--I think someone's stacking the deck.
D.B. Cooper - 12 years ago
Will it have any sweet jumps?
James - 12 years ago
As someone who spent years joyfully flogging a cycle around crits.I can only hope some of these pumped up writers will someday find the utility of time spent without the sound of wind and rattling gear in your ears.Spend time walking...It may even improve your conversational abilities when your in the group.I use those trails,often,and I don`t mind a path in the propose area.
D Smith - 12 years ago
In reply to Seb's comment above about selfishness, I don't want to keep wild places for myself, I want to keep them for themselves and the creatures that depend on them, the beings that need a safe space where they can live their little lives. Walk through these places quietly and with reverence for the rainbow of life that is not you but includes you.
Mechanical transport of any kind is inappropriate in these natural places. They move you faster and with no time for contemplation of what you are passing through. It is a sport, an exercise meant to serve only you, the rider. Even our footsteps do damage, but these wheels are a disaster, badly damaging existing trails and cutting new ones. This is an undeniable fact.
When they are allowed on walking paths, riders are often intolerant of the walkers on shared trails. They take out their frustration at being delayed by yelling out and passing too fast and too close.
My viewpoint is that bikes should remain on roads, where they were meant to be. We should not substitute our parks for missing BMX tracks.
Seb - 12 years ago
Really, those in opposition want to keep the majority of this beautiful park to themselves and are willing to keep part of it for the drug addicts and criminals. Those for the new trail, want to preserve and build well maintained, safe, sustainable trails, and push away to the criminal activities, protect the forest from fire, and stop further damage from the drug trails. The only argument the opposition has is one against mountain bikers. This park is for the people of Santa Cruz to recreation and enjoy, not a minority of a few lonely hikers.
Yvonne Furnw - 12 years ago
yes, a very poorly done poll, both in that it does not specify that the trail being considered is a multi-use trail and also in that the poll allows one person to vote multiple times.
this poll was posted at 4:40 p.m. and already had almost 200 votes 2 1/2 hours later--we're really supposed to believe that many individuals actually voted in that short a period of time? yeah, sure...
scheech, of course, these polls only show the opinion of those who respond--you'd think The Sentinel would at least have an accurate question and then set it up so that you can only vote once--other polls do that. but, no....
share the trails - 12 years ago
Everyone voting in this poll knows what the question means: do we open up a single trail in Pogonip to allow bikers and horses to have access between Henry Cowell Park and the city of Santa Cruz, or do we keep it closed to all but illegal campers, heroin dealers and a selfish bunch of elderly out-of-touch hippies?
Daniel O Hirsch - 12 years ago
The poll question is badly written. The issue isn't whether one favors a trail through the Pogonip, but whether one favors permitting mountain bikes into more of the Pogonip. A trail, as asked in the poll question, can readily be presumed to be a hiking trail, as virtually all of the existing trails are.
Wow! After all I got a web site from where I be able to really obtain valuable facts concerning my study and knowledge.
And yes, this poll is absolute crap, I did vote more than once, therefore it is invalid.
Sentinel, you gotta put up a proper polling system.
ONE trail open for cyclists to be able to reach the U-Con trail...
remind me, how many "trails" in the 'nip are fire roads used by offical vehicles?
Can people please focus on UCSC's unsustainable expansion instead of arguing about some people rolling through the pogonip?
The downhillers will go to Soquel Demo anyhow, this will be such a mellow trail.
@ Bogus Pole, just how do you know that it is possible to vote more than once.
These polls are useless because you can vote as many times as you want, and the Sentinel knows that. The real problem lies when the Sentinel uses the poll as a basis for a news article, representing the poll as an accurate measure of community response. Just goes to show that the reputation of our local newspaper is again proven to be tarnished.
I'm not against the trail, but this is a totally bogus poll because it allows repeated voting. Many online polls bounce you if you try to vote more than once. This one doesn't. So, I don't buy the numbers--I think someone's stacking the deck.
Will it have any sweet jumps?
As someone who spent years joyfully flogging a cycle around crits.I can only hope some of these pumped up writers will someday find the utility of time spent without the sound of wind and rattling gear in your ears.Spend time walking...It may even improve your conversational abilities when your in the group.I use those trails,often,and I don`t mind a path in the propose area.
In reply to Seb's comment above about selfishness, I don't want to keep wild places for myself, I want to keep them for themselves and the creatures that depend on them, the beings that need a safe space where they can live their little lives. Walk through these places quietly and with reverence for the rainbow of life that is not you but includes you.
Mechanical transport of any kind is inappropriate in these natural places. They move you faster and with no time for contemplation of what you are passing through. It is a sport, an exercise meant to serve only you, the rider. Even our footsteps do damage, but these wheels are a disaster, badly damaging existing trails and cutting new ones. This is an undeniable fact.
When they are allowed on walking paths, riders are often intolerant of the walkers on shared trails. They take out their frustration at being delayed by yelling out and passing too fast and too close.
My viewpoint is that bikes should remain on roads, where they were meant to be. We should not substitute our parks for missing BMX tracks.
Really, those in opposition want to keep the majority of this beautiful park to themselves and are willing to keep part of it for the drug addicts and criminals. Those for the new trail, want to preserve and build well maintained, safe, sustainable trails, and push away to the criminal activities, protect the forest from fire, and stop further damage from the drug trails. The only argument the opposition has is one against mountain bikers. This park is for the people of Santa Cruz to recreation and enjoy, not a minority of a few lonely hikers.
yes, a very poorly done poll, both in that it does not specify that the trail being considered is a multi-use trail and also in that the poll allows one person to vote multiple times.
this poll was posted at 4:40 p.m. and already had almost 200 votes 2 1/2 hours later--we're really supposed to believe that many individuals actually voted in that short a period of time? yeah, sure...
scheech, of course, these polls only show the opinion of those who respond--you'd think The Sentinel would at least have an accurate question and then set it up so that you can only vote once--other polls do that. but, no....
Everyone voting in this poll knows what the question means: do we open up a single trail in Pogonip to allow bikers and horses to have access between Henry Cowell Park and the city of Santa Cruz, or do we keep it closed to all but illegal campers, heroin dealers and a selfish bunch of elderly out-of-touch hippies?
The poll question is badly written. The issue isn't whether one favors a trail through the Pogonip, but whether one favors permitting mountain bikes into more of the Pogonip. A trail, as asked in the poll question, can readily be presumed to be a hiking trail, as virtually all of the existing trails are.