Comments

1
What the fuck is a social justice cyclist? Jesus, biking is not a social justice issue. Give me a break. This is almost as insulting as all the white biking hipsters taking over the Central District and calling it progressive.
2
I have to assume, like every other greenbelt in this city, that cheasty is overrun with invasives - Himalayan blackberry, specifically.

mtn bikes can't be worse for wildlife diversity than vast monocultures of thorny copses. unless you consider rattus norvegicus wildlife.

restoration, stabilization, and recreation can probably coexist.
3
I'm sure that the policy advocates at the Cascade Bicycle Club will soon get involved and bully their way through the city bureaucracy to get this bike path built. It's what they do best.
4
I'm guessing that because it is on a hill, the entire area is not a wetland. In other words, much of it is hilly, and other parts are swampy. Avoid the swampy places (don't run bikes through it). Add bike paths as best you can through the hilly area. If it turns out that bike paths cause too much erosion (which could easily happen) then close it and restore it. Generally speaking, the land around here heals very quickly (unlike high elevation land).
5
@2, you're correct. the overstory is norway maple, rather than a northwest conifer forest. the understory is a mix of blackberry, ivy and encampment.
6
Once the mountain bike trails go in - forget the pedestrians. Forget the dog walkers. Forget the kids playing on the trails...it's the cyclists "right" to power through the forest trails since they are "green" and promoting alternative transportation, they can't be bad! Fucking annoying.
7
Thanks for the great write-up, Stranger! A couple things: the primary picture is actually an overlay of the pedestrian trial plan for the southern 10 acres of Cheasty Greenspace that was designed by Johnson Southerland for the Friends of Cheasty Greenspace/MtView. These have all been built and does not, or will not, allow for bikes. The trail plan for Beacon Bike Park at Cheasty Greenspace (in the northern 33 acres) can be found at http://www.beaconbikepark.com/. Note that there are pedestrian trails, which have been a key component of this design, as multiple ways to engage this land is critical to the success of the project. The community volunteer group behind this project is committed to full restoration and the build out of all trails, bike and pedestrian a like.

Also, I support social justice causes AND environmentalism, which is why this proposal is awesome. It marries restoration and recreation in a place that desperately needs to be reimagined.
8
I support social justice and environmentalism--and their love child, environmental justice. It is socially and environmentally just to have accessible, healthy green/wild places in low income areas. It is socially and environmentally just to engage volunteers of all incomes/ages/cultures/abilities in volunteer and recreational activities. It is socially and environmentally to consider a proposal from a group of proven volunteers (who have lined up financial backers) to restore a dying forest the city cannot afford to help.

It's also possible for one group of neighbors to work with a different group of neighbors to make this all work. The details of parking, pedestrian access, and environmental impact need to be addressed in a thoughtful, professional manner.
9
@6- Did you actually read anything? Did a mountain biker steal your girlfriend?

There are going to be bike trails and pedestrian trails, not mixed use trails. So your whiny ass won't have to look at people having more fun than you. And what are they taking away from people? A blackberry bramble. Is Seattle short on those?
10
I hate bird people, they want everything that they don't own thats green or tree like, untouched or molested by the sights and sounds of the city for the birds.

If the bird people want to stop it then I am for it.
11
Mountain bikes, which are expensive, do not address "poor health outcomes" of people in the Rainier Valley, most of whom probably can't afford them. What they will do, however, is break down the terrain, not exactly a positive outcome of this stupid plan.
12
FYI to # 11, several non-profits, including the very local and totally cool Bike Works, is eager to help low income youth access mountain bikes. (Also, have you been to a pawn shop recently? They're full of reasonably affordable mountain bikes.)
And it's not 1985 anymore; we actually have engineers who can design the trails to mitigate erosion.
Any other scary myths I can break down for you?
13
I hadn't heard of this. It sounds like a marvelous idea. I just signed the letter of support.
14
Yes, the hillside is a wetland. Sounds like you haven't walked through that area, yourself. Maybe you don't know the definitions of various types of wetlands (see http://your.kingcounty.gov/ddes/cao/manu…) The hillside is a seep. The forest is habitat to wildlife. The greenbelt provides a corridor for wildlife through this urban area. This proposal is pushed by a bunch of white folk who are out of touch with what it means to be multi-cultural and/or low income. Think: mountain bike versus food, or mountain bike versus clothes for school.

A problem here is that the white folk proponents are well organized, vocal and have made friends who are likewise. In contrast, us multi-cultural and/or low income types are just trying to get through the week, hold the family together, get the kids to do their homework, put gas in the car, etc etc.

Hence ... it's likely foregone conclusion that this stupid plan will be implemented. Then, we'll see . . . a bunch of white folks on their mountain bikes pounding their way through the woods.

re #12 I spoken to you before ... engineering design is not the solution. "Any other scary myths I can break down for you?" is a disrespectful, smart ass response. No wonder the Tuesday's crowd was angry.
15
I work in natural resources, specifically in recreation. I can tell you that a thoughtfully planned and well built bike trail is a marvel of sustainability - something that can not be said for what typically passes for a hiking trail in many popular instances.
Furthermore, this absolutely IS a great way to get kids of all backgrounds experiencing healthy outdoor recreation. Parks like this are not just for "white folk" and they're expensive mountain bikes. Look to the recent success of Swan Creek Mountain Bike Park in Tacoma for an awesome example. Those trails were built by pros and volunteers to appeal to anyone with access to something that rolls by human power, and are very popular with the local kids.
If we can not cooperate and create attractive spaces for new generations to recreate in our forests, they will grow up not giving a damn what happens to them. Please consider that point for the good of everything we all hold dear.
The mountain bikers love the land and the forest as much as any of us. They depend on it for what they love. They can be valuable and enthusiastic partners in creating better spaces in which to live.
16
Cyclists already ignore rules, safety and courtesy city-wide, making it hazardous for cars on the road and pedestrians walking on the sidewalk alike. Now they want to take over parks and nature, too. Screw 'em. Leave the greenbelt to nature and lower impact uses. It's a greenbelt, not a racetrack. It's a place for nature and quiet, not a place for assholes on expensive bikes to rip up the hillside, off-road over plants, disturb wildlife habitat, and mow down any pedestrians who happen by.
17
#114 & #16 I strongly recommend you come stop by the green belt tthe next couple of Saturdays and meet the actual volunteers who will be getting their hands dirty in actually restoring the green belt. I can promise you we do not fit the definition of "assholes". We are simply good hearted people wanting to restore a down trodden greenspace with in the city and transform it into a recreational space that will actually see good use. And please take the time to go see both Duthie hill mountain bike park in Issaquah and Swan Creek down in Tacoma, you will quickly realize how beneficial a park like this can do for our city.
18
#16 The same characterization of drivers & cars reads much closer to reality. In the case of "leaving it to nature" that would be fine if there was not an engineered environment all around it impacting the greenbelt. This place needs restoration and the plan clearly provides for multi-user access without cyclists dominating. Parks like this are often the sites for educational programs (including cycling) and opportunities for folks of all backgrounds to interact with nature and each other. I've seen plenty of nice people on inexpensive bikes quietly enjoying nature on trails- the hyperbole in some of these comments astounds me
19
#14 The more you say that something is just for "white folk", the longer it will remain true. I don't know which is worse, though, a non-white folk saying that non-white folk don't or shouldn't participate in a particular activity, or a member of the "white folk" demographic standing up in a public meeting stating such, which happened at the recent public meeting. A white guy had the gall to stand up and say that Asians in the neighborhood don't mountain bike, so this has no value to the community. It was more than ten years ago now, but another member of the white folk demographic said that Asians in the community don't golf, so we should tear down the cheapest and most accessible components of the Jefferson Golf Course and replace them with other uses. Unfortunately, this person bailed out on Beacon Hill and can't witness the diverse group that uses those facilities today. I'm not sure he would care.

The thing about mountain biking is that there is no user fee or fuel cost, but there is a net benefit to your body. This is not going to be terrain that requires a super quality bike. There are tons of bikes available used for very cheap.
20
@18: The volunteers are probably good hearted people. But there is no guarantee that the trail users will be, based on my experience with cyclists in this city. Regardless of the inherent goodness or lack thereof of the volunteers and trail users, transforming a green space into a recreational space is what I am against. It already has a use: green space. Turning it into a bike track is not compatible with that use. At all. And why turn a green space which is beneficial to the entire city into a single purpose use for a handful of mountain bikers? That's hardly reasonable or equitable. Our few remaining fragments of urban nature don't need to be exploited just so a few people can get their kicks tearing the hillside into a muddy rut.
21
#20, The problem is that it is a green space that is not in a sustainable condition and needs restoration. Also, it is not untouched as it is currently being destroyed by illegal uses. Restoring the entire greenspace (including areas beyond the proposed bike trail) and placing a small footprint of bike trails (as well as walking trails) will be a net benefit to the area.
22
Converting green space to muddy bike tracks is not restoration, even if it contains activities which are called "restoration."
23
Here is a quote from the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) project page on Seattle.gov., for the Cheasty Mountain Bike Park proposal.

2014
"The first public meeting for this pilot project will be held Tuesday, March 25, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at Jefferson Community Center."

First public meeting. That was last week.

Why keep saying there was all this public involvement?

The truth is the Seattle Parks Department, not the Cheasty forest people, tried too fly this in under the radar with a top down process where the general public are the last to know.

Here is what happened.

The DPR project manager opened the meeting by saying this was not a "normal" DPR process and we would not be discussing changes to the plan.

After an hour long presentation, at the start of the public comment, the same PM said he would not be answering any questions. When people asked why not, he replied ,"Because I would be here all night!"

That is when the meeting blew up in their faces, March 25, 2014.

The Cheasty Mountain View folks are good people doing important work. It only went South when the Mountain bikers got involved. Forest restoration has nothing to do with mountain bikes. No one is buying it.

The mountain bike project needs to be decoupled from the Cheasty forest restoration project for either to go forward.

How is turning ONLY a South Seattle green space into a bicycle park social justice anyway? It makes no sense.

I wonder what they would call it if we dumped the bike park in the arboretum, or Seward park?

24
@16- Asserting cyclists are a danger to cars is hysterical.
25
@9 - Read #16
26
@25 - Looks like you did read #16, and you didn't like it. Typical self-entitled cyclist. The world revolves around you, your helmet-less rides and your front/back light-free fixed gear hipster-bike.
27
@16- And the fact you think cyclists aren't already using parks tells me you don't go to parks often.
28
@27 (not #25) - The world revolves around you, your helmet-less rides and your front/back light-free fixed gear hipster-bike.
29
I think reposting a pithy comment makes the comment lose its "punch", e.g. - my repost. Still, @27, I hope you can understand that there are a lot of cyclists in this city who are a danger to cars, just as cars are a danger to cyclists.

30
Wait ...

Where are the jetpack trails?
31
@29- Really? I'm a danger to cars? I can injure a car?

Crazy. I feel less vulnerable now. Here I'd been thinking that a 2000+ pound metal object with thousands of times the engine power of mine and packed full of safety equipment might be safe from a 200 pound meat sack on top of a 30 pound bit of metal with one human power source. But it turns out I'm wrong. I'm a terrible menace to cars.

My bike has two disc brakes, a 400 lumen front light (about half one car light, pretty good for bike) and a 60 lumen weird flash pattern back light (It's hard to miss) and I always wear a helmet. I do treat all traffic signals as yield signs, so next time you feel like hauling out some stereotypes pick that one, it actually applies. Though of course usually it's "cyclists ignore stop signals" which isn't strictly true. If I've got a stop sign or a red light and someone is coming the other way I stop and yield to them. I just don't see much point it standing still when I won't be in anyone's way. It doesn't bother me when cars do the same, it just requires driver's to be attentive. Being wrapped in steel and airbags doesn't sharpen people's attention though.
32
Beware! If you pay close attention to what Parks' spokespeople are saying, there is no indication that they don't hope to build more MTB trails in our natural areas. Additional pilot programs will be allowed to move forward during the three-year pilot period for Cheasty

However, Seattle actually has very little land dedicated to natural area eco-functions Let's help this one thrive without this huge trade-off to the biking community. Mountain biking does not require an urban forest; any location will do.

There are so many schools, colleges, and universities in this town. Let's make the trade-off with environmental science classes instead.

Furthermore, the map that the Beacon Bike people display everywhere is way more extensive than what Parks has said they will support, an easy-medium ability, single loop trail. This is telling: whatever is built will not be enough for the MTB group. They will keep up the pressure to create more and more hard-packed sterile soils and chopped up habitat for their sport.

If this is truly about social justice why not provide Beacon Hill with a world class natural area where students can come and learn about eco-systems, how to recreate them, and what Seattle may have looked like long ago.
33
@31 - I'm glad you are a safe cyclist complete with lights and helmet. You do the cycling community proud. Too many cyclists disregard the importance of proper lighting (front and back) and helmets. As a former cyclist myself, I understand the need for visibility to others on the road. It's good to hear you are taking cycling on the road seriously.

Regarding your assertion that you are not dangerous to cars/drivers - you can hit a car, just like a car can hit you. It's not that complex. Auto/cycle accidents happen daily and it's not always the automobiles fault. Hopefully that makes sense to you. I'm not anti-bike, okay? I'm not pro-auto - in fact two years ago I got rid of my car and commute via foot or bus to leave a smaller footprint so don't treat me like I'm some anti-bike person, got it?.

So, yes, you can be a danger to cars and drivers. You can be just as responsible in creating an accident as any driver in a car. It's not that complex.

34
Several versions of this proposal exist. As I understand it, the design is still being refined, but the timeline for the project and its existence are set. Everything I have seen indicates it will have both pedestrian and bicycle paths, but to avoid pedestrian-bicycle conflicts most of the bicycle paths will be bicycle only. This makes sense to me.

I remember when the bicycle policy was first presented to the Parks Board in 1992. We had two major complaints. There were a lot of bicycle-pedestrian collisions on thin trails that were intended for pedestrians only. And bicyclists were creating their own paths. The second problem has not gone away and with proper design the first can be managed.

I am not sure I approve of this project, but I find it interesting. If they continue to work on the pedestrian paths, I could get behind it. As long as this remains a pilot and Parks is serious about evaluating the damage caused by the trails, I am happy.

I live near Lewis Park. I love the changes here. But it is small in comparison. I look at all the encampments on the hillside and wonder where those people will move when they can no longer look for a job outside of Lowes. I bet they will go to Cheasty and the Jungle. The bigger the place they can hide in the better.

Could someone help me understand which of these options is better. A bicycle pilot that, if it fails as I predict, will have restored the space and kept the homeless encampments out, or doing nothing and leaving dangerous hobos in the space. Perhaps it is better that they have a space to live in? I do not know.
35
@2 coexistence is the name of the game. You couldn't have said it better
36
@6 @25 @28 @29 @31 not sure if you noticed but Jefferson Park was just completely redone in 2012 for those exact activities that you mentioned above (pedestrian paths, space to walk dogs, space for kids to play, even a skate park).

You already have one of the best parks in the city in your own backyard. I don't even mountain bike but I believe mountain bikers have just as much right to their activities as you do to yours. You clearly have an anti-bike bias which isn't helpful to having a constructive conversation
37
@33- A baby can hit me, it doesn't mean I'm endangered by babies. I'll stop treating you as an anti-bike person when you stop being anti-bike.
38
Interesting to me is the attitude of a lot (not all) of the supporters. The general feeling I get from them is that anyone who disagrees with this plan is simply WRONG. I've read through lots of comments here and on a Beacon Hill googlelist and so many of the comments from people who want this mountain bike course are belligerent, insulting, incredulous and in some cases gloss over any concerns people might have about the noise (and let me say here, we're not talking about bicycle noise any more than people who have concerns about large, hyperactive crowds are talking about the noise from blankets or seats the people are using--it's the people noise), erosion, destruction of habitat, lose of a green space.
The thing that concerns some (me included) is that there's already calls on the FB page to make the thing bigger, put more features in...and the people (and industry) that support mountain biking will have a very BIG voice when it comes down to the final design. Many people an investment in making it MORE awesome for the biking crowd. I don't trust Parks, nor Seattle gov. to monitor the scope of the work. It's called a green space for a reason. Having a mountain biking race course will not add to the quality of the green space. We are constantly losing natural habitat. Can we please stop rushing headlong into developing it as fast as possible?
39
It's good that a few have pointed this out ... but I'd like to say it again: the proposed mountain bike trail is a separate issue from the greenbelt restoration project. I live next to the greenbelt and there are frequent volunteer groups doing work there. Often it's Earth Corp volunteers, with whom I myself have volunteered, and NOT the group that's backing the mountain bike plan.

The mountain bike plan and restoration are SEPARATE issues.

40
All community-based volunteer restoration efforts in Cheasty Greenspace have occurred south of Columbian Way in Cheasty/MtView (the southern 10 acres). It has taken over seven years to restore this 10 acre parcel.

The restoration that has occurred in the northern section of Cheasty has been contracted by Seattle Parks to EarthCorps, a paid organization, to run annual restoration events. To restore this 33 acre parcel within the Green Seattle Partnership timeline, there has to be more volunteers drawn to participate in restoration. Its exciting to see how inviting more user-groups to the table has provided the much-needed volunteer support to restore this landscape within our lifetimes!

There are over 97,100 volunteer hours pledged to the pilot project over the next five years (estimated worth is $1,942,000.00). Volunteers are pledging to participate in restoration, trail building, and maintenance.

You can sign up to participate in restoration events in Cheasty here:

http://seattle.cedar.greencitypartnershi…
41
If mountain Bikers are the only group dedicated, organized and have the willingness to restore, repair, and clean up the green belt then they should be-able to build mountain bike trails.

If bird watchers, dog walkers, hikers etc etc were organized and took care of the greenbelt this entire issue would not come up, but the green-space has been neglected by the same people who are angry at mountain bikers who are willing to fix it. The hikers, walkers, bird watchers and dog walkers have neglected the space and unfortunately will have to share the space with another activity group who appreciate, respect the space more and are willing to care for the space better than all groups combined.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.