- Joined
- Apr 5, 2002
- Location
- San Jose, bottom of dirty 130
- Moto(s)
- ‘18 Alta EX006, ‘17 Alta MX019, 06R6, 05TM530 Black Dream, 01TM250 2T, ‘24 Yam Tenere 700
- Name
- Butch
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 1093637
May 15, 2021
Assemblyperson Bauer-Kahan and Senator Glazer,
Subject: AB1512 and SB799, the fifth year of legislative efforts to compromise one particular recreation at a State Park. In fact, the very recreation opportunity the property was purchased to expand.
This is a much different issue than the one that has been described. Over twenty years ago, 12 million OHV Trust Fund dollars, were invested for the Carnegie SVRA expansion. 12 million was not a “one and done” payout. During the last 23 years, State Parks fixed a SF Water District mistake costing 1.7 million. Mitigation continues of an early 20th century mining operation. Archeological sites are cataloged and protected. All future projects require public input, studies and environmental approvals. OHMVR Division of State Parks has committed the funding to preserve and protect while responsibly developing multiple use access. You have now decided that 9 million is a sufficient pay off?
On our Governors 30/30 executive order, State Parks, including Carnegie SVRA are existing conservation areas. Point of interest though, Ranches, including the neighboring parcels can be considered eligible for the 30/30 criteria.
Carnegie SVRA, has not, as is repeatedly alleged, seen an ongoing drop in visitors. There was a drop from 2009 to 2012, during the recession. All State Parks experienced a similar decline.
The current park is amazing, for experienced motorcycle riders. There is no opportunity for the largest growing segment of OHV’s, the family oriented UTV’s. Nor is there motorized access to wooded trails for mobility limited disabled, a protected class. The expansion will offer both and 1/3 of the area is dedicated to buffer zones. None of the meandering trails will be visible to neighboring properties.
Why doesn’t the OHV fund simply find a more suitable place for this recreation? Please tell us where in the greater bay area this recreation can be hosted? This parcel was purchased and mitigated expressly to sustainably provide opportunity for what is not available at the existing park. Carnegie SVRA is the only public park in the six Bay Area Counties, with this form of recreation. By definition, Carnegie SVRA is an urban park.
Situated north of Carnegie SVRA are Lawrence Laboratories Site 300 and a gun range. To the south, accessed by a State maintained road through the park, is Stanford Research Institute.
Also accessed by that easement, is a cattle ranching and elite elk hunting enterprise. This park neighbor acknowledged in writing at time of purchase that the acquisition of the Alameda-Tesla parcel was to expand OHV opportunities. A copy of this document is available if you have not seen it. This is important as this neighbor is associated with litigation against Carnegie SVRA and the organizations in support of this bill.
There will be precedents set with this legislation. Recall the estate owner who blocked access to the beach fronting his property? That beach access is still in litigation. Approval of this bill, will support his claimed right to choose who can access “his” beach. Wealthy and politically connected individuals will cite this legislation to eliminate “undesirables” from their park.
A second precedent is more worrisome. By statute, standards for California State Parks, exceed those of parks under federal, state, county or city management. Per SB249, all SVRA’s exceed these already high standards. This legislation would usurp parks decision making and management authority. Governor Newsom made this observation in his 2019 veto of AB1086. The Governor did not misunderstand the bill.
It’s not about the science
It’s not about the environment.
It’s not about the facts.
All of these are checked off in the State Parks column.
It is about money, political power, the stature of State Parks and the incredibly successful conservation efforts that have been completely ignored. It is easier to paint this as a good conservation vs. bad off-roaders, because most of us can only take an action we know is inherently wrong if we can somehow demonize the other side.
Assemblyperson Bauer Kahan and Senator Glazer, in addition to the fiscal irresponsibility of transferring 9 million dollars from State coffers into the OHV fund to do what is already being done, this legislation is designed for wealthy, politically connected entities to deny access to regular citizens they deem unworthy.
With or without OHV, significant consistent funding is necessary to allow access to this property. The former mining operation and the historical grazing, require ongoing mitigation, for both safety and environmental reasons. Where will this funding come from, without the OHV Fund?
Finally, my senator has stated this legislation is needed to end costly lawsuits. Senator Glazer, the aforementioned neighbor, a lawyer by trade, has made it clear, he will continue working to eliminate OHV from this valley, including the existing park. Although the elimination of a single recreation in the expansion area may temporarily end this particular litigation, the next target is the SVRA. Attorney Connelly has stated as much.
The end of the lawsuits will come when you choose to defend California State Parks and the job we Californians have entrusted them to do. Please end this attempt at legislative NIMBYism.
Diana Mead, Concord, CA
Past President of California Off Road Vehicle Association
Assemblyperson Bauer-Kahan and Senator Glazer,
Subject: AB1512 and SB799, the fifth year of legislative efforts to compromise one particular recreation at a State Park. In fact, the very recreation opportunity the property was purchased to expand.
This is a much different issue than the one that has been described. Over twenty years ago, 12 million OHV Trust Fund dollars, were invested for the Carnegie SVRA expansion. 12 million was not a “one and done” payout. During the last 23 years, State Parks fixed a SF Water District mistake costing 1.7 million. Mitigation continues of an early 20th century mining operation. Archeological sites are cataloged and protected. All future projects require public input, studies and environmental approvals. OHMVR Division of State Parks has committed the funding to preserve and protect while responsibly developing multiple use access. You have now decided that 9 million is a sufficient pay off?
On our Governors 30/30 executive order, State Parks, including Carnegie SVRA are existing conservation areas. Point of interest though, Ranches, including the neighboring parcels can be considered eligible for the 30/30 criteria.
Carnegie SVRA, has not, as is repeatedly alleged, seen an ongoing drop in visitors. There was a drop from 2009 to 2012, during the recession. All State Parks experienced a similar decline.
The current park is amazing, for experienced motorcycle riders. There is no opportunity for the largest growing segment of OHV’s, the family oriented UTV’s. Nor is there motorized access to wooded trails for mobility limited disabled, a protected class. The expansion will offer both and 1/3 of the area is dedicated to buffer zones. None of the meandering trails will be visible to neighboring properties.
Why doesn’t the OHV fund simply find a more suitable place for this recreation? Please tell us where in the greater bay area this recreation can be hosted? This parcel was purchased and mitigated expressly to sustainably provide opportunity for what is not available at the existing park. Carnegie SVRA is the only public park in the six Bay Area Counties, with this form of recreation. By definition, Carnegie SVRA is an urban park.
Situated north of Carnegie SVRA are Lawrence Laboratories Site 300 and a gun range. To the south, accessed by a State maintained road through the park, is Stanford Research Institute.
Also accessed by that easement, is a cattle ranching and elite elk hunting enterprise. This park neighbor acknowledged in writing at time of purchase that the acquisition of the Alameda-Tesla parcel was to expand OHV opportunities. A copy of this document is available if you have not seen it. This is important as this neighbor is associated with litigation against Carnegie SVRA and the organizations in support of this bill.
There will be precedents set with this legislation. Recall the estate owner who blocked access to the beach fronting his property? That beach access is still in litigation. Approval of this bill, will support his claimed right to choose who can access “his” beach. Wealthy and politically connected individuals will cite this legislation to eliminate “undesirables” from their park.
A second precedent is more worrisome. By statute, standards for California State Parks, exceed those of parks under federal, state, county or city management. Per SB249, all SVRA’s exceed these already high standards. This legislation would usurp parks decision making and management authority. Governor Newsom made this observation in his 2019 veto of AB1086. The Governor did not misunderstand the bill.
It’s not about the science
It’s not about the environment.
It’s not about the facts.
All of these are checked off in the State Parks column.
It is about money, political power, the stature of State Parks and the incredibly successful conservation efforts that have been completely ignored. It is easier to paint this as a good conservation vs. bad off-roaders, because most of us can only take an action we know is inherently wrong if we can somehow demonize the other side.
Assemblyperson Bauer Kahan and Senator Glazer, in addition to the fiscal irresponsibility of transferring 9 million dollars from State coffers into the OHV fund to do what is already being done, this legislation is designed for wealthy, politically connected entities to deny access to regular citizens they deem unworthy.
With or without OHV, significant consistent funding is necessary to allow access to this property. The former mining operation and the historical grazing, require ongoing mitigation, for both safety and environmental reasons. Where will this funding come from, without the OHV Fund?
Finally, my senator has stated this legislation is needed to end costly lawsuits. Senator Glazer, the aforementioned neighbor, a lawyer by trade, has made it clear, he will continue working to eliminate OHV from this valley, including the existing park. Although the elimination of a single recreation in the expansion area may temporarily end this particular litigation, the next target is the SVRA. Attorney Connelly has stated as much.
The end of the lawsuits will come when you choose to defend California State Parks and the job we Californians have entrusted them to do. Please end this attempt at legislative NIMBYism.
Diana Mead, Concord, CA
Past President of California Off Road Vehicle Association
