I really hate to bring up something similiar to what you guys chose to ignore earlier (actually paying to upkeep the side of our roads) ...but without reading any of the above letters...would I be safe to say that none of them included a segment concerning exactly how each individual felt that this new system should be funded?
We just got through pushing through 750 miles of orv trail without commentary from even our all-powerful and super-secret MMRC council regarding (again) the exact same funding-based subject....so who's the 'guru' now crunching these numbers so that the public can make these decisions on a cost analysis basis?
Don't get me wrong, I'll join many on here and pay whatever it takes....yet didn't this arrogantly anonymous council claim just recently that it was MUCH to expensive to allow "over 50 inch" (or under for that matter) machines a mere 5 more inches on trails that were already cut out in most places to that width or wider?
Again, you guys are so interested in splitting this community into as many segments as you can and each with their own agenda (the above is being proposed by what umbrella group that we should all be organized under?)....that even the most basic tenants of project management (namely FUNDING and future sustainable MAINTENANCE) are merely an 'afterthought' that inconveniently gets in the way of folks unconcerned with this seemingly small detail....just about as much as they are with writing the damn letter for themselves in the first place.
You know, it's pretty sad that not two years ago; everybody was praising the CCC/AMA and all these other guys who lead you boys around by the nose...as to how it was such a good idea to start "resting portions of the nasty old system for "[I]the purpose of studying it" while re-routing these trails right around these 'raped' 4x4 areas that were "beyond repair".
Now do a little fast forward regarding this community's "concern" for this HUGE problem...How much do you hear TODAY simply fixing what we have now or the money needed TODAY to both fund this ambitious project and all the others you guys constantly dream up on a daily basis? (including what would also be a big city riding area...if you could downplay the money issue once again...and get away with it?).
TF comes on here claiming that the MMRC hasn't talked funding since he's been there.
The advisory board waits until JUST LAST MONTH to send up some kind of inept smokescreen to the general public about "gee, uhhhh...maybe we'd better form a "funding sub-committee" to make up for the "task force" on funding we formed LAST YEAR...that never met or gave a report on the exact same subject..."
This isn't leadership or anything resembling the appearance of this community actually CARING about the resource or even FIXING what we've broke in it...it's about "business as usual" with nothing but a bunch of clubs now salivating over not only these new trails...but the UNKNOWN price we will pay them to maintain them (and gosh, isn't it funny fow the CCC and all you other guys absolutely HATE the department's recommendation that we might privitize some of this activity to possibly achieve cost-saving economies of scale...with for profit-privitization being a conservative concept that bugs you southeastern big-city/suburbanite liberals...to no end?).
Put your money where your mouths are, guys....while explaining to us what the rest of these grandiose projects are going to cost me AFTER you fix my old system in shameful disrepair...and I'll write that letter.
(and by the way, explain to me how much House Bill 5343 was going to cost or how the "environmental damage" cited there was so much more than this project...and why we just don't throw that true MULTI-USE project on what is fast becomming 'the big project pile' also).
WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE MMRC OR ANYBODY ELSE FOR THAT MATTER SIMPLY POPPING OUT OF NOWHERE AT A MEETING SOMEDAY IN THE FUTURE CLAIMING THAT "THIS IS NOW WHAT YOU WILL ALL PAY" FOR EVERY ONE OF THESE MASSIVE PROJECTS DISCUSSED 100% BEHIND CLOSED DOORS FOR YEARS.
I've had enough...it's not environmentally responsible...and I won't allow myself as an enthusiast to be portrayed in this manner with absolutely no assurances of properly funded resource stewardship.
Last edited by OneManBanned; March 21st, 2007 at 08:28 AM.