Doesn't seem like the RMP, and thus the status of the Tunnels trails, is getting together for the May LPCP-CAC meeting. However, rather than waiting until the next (July!!) meeting, Marvin Gerst may call for a special meeting once the trails section of the RMP is finalized. Seems it's the 'Agencies' that are running interference on this one, which is in line with Erik Basil's comments from another site.

Fingers still crossed on this one (4 months now and counting! )


From the LPCP-CAC website:(order starts from the bottom)

CAC and other interested people:

Please see my latest info re: publication of RMP.

P.S. To Betsy; Yes the meeting after May will be July 16. However if the
RMP comes out prior to this time period we may want to schedule a
special meeting to consider this one issue. So, please keep me up to
date. Thanks

Marvin S. Gerst, Ph.D.

Chair, LPCPCAC
P.O. Box 3707
Rancho Santa Fe, Ca. 92067
mgerst@ucsd. edu

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~

Miller, Betsy wrote:BMiller@sandiego. gov
> Marvin, The draft RMP is publicly available on Planning's website, and we will post the revised version as soon as the trails plan is finaled. We had hoped to present it, with the completed trails section, at the May CAC meeting.
As soon as we receive written concurrence from the wildlife agencies on
the trails plan we will schedule the CAC and CPGs. We continue to speak
with the wildlife agencies every few weeks to request the letter. We are
anxious to have the plan complete and hope that we will be able to
present at the next CAC meeting (July?) but speculating on when we will
receive the wildlife agency letter is risky.
> Thanks so much,
> Betsy
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~
>
>
>
> Miller, Betsy wrote:
>
>> Marvin,
>>
>> Good morning! We have received verbal concurrence from the wildlife agencies on our trails plan, but have requested written concurrence. As soon as we receive this, we will begin scheduling the appropriate CAC and CPG presentations. The plan has been finalized for several months with the exception of the trails section.
>>
>> Thank you very much for your interest in the document and patience with the process.
>>
>> Betsy
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marvin Gerst [mailto:m-gerst@sbcglobal. net]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:54 AM
>> To: Miller, Betsy
>> Subject: New timeline for Carmel Mountain / Del Mar Mesa RMP
>>
>> Betsy: I am the new Chair of the Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve CAC.
>> Our next meeting is May 21. What will be the status of the RMP by that
>> date? And what is the current timeline for publication of t h e plan?
>> The website says Nov 2008.!
>>
>>
>>

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

More good stuff from the soap opera entitled LPCP-CAC:

In our last episode, at the night of the election, the horsey fraternity at LPQ asked that the by-law requiring all voting members have Task Force approval be enforced. By disallowing certain members of the pro-open space group a vote, this tactical move would eliminate enough of their competition in order to secure the election. The fact that this by-law had not been enforced for the 2-years that these members were voting made the timely request seem a little, well, Machiavellian.

RodSimmons makes some very relevant points regarding the voting (excerpt from his letter on the LPCP-CAC site):

"Speaking of which, I only see documents stating Task Force approval for 4 CAC
seats. Given that some seated members were denied voting privileges in the March
elections I respectfully ask that ALL task force meeting minutes be published in
order to clearly delineate which CAC board members do or do not have approval
from the Task Force."

"Clearly, the Task Force is long past due to convene. Without regular (annual,
twice annual?) Task Force meetings, it's not possible to bestow voting
privileges on newly seated CAC members (or long past seated mebers it would
seem) within any reasonable timeframe. A seated board member without voting
rights is like a car with an empty gas tank. Takes up space but has no practical
value."

To this Brian Swanson replies:
"It seems to me that the Task Force has approved most of the CAC Board members. As continuing Board members they do not need Task Force approval. The only ambiguity is for those (new/proposed) Board members and alternates who have not yet been approved by the Task Force. I agree that it's a good idea, particularly in light of how difficult it was for the former Task Force members to meet, for the groups with designated Board seats to appoint their own members, without requiring approval from the Task Force. I don't know the reason why such a difficult approval process was ever put into effect."


I understand Brian's response, but as an outsider, "It seems to me" doesn't seem an appropriate mechanism of proof as to who on the board has the required TF approval. This leaves in question, at least in my mind, the election results until TF approvals can be confirmed or denied.

On the second point Rod raises, and Brian agrees, infrequent TF meetings are problematic to getting elected members to vote. One method to circumvent the issue of infrequent TF meetings is to allow new members voting privileges for an interim grace period, say one year (as the TF only seems to convene twice a year?) to allow TF approval. As it stands, the SDMBA rep, Rob, may as well stay home until the TF can approve him to vote. Not good, and not fair representation.


Can't wait until the next episode.

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

You know, it might just be me, but this resembles a multi-ring circus with decision makers pointing back and forth at one another. Am I too far off the mark with that assessment?

_________________
Seriously?

Interesting. So then, do you think giving them firearms and letting them duel would help settle this quickly and honorably?


I'm thinking this soap opera is going to be a hit.

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

Quickly, yes. Honorably? Undoubtedly, this should make Young and the Restless look like Romper Room.

_________________
Seriously?

So Marvin Gerst has a financial interest in land close to LPQ or DMM? Financial interest in a ranch that has a permit to run Equestrian groups through the park?

If either is true, having him as the chair of a committee that could make descisions affecting that land (or even land adjacent to it) is a conflict of interest.

Perhaps someone would like to advise the City Attorney of the situation? If San Diego makes a decision based on Mr Gerst's recommendation and he receives a financial benefit as a result, that's a huge lawsuit the City would LOVE to avoid; especially if Federal funding is involved.

Just thinking out loud.

_________________
"I never learned anything from winning, it's the races where I got my butt kicked that I learned the most" - Michellie Jones (Ironman World Champion)

http://www.ericpalmerendurancecoaching.blogspot.com

Seriously... I was thinking the exact same thing...

_________________
never stop....

It would be awesome to see the city held responsible. Plain and simple I wouldn't see this go anywhere. In fact if anything, it would lead to more... "close that until we can figure out what is going on" reactions.


Gerst isn't the issue, Gerst isn't the bad guy. The city of San Diego and their incompetent open space planning and management are the problem and the solution. The whole Gerst issue is beginning to look more and more like issues on a personal level than anything else.

If you have had the opportunity to see these masters at work (city employees) ... sidestepping questions, never giving closed end answers, basically being non-committal about anything that is throw their way, you would see what would be on tap.

What we need, what the city and county need, is someone in a position who can and does actually ride a bike and enjoy it and wants to promote recreation. (or someone in the upper echelon who wants to see cycling/mountain biking succeed overall)

Remember, this is San Diego ... beautiful beaches... tourist dollars... did they mention the beautiful beaches... San Diego is perfect, just ask the rest of the nation.

.....of interest exist on the CAC. Clews, Gerst, and the CAC member from Canyonside Stables all have a direct interest financially in the decisions regarding the Preserve.

And yet they and their cronies control the votes. It's about as clear-cut a case of conflict of interest corruption as you could hope to find.

How such a thing is possible is another story, but suffice it to say that when pro-multiuse members don't even bother to show up on meeting nights when voting takes place (Save Eric, of course. There's always Eric, and usually Eric alone), shit can and does happen.

And so it goes.

BTW, if they DO resort to the duelling option (they do, after all,. fancy themselves COWBOYS of sorts) substitute me for "our side". I could swing it our way, and I got nothin' much to lose.

_________________
Scum on a Bike

And this my friend takes me right back to my previous statement. Competent, confident and willing land managers and city personnell would properly handle the situation so that a fair shake is had by all. The stables could make their dough, the city could get their kickback, the other trail users (be them rich or poor) would have their space and trails.

I don't know how to go about it but going directly for the jugular that would be the mismanaged city would seem much more productive than sitting around breeding animosity toward small subsets of people at CAC meetings.

I don't know how to go about it but going directly for the jugular that would be the mismanaged city would seem much more productive than sitting around breeding animosity toward small subsets of people at CAC meetings.[/quote]


Can't help but agree with you on this one. The last the an economically challenged, corruption-shaken City needs is a spotlight on yet another rancid little niche of
cronie-ism, this being in their open space/parks area.

It WOULD look kinda bad, no?

_________________
Scum on a Bike

I think that, when a small subset of people publish misinformation and slander about the trails community and one particular person that they view as threatening to their ideas about caste systems on the trails, THAT is "breeding animosity". I also deplore that any complaint about months and months of published crap and antics by these people is implicitly attacked as "breeding animosity" by those who haven't been personally attacked and succumb to the temptation dangled before them by people whose established M.O. is to single out advocates, bully them and contain control of the CAC. (Anyone still know Tom Floyd or Craig Bosworth?)

When a small subset of people mismanage an election to ensure a result, it seems to me that you might focus upon that small subset of people, rather than grand theories of municipal conspiracy. If you want the Task Force to examine the situation, do you think they're more likely to take a close look if it appears City Incompetence/Crookery is the necessary angle, or that a small subset botched an election that can be repaired with minimal cost and indictment? I suggest that local action is more effective than "cleaning out City Hall".

I had an email or two with Bunny regarding this issue after one of the mag articles on Tunnels mentioned this connection. I suggested on the LPCP-CAC site that anyone associated with the park that in any fashion would benefit their business should recuse themselves from this issue. I have the opinion that they just do not see it as a conflict of interest, but rather protecting their interests.

And don't get me wrong, I don't know Bunny, my only interaction with her, other than an email above, was at the LPCP-CAC for the Ch 10 fiasco. And I must say I liked her. She may have been one of the only people not piling on with the misstatements, false allegations and slander that was passed via email on their site just prior to the meeting. In fact she had some kind words towards Erik, as I remember. Her major concern was that her good friend had his face on the news (although digitized) that was associated with the vandalism, which was never proven. I sympathized with her about that, and even apologized as this was not given by Erik, Kemper or myself, but rather taken from the LPCP-CAC web site which we referred to the reporter. We did specifically mention that the pictures of the tree cutting and that of the horse riders (on the web site) were taken at the same location, but not on the same day.

I may be wrong in my quick judgement of Bunny, as I was feeling quite lightheaded and faint that night. I don't know if it was the high fever I realized I had when I got home, or all the arrows and tomahawks sticking out of my back, but still, I don't think I'm completely off-base here.



Erik Basil wrote: "Anyone still know Tom Floyd or Craig Bosworth?"

No. But I suppose that's the point?

Were they they found sporting a Sicilian necktie, or found taking a swim wearing cement shoes?

_________________
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy. ~Milan Kundera

I just want to ride my bikes dude.

I'm not talking about municipal conspiracy.

I'm talking about municipal incompetence. There is no conspiracy here. There is failure. Failure to plan, failure to build, failure to execute and failure to want to change.

You all are much more patient than I. If I want this much drama I'll go pick a fight with my wife.