Jump to content
IGNORED

River Place trail starting to charge $10 a person


Tree Magnet

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Anita Handle said:

I quite enjoyed hiking there even though it uses copious amounts of cedar stair steps to deal with the steepness and poorly routed design. Not a lot of places in town with this amount of elevation change and nice scenery. 

But it is theirs to control and they don't want the riff raff in there. 

Once they start charging they will have the unintended consequence of a lawsuit. I'm no lawyer but I have to think an open trail provides slightly more protection from a lawsuit than a closed trail that takes money. The first time someone falls down one of those cedar steps the lawyers will clean up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AustinBike said:

Once they start charging they will have the unintended consequence of a lawsuit. I'm no lawyer but I have to think an open trail provides slightly more protection from a lawsuit than a closed trail that takes money. The first time someone falls down one of those cedar steps the lawyers will clean up.

If they have them sign the same sort of liability waiver that any MTB ranch uses the land owner should be protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skyyhorn said:

 

If it truly is private property (this was debated in that reddit post) then I would think it's their prerogative to do what they please with it. 

There was an interesting post there where someone posted that the reason it's LD is because the City said they'd close the trail down because they didn't have the budget to maintain it.  Since when has CoA maintained any trail?  Do they mean cleaning up litter or actual trail maintenance?  What they need to do is just ban off-leash completely and start fining people that don't pick up dog waste and people that litter.  Use that money to pay the people that empty the trash cans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, AntonioGG said:

There was an interesting post there where someone posted that the reason it's LD is because the City said they'd close the trail down because they didn't have the budget to maintain it.  Since when has CoA maintained any trail?  Do they mean cleaning up litter or actual trail maintenance?  What they need to do is just ban off-leash completely and start fining people that don't pick up dog waste and people that litter.  Use that money to pay the people that empty the trash cans.

I saw that quote as well and if the CoA did mandate the trail be built as part of development I doubt they would be happy about the new fee. However, since there wasn’t any article or proof cited I would bet the CoA may not have the original agreement or a way to enforce it. After all, the trail was built, but I’m sure nothing stated it couldn’t have a fee. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AntonioGG said:

There was an interesting post there where someone posted that the reason it's LD is because the City said they'd close the trail down because they didn't have the budget to maintain it.  Since when has CoA maintained any trail?  Do they mean cleaning up litter or actual trail maintenance?  What they need to do is just ban off-leash completely and start fining people that don't pick up dog waste and people that litter.  Use that money to pay the people that empty the trash cans.

When trails go on leash I can't wait to closeline your ass. Fine that.

edit: Seriously though, tough mountain biker can handle some dogs having fun? Unless it's a psycho dog chill the f out. Cool dogs are cool. Biters on leashes. When did this town turn into such pusswads? Most people love dogs, so you are are a weirdo if you don't. Weirdo. Bartman?

p.s. Green bags in saddle bag > trashcan.

Edited by Bamwa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ridenfool said:

If they have them sign the same sort of liability waiver that any MTB ranch uses the land owner should be protected.

Yes, you wanna bet this does not happen? I am guessing that the $10 fee is designed to keep out the undesirables and has not been thought through totally.

My guess is the waiver could be just as problematic because they might be forced to have the locals sign the waiver as well and that would suddenly create an administrative morass for them.

Think about this scenario: outsiders are forced to sign a waiver that absolves RP of liability for injury on the trail, but residents are not required. Then a resident is injured. And they sue. In court it could be established by their lawyer that the organization understands the liability issues and is choosing to indemnify in certain circumstances and not other. Again, I am no lawyer, but it seems like once you break out the waiver for some you need to do it for all because waivers are tied to actual use of the trail, not the fee.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Seths Pool said:

me neither. im actually someone who takes my beloved dog to the trails off leash as much as possible. dogs rule!

Meh. Dogs are for emotionally needy people.

As far as charging for trail access and private land stuff, I will be moving in about 7 years to SOMEWHERE TBD I will be more free to roam. And, why do we care about a hiking only trail again?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Morealice said:

Meh. Dogs are for emotionally needy people.

As far as charging for trail access and private land stuff, I will be moving in about 7 years to SOMEWHERE TBD I will be more free to roam. And, why do we care about a hiking only trail again?

quite an observation you have there. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with dogs.   I had 4 (and a cat) at one time.  Back up to 1 after going back to zero (losing them is so tough.)

My problem is with people, specifically bad owners who:

  1. Don't pick up after their dog (I know on leash doesn't guarantee they will, but off leash the dog goes wherever and owner is not aware).   Coliform bacteria in our water is real.
  2. Have dogs that have zero recall.
  3. Have dogs that are aggressive toward other dogs or toward people or toward cyclists.  I've had dogs charge me multiple times.  I've had dogs attack my dogs.
  4. Get "confused", and think all parks are off leash.

It's only a few apples that ruin the barrel.  I used to take my dogs to the trail, but I stopped because of the above reasons.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AntonioGG said:

What they need to do is just ban off-leash completely and start fining people that don't pick up dog waste and people that litter.

A careful read of the article I saw led me to conclude that off-leash dogs and owners who didn't clean up after them created 99% of this problem, leading directly to the draconian entry fee to cut down on the problem.  As much as I hate to lose access, I think the HOA is doing the right thing.  This is huge and seemingly intractable problem in our city; a certain percentage of dog owners in this city simply do not GAF.

Remember when Bull Creek Park had to be closed because of the high E. Coli content in the water? 

It's why I'm incredibly pissed about the City of Austin land by the Domain (on Braker Lane) being used for a soccer stadium.  That could have been a great urban park with a well-designed, self contained dog park, for the umpty bazillion dog-owning residents in the numerous new apartment complexes going up within a few blocks who will soon be bringing those dogs to Walnut Creek. 

 

Edited by June Bug
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, June Bug said:

It's why I'm incredibly pissed about the City of Austin land by the Domain (on Braker Lane) being used for a soccer stadium.  That could have been a great urban park with a well-designed, self contained dog park, for the umpty bazillion dog-owning residents in the numerous new apartment complexes going up within a few blocks who will soon be bringing those dogs to Walnut Creek. 

 

 

Money... All about the money.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, June Bug said:

 

It's why I'm incredibly pissed about the City of Austin land by the Domain (on Braker Lane) being used for a soccer stadium.  That could have been a great urban park with a well-designed, self contained dog park, for the umpty bazillion dog-owning residents in the numerous new apartment complexes going up within a few blocks who will soon be bringing those dogs to Walnut Creek. 

 

I am incredibly happy that is going in , If that land was so great it would have been used before. Besides- since it was such a diseased piece of land with so many issues the dog owners, myself included, would not  want their pets running around there anysways. 

But yea, More park land for dogs is needed for sure, you are not wrong there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...