notyal Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Let's just hope they use this newfound income to make their community a better place to live. No more homeless children living on the mean the streets of River Place! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheX Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 20 minutes ago, Anita Handle said: But it is theirs to control and they don't want the riff raff in there. This is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockshins Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I remember bombing down what is now Big View when it was just a dirt path, such a blast! Having lived in River Place I am surprised this didn't happen sooner, kinda lame but it's their area and people were prolly leaving trash and dog piles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinBike Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridenfool Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonioGG Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonioGG Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) double post Edited February 12, 2019 by AntonioGG Double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyyhorn Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 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. 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack_turtle Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 great, so when do we get private access only to Walnut, Circle C, Mary Moore Seawright, Bull Creek, Saint Ed's, Brushy and all the rest of the trails that are full of riffraff? yee haw, Texas y'all! public access to land is for commies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonioGG Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 I think all those are public. So it is not an issue. Or is Circle C public? Steiner Ranch is also private. I've only been there as a guest of a resident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack_turtle Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 The sooner we get rid of those commie "public parks" the better! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridenfool Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 48 minutes ago, mack_turtle said: The sooner we get rid of those commie "public parks" the better! I hear they are all part of the socialized agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throet Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 They should hire the fired Cedar Breaks gate attendant, and her friend Mike of course. 6 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamwa Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Maybe they got their pricing structure from Spider Mountain and didn't want to be left in the cold. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamwa Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 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 February 13, 2019 by Bamwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheX Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) I have no problem with off leash dogs. Edited February 13, 2019 by TheX 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seths Pool Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, TheX said: I have no problem with off leash dogs. me neither. im actually someone who takes my beloved dog to the trails off leash as much as possible. dogs rule! Edited February 13, 2019 by Seths Pool 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinBike Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morealice Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 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? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seths Pool Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack_turtle Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Morealice said: Meh. Dogs are for emotionally needy people. This conversation just took an interesting turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonioGG Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 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: 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. Have dogs that have zero recall. 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. 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. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
June Bug Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 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 February 13, 2019 by June Bug 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidingAgain Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cafeend Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.