The Payson Roundup / Reader Comments: Do you want a trail system running through town?

18 June 2009 at 12:06 p.m.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

A letter to the editor about having a “trail system” running right through residential areas of town makes some good points. Here are just a few of the comments:

“This definitely will not be pleasing to many residential neighborhoods. It will cause car parking problems along with foot traffic problems (and maybe horse and bicycle problems too). And who knows what else?”

“One of their selling points is that it will expand the tourism draw to our area!”

“Who would want more people hiking, biking or riding through an area they have chosen to live in?”

Who indeed?

Would you?

Is it fair to set up trails that run right by someone's house?

Why not just create a few parking lots near the trailheads leading into the National Forest and let it go at that? That will give hikers a chance to get right on the trails, and it won't hurt anyone.

People have a legal right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes, don't they? Is tourism supposed to take priority over that?

By the way, if you like to bike, the homeowner who wrote the letter was careful to put out the fact that he is not complaining about bike trails. He says, “The transportation system includes bike trails but they are not intended for organized groups going through neighborhoods as part of an intra-town trail plan.”

And get this! This I don't even believe. He adds:

“These people were also able to get an exemption from the newly enacted animal control ordinance so they do not have to put their dogs on a leash when they are on a trail in town. With all the dog problems we’ve had through the years, this should never have been allowed.”

How the hay is that right? Would you you want loose dogs wandering by your front door?

20 June 2009 at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

I gave this string the wrong name.

It should have been, “Do you want hiking groups and loose dogs wandering down the sidewalk in front of your house?”

And I should have added the comment that if your street is designated as a trail, it will allow people to walk their dogs, off leashes, any time they feel like doing it. Who can distinguish between people just walking dogs and people who are doing it to “hike?”

20 June 2009 at 4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

Tom- I'm definitely opposed to the idea of a trail down my street. It's not only the dog droppings, but many people are inconsiderate idiots when they throw their fast food wrappings and paper cups on the street. We have enough of that problem as it is now.
-Fred

21 June 2009 at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…

What's so bad about a neighborhood trails system that invites people to go out and exercise instead of staying at home getting fatter?

“Who would want more people hiking, biking or riding through an area they have chosen to live in?”

My hand is up and waving. That'd be me. That's my idea of a community. If I wanted to be remote and alone, I could go buy a cabin in the forest. What is so wrong with people being outside, enjoying nature and exercising on community accessible trails they can get to without using a car?

23 June 2009 at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Chris,

I respect your opinion, but I don't share one part of it, namely what you said about this question: “Who would want more people hiking, biking or riding through an area they have chosen to live in?”

Purely by coincidence I happened to live in a place where that happened. It lasted just about eight months before people were ready to tear down city hall. The trash, the noise—starting early in the morning and lasting late into the night, the loose dogs, the vandalism, the number of cars that were scratched or even sat on and dented, proved the usual, and that's that when you invite tourists into your neighborhood you get a percentage of them who act like they do everywhere else.

The number of “community” people who used the parts of the trails that went through residential areas was almost zero. But the tourists? Oh my! They came in droves, parked where and how they wanted, and left a terrible mess behind.

The fact is that the trail system is not being created for locals; it's just another shot at turning Payson into a tourist destination a la local businesses who want the trade. The old bikeand hike trails that now exist but don't intrude into private areas are just fine for locals who want to bike or hike. Take a look at them; see for yourself.

The idea of enabling hiking for tourists is a good one, but why in the world would you want people to park their cars somewhere in the middle of town and then hike through the residential areas to get to the national forest? Wouldn't it be better to provide decent parking lots for them right near the trailheads? The result would be much better for all concerned.

Except perhaps for businessmen who always want to drag every last person who comes into town right by the front doors of their businesses regardless of what it does to residents who have a legal right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.

Take it from me, the first person who files in court against a trail system which intrudes into a residential area will win his case hands down and put the entire system in limbo. The case law is quite clear.

So create a few parking lots, advertise them, and enjoy the increased business. And leave the trails we now have alone. Everybody wins. What do you think of that?

23 June 2009 at 7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…

Tom, if the assumptions you make about locals not using them are true, then yes, the trails should not be funded and built. However, I don't believe that is true. Every single day in Payson I see neighbors, and especially young people, walking up and down Beeline Highway. Especially on the stretch north of 260 up to the bowling alley. I see this constantly, in every season. Just who are these crazy people?

I grew up in Long Island, NY, and in that community, my grandparents sat in lawn chairs, or on the stoop every evening in the summer. Other groups of older folks walked around the neighborhood for exercise and to socialize. They would walk along, stop to chat, maybe exchange some fresh basil leaves or tomatoes they had grown in their gardens. This was a natural community of human beings, and they were out there to see each other as much as they were out to get some exercise and breathe some cool evening air.

Building a trail system that encourages this type of behavior is what I'm in favor of.

However, let me get right to the heart of why this annoys me: People own a home, People own property. They don't own the street, you don't own the sidewalk. Whoever chooses to walk there, as long as they mind their own business, is free to do so.

I'm not at all seeing this army of “tourists” you anticipate will be abusing these trails. Most every tourist I see has their right turn blinker on as they approach the 260 intersection. Tourism is a hugely positive economic force. To adopt an anti-tourist or tourism limiting posture is, number one not in the character of Payson's residents, and 2) not in the town's best interests (not just local businesses.)

Why do you think Wal Mart invites RV'ers to park overnight in their parking lots? Wal Mart doesn't do anything that doesn't benefit Wal Mart, so why do they do this?

24 June 2009 at 2:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fred_franz (frederick franz) says…

Chris,
I strongly agree with Tom on this. A trail system is fine if it doesn't interfere with residents comfort and security. Wal Mart allows RV parking on their properties because they are inviting travelers to come in and shop.
-Fred

25 June 2009 at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Chris, I agree with your philosophy about “community,” but if you think my attitude is anti-tourist you're wrong. It isn't anti-tourist; it's against the interference with the quiet enjoyment of your home, which is an established lehal right, as it should be.

Basically, what I don't agree with is the INTENT of the trails system, which is to commercialize quite neighborhoods. I tell you, I am so tired of businessmen thinking and acting as though the almighty dollar is the bottom line in everything, and the Town Council just getting in line with them, that it sickens me every time I see something like this.

You don't need a “system” for people to get out and walk. The sidewalks are there. The opportunity is there. If the desire matches the opportunity then local folks will walk. If it doesn't they won't. I defy anyone to disprove that statement.

As for biking, I rode my Raleigh an hour a day, five times a week, every week for four years in England, and when I first came back I lived in a small rural town much like Payson while in college for two years, and I rode the neigborhood roads (note the word “roads”) and genuinely enjoyed it. I didn't need, nor did I want, bike paths which interfere with the rights of people to enjoy their homes. Bikes are vehicles. They belong on the roads. And in residential neighborhoods those roads are as safe as need be.

As for tourists, I strongly feel that Payson would be well served by creating parking lots which would accomodate people who want to hike into the national forest, as well as those who want to ride their horses in. But I detest the thought of doing the things the city is contemplating, which are:

â€¢ Encouraging tourist foot traffic through quiet residential neighborhoods.

â€¢ Making it illegal for people or their guests to park in front of their own houses.

â€¢ Allowing hikers to roam through neighborhoods with dogs off leashes.

â€¢ Creating another Main Street money-hole boondoggle.

“I grew up in Long Island, NY…”

Sorry, Chris, as an ex-New Yorker I have to tell you that you misspelled “Long Island.”

It's Long Gyland.

Otherwise my mother was wrong, and how could that be? :-)

Just as an aside, when we moved up to Connecticut I found out where Long Island came from. The glaciers bulldozed the top off Connecticut and dumped it into the Atlantic, creating the biggest pile of rocks and silt in the world (not to mention Cape Cod, Block Island et al). We had God only knows how many relatives that lived out on the island. Half my childhood was spent running back and forth between Staten Island and there.

Come to think of it, knowing New Yorkers as you do, how do you think the folks in your neighborhood would have responded to the city encouraging people to rove by your house with their pit bulls off leashes?

25 June 2009 at 1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…

Apparently you may not be aware that the town passed an ordinance in July of 2008 that made it unlawful for anyone to have a dog within the corporate town limits not fully controlled by the owner. The discussion at the Council meeting was this meant on a leash. From what the ordinance says, the only time the leash is not required is when the dog is in an off-leash park, is a working service dog or is in a dog show.

I believe the benefits of the PATS trail system will be great for the residents of town as well as guests. The major parts of the system currently in place are just on the outskirts of the developed part of town. The main trails are Boulder and Monument Peak in the Southeast of town, Peach Orchard in the SW, Houston Loop and Houston Trail in the North East. These are great to go hike if you may not be comfortable hiking in the more remote areas in the forest. The trails are well marked and maintained. Resulting in safer hiking for the users.

25 June 2009 at 8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…

No, Tom, it's 'Long Island', WT F is your problem? Can't you stick to an issue? You can mock me all you want. It doesn't take any intelligence when I disclose information about myself, so keep going as long as you don't exert yourself. I know well the glacial origins of Long Island. I've ridden from one end to the other. You've insulted me and my hometown for no reason. Those memories will not change, nor will my opinion. You're nothing but a bully.

You don't get it, businessmen don't want trails, they don't want you to leave your house, unless it's to go to Wal-Mart or to go consume a Big Mac. They want to tell you that the only place in which to meet your neighbors is at an Applebee's or an Olive Garden. They want you to drink your coffee in a Starbucks, and to get your exercise in a 24 Hour Fitness.

“Pit bulls off leashes?” Vivid. I'll respond to that one when I see it.

27 June 2009 at 2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Chris,

If you took my comment about the Island amiss, I genuinely apologize.

Please go back and reread what was intended as a warm, friendly remark about something you and I have in common. I was just making a little joke, poking fun at myself, not at you. Reread the remark. For crying out loud if I were going to insult someone, or someplace, would I use my own beloved own mother's pronunciation as an example? NYC has its own ergot. We all used to laugh about it. I was ten before I knew that that aluminum painted iron thing in the corner that warmed up the room was a ray-diator instead of a radd-diator as my mother called it.

And the comment on the origins of Connecticut and the Island were just more of the same, just a humorous aside, a comment on the scraped-off, rock-strewn stretches of New England.

I don't bully or insult people, Chris. I spend a lot of time seeing to it that no on else does either.

In any event, if anything I said was mistakenly taken as an insult I still apologize even though none was intended. Fair enough?

As to the neighborhood strolls of the old days, they were a part of the times, of days when the automobile had not as yet changed the character of this whole land. Nowadays, people—most people anyway—rarely if ever walk anywhere. The days of neighborhood stoops filled with friendly faces, and neighborhoods where everyone knew everyone are gone—sad but true. I've talked to people who were born and raised right here in Pine; they say exactly the same thing. The sense of community is gone. People live side by side and never say a word to each other. Too bad. They're missing a lot!

You don't see that sense of community here except among the old-timers, and if you go back to New York you won't see it there anymore either. I have a friend who comes from Staten Island and still goes back to visit, someone who drives up from the valley every few weeks. He knows my old neighborhood well, one that sounds a lot like your old neighborhood. When we talked about it, his words were, “When I drive through there now I hunker down in my seat to avoid being hits by the bullets.” And before you get all over me again, please note those are HIS words, not mine. I prefer to think of the old place the way it used to be. If you doubt that, go read some of my columns in the Roundup, the ones where I speak of New York. You'll find that I say that the city is not steel, concrete, and asphalt—it's people.

As to the trails, I've made it very clear that they are fine as long as they don't intrude on the rights of people. That's always a big thing with me. I do not like things which are dreamt up by someone and put in place without regard for the effect on ordinary people. There's too much of that in today's world.

27 June 2009 at 2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Kathy,

I have been an avid hiker all my life. I've hiked possibly a quarter of all the trails up here, and walked the national forest where there were no trails, just the beautiful pristine country that I came here to be part of. Add to that the fact that I am also a biker and you can see that I would obviously be delighted to see a hike-and-bike trail system. This entire string is a response to a letter to the editor, as well as to some of the comments made by the Town Council members during their discussions, as quoted in newspaper articles.

Here's the quote from the letter regarding off-leash dogs (it's also in my first post):

“These people were also able to get an exemption from the newly enacted animal control ordinance so they do not have to put their dogs on a leash when they are on a trail in town. With all the dog problems we’ve had through the years, this should never have been allowed.”

Please not that I did not make that comment. The letter writer did. He is saying that the planners have gotten an exemption from the city ordinance. If that is correct then it is a sad comment on the rights of home owners to be able to step outside the front door of their own homes without fear of off-leash dogs.

I've seen the parts of the trail system you mentioned. Before I became a 24/7 caregiver I walked part of them myself. Not all of them because I live in Pine and can literally walk out my back door into the National Forest. As far as i saw, the parts I walked don't intrude on quiet residential neighborhoods. The letter writer is objecting to plans for trails that do. The Town Council has spoken of plans to run “trails” right through some neighbors, making it illegal for homeowners or their guests to park in front of their own homes, and taking other totally unacceptable steps.

To those I object, as should we all.

To a trails system I do not.

Wouldn't you agree that having dogs off-leash on residential streets is wrong?

27 June 2009 at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DonEvans (don evans) says…

Tom, many of us in Woodhill and Alpine Village fought the attempt to place a “PATS” marked trail lane down West Sherwood Dr. We were opposed to it for all the reasons you have mentioned and more. We didn't have any objection to area residents walking and bikeing the proposed marked trail lane. At the public meeting by Parks and Rec to schmooze the acceptance of it by us dunce property owners, it was discovered the town was going to post “no parking anytime signs along the section mentioned. They gave no real answer as to where the visiting recreationists were going to park their vehicles to access the our trail section. But us locals could no longer park in front of our own homes. Then they said equestrian horse users could also use the “Urban trail” interface routes. In addition the Park people also said the urban trail system through our residential neighborhoods was to “attract” visitors to Payson. Just what I want, some valley low riders blareing mariachi music, leaving trash, holding hands and making plans as they check out the pickins in our neighborhood. That includes some locals too and their horse and dog poop. If a marked trail passing in front of my street is good, then it's good for every proponents residential street. You got thousands of acres of forest to hike and bike in for free. Don't screw with our neighborhoods. Besides, all that heavy breathing will cause global warming, haven't you heard?

29 June 2009 at 11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Don,

You unquestionably echo the sentiments of every home owner in Payson. People buy homes to enjoy them, not to attract tourists, noise, or trash.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the idea of taking away parking rights and turning what was originally a “nice” idea into a nightmare for home owners originated under a previous administration. Frankly, having watched the current administration, which seems to be much more responsive to the wishes of the people of Payson, I'd be surprised if the Mayor and the folks on the Town Council weren't ready to revisit this issue and make a few very popular adjustments.

Perhaps folks should try contacting Kenny Evans. He's always ready to listen. And from what I've seen so far, so are the members of the Town Council.

Payson has plenty of room for a trails system which doesn't make problems for quiet residential neighborhoods. It only takes a little extra thought and consideration to make the thing work, and if that were done we would truly have a win-win situation.

I'll say it again because I think it is an important point for Payson to consider. People, at least some people, come up here to get out into the national forest on small trails. Some of them hike, some bike, some ride horses. Payson would be wise to create parking lots which would accomodate the vehicles and trailers of these people. The lots should obviously be as close to the existing trails as possible. Some of that has been done. More would help.

As for walking or biking in town, especially if you are talking about residents, there is no need for a formal network of “trails” that intrude into residential areas. If sidewalks are there you can walk them. If low volume roads exist you can bike them.

Personally, I think some city employee or employees came up with a nice idea and then tried to carry it too far. Screwing up neighborhoods for the far less than one percent of Psyson residents who would use a formalized trails system simply makes no sense. It's overkill, as are many pubic programs that start out nice and end up getting out of hand.