After years of negotiation, litigation, hearings, planning and delay, it was amazing how quickly a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was approved by the Polk County Board that created the Amery-Dresser Trail.
Debbie Peterson, the head of the Parks and Recreation Department, assured the Board that no money from the County levy will be used to operate, repair or maintain the trail. The source of funds for trail development will be grants and other contributions from business and private sponsors. The DNR will take care of initial clearing and grading the trail for foot traffic. The MOA contemplates further improvements so the trail can be used for bicycling, provided grant money is obtained for that purpose.
My hope is that the Property Committee will keep its promise to "work co-operatively" on the Amery-Dresser Trail issue. Some members of the Property Committee may prefer to delay development of the Trail for non-motorized use, in hopes that State law will change to permit motorized uses on State Trails. We'll be keeping an eye on this.
The Amery-Dresser Trail is located within 60 miles of the Metropolitan Twin Cities, a major population center. The tourist dollars that a bike trail will bring into our area are significant. Business will benefit, and new businesses will appear. There is plenty of evidence to support this statement. Just look at similar developments in Menomonie, Wisconsin, and Lanesboro, Minnesota, where "Rails-to-Trails" just like the Amery-Dresser Trail have benefited their respective communities and the surrounding areas.
The benefit goes beyond economic. There are public health benefits, too. People will be able to get out and exercise on a safe trail separate from high-speed traffic on County Roads, particularly County Road F near Amery. Some folks will bike to work on the trail. Kids willl be able to bike safely to see friends or to go to school.
Recent surveys show that living on a bike path is second only to lakeshore property in popularity. Property values along the Trail will improve with development of the Amery-Dresser Trail.
This will be a gem that will make Polk County proud for generations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I share your enthusiasm for the Amery-Dresser trail, Diane, albeit with a couple of reservations. First, while it's true that bike trails have been a tremendous boon to many small communities, I think that almost without exception those trails are paved. The Gandy Dancer has not lived up to expectations because of the fact that it's not paved. I would hope that Polk County's efforts to secure grants would include looking for money with which to pave the Amery-Dresser trail, but I question whether the current Property Committee and Parks Department staff are committed to that. As expected, the discussion at the last county board meeting eventually turned to the question of motorized use of the trail, and it was noted that such "mixed use" of the trail would only be possible if the state legislature changed the current law. There's some talk that the ATV lobby has Rep. Hraychuck's ear, so we'll have to keep an eye on that. The ATVers and snowmobilers would prefer an unpaved trail, so there's an inherent conflict in trying to accommodate motorized and non-motorized uses. Not to mention the fact that ATV use is just plain incompatible with hiking, biking, and horseback riding.
Or even snowmobiles!
The original proposal was to include everyone, not exclude anyone. I am a snowmobilier, so you are right i don't want the trail paved. Have you driven on cty road f east of amery lately, or for that matter any black top will crack and crumble. Who's going to pay for the blacktop, the maint., etc. So far your views are very one dimensional, me, me, me. Everyone deserves the right to use this trail, not just biker's. This story is very a kin to fire trails in National Forest's. If we take away all motorized vehicles, talk about discrimination. Maybe if we are lucky they would all burn like california? A forest fire is hard enough to put out with fire roads, imagine if you don't maintain the fire roads, or take care of down fall from natural causes, I.E. storms. The point is all tax payers should have access to public resources such as this old rail grade.
The trail is open to everyone. No one is excluded; as I understand it, only motorized vehicles are prohibited.
You could consider this trail use restriction as similar to laws that prevent you from driving your snowmobile on I-94 to Eau Claire. The Interstate is open to appropriate motor vehicles, but pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles under a certain horsepower are not allowed. If you want to use the Interstate, you have to be driving a car, truck, or a motorcycle (of appropriate horsepower). These requirements do not constitute illegal discrimination; they are appropriate exercise of the police power reserved to the States under the Savings Clause of the federal Constitution.
Furthermore, "discrimination" is not universally wrong or immoral. I'm pretty sure you "discriminated" when you selected your "significant other", or decided which snowmobile to purchase. Only discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics (i.e., race, religion, sex, age, disability status, and others) is prohibited. It's pretty obvious that preventing snowmobiles from driving their machines on, say, Runway 30/12 at Minneapolis/St. Paul International, would not be an example of "illegal discrimination."
I would add that snowmobilers have no one to blame but themselves as to why they are excluded from the Amery-Dresser trail.
For five years LOGG made it plain that we were willing to accomodate snowmobile use in winter. But, the snowmobile community decided that they wanted to live or die on trail access by insisting that ATVs also had to be included.
So, snowmobilers rolled the dice on trail access by picking a very poor partner, and, they lost. Instead of blaming other people, I suggest that my snowmobiling friends look in the mirror and ask themselves some hard questions about tying their fate so closely to the fate of ATVs.
Some of us are actually willing to work with the snowmobile community if you can get over your symbiotic relationship with ATVs.
Diane,
I have a few thoughts:
1) The trail is open to all people of all abilities. Paving would open the trail up to wheelchairs, assisted mobility devices, and folks who just need a flat surface on which to walk. The trail is simply not open to all vehicles.
2) Snowmobilers have over 300 miles of trails in Polk County and 16,000 miles in Wisconsin. There are less than 1,000 miles of bicycle trails in this state.
3) Minnesota has many miles of paved trails open to snowmobiles; the snowmobiles just cannot have carbide studs or runners. Snow actually lasts longer on paved trails as opposed to gravel trails because once gravel gets dug up and thrown on top of the snow it heats up and melts through to the ground. This is not a problem with paved trails.
Brook
Post a Comment