From MedicineWheel, I couldn't have written this better myself.
Thanks to Jim Yount of MedWheel for keeping us up to date:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The 3rd Red Rock Canyon Open Space Master Plan Meeting will be held
this Wednesday (3/10/4) @ 5pm

| RED ROCK CANYON MASTER PLANNING MEETING
| WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 5:00 PM
| WEST CENTER FOR INTERGENERATIONAL STUDIES
| 25 N. 20TH ST.

This will be the last chance for public input before a draft plan is
written. The attending public will be split up into small groups and
these groups will write their input on maps of the property. These
comments will be taken and used as input for the draft plan.

A couple of things to keep in mind:

- Your input is critical - please attend so we can help to make RRC a
great biking destination! While there may not be specifically anti-
bike voices, everyone has an opinion and there are a lot of people
that would like to see limited bike use or would like to keep it out
of specific areas - add it all up and you could end up with a strong
anti-bike consensus. Please come if you can!

- If you do attend, there are a few things to pay attention to:

> Try to split up so that there are at least 1-2 bikers in each
group. The more widely spread we are, the more likely that pro-biking
voices are heard in force. 1 group out of 10-15 expressing a pro-
biking sentiment may not carry much weight, but if at least half of
them do....

> Be polite to the other members of the group. They may not like
bikes, but please respect their opinion and try to put yourself in
their shoes (maybe they got hit/frightened by a negligent biker
sometime - we all know they exist!). Try to explain how correctly
designed/built multiuse trails can minimize the occurrence of such
events as well as (if not better than) restricting access.

> There is a distinct possibility that freeriding may be a part
of the final plan. Please do not refer to freeriding
as "aggressive," "hucking," "stunts," "off-trail," or any other
potentially negative terms - describe it as highly technical natural
trail riding at slow speeds. The opportunity for built stunts and/or
high-speed trails is practically nonexistent on the bulk of the
property (parcel A - 653 acres) due to the wording of the TOPS
ordinance which says that land purchased with TOPS funds is to be
used for passive recreational uses only. I'm not sure how, exactly,
you define "passive recreation," but I do know that in a
predominantly non-biking crowd (and/or from the City's legal
perspective) it's not likely to be man-made stunts or a downhill
course. Another thing to think about is technical trails with
optional lines (standard technical line vs. an optional
freeride-technical line) so that freeriding can be integrated into the
trails without the need for or visibility of a separate freeriding
area.

> You may get strong resistance to freeriding in general, but
definitely expect some with regards to setting up a freeride area in
one of the quarries. There appears to be a vocal group of people
that would like to ban everybody from the quarries and get them
registered as historical sites. That's not to say you shouldn't put
forth the idea (I think we should), just realize it may not be well
received (or you might get a lot of questions - not many people other
than bikers know what freeriding is - please see comments above!).

> Unless you are personally opposed, push for all trails to be
open to all users. The comments showed that more people supported
multiuse trails than any other single item (followed by no/minimal
development - see short summary of comments below).

At the end of the last meeting the public comments thus far were
handed out to those attending (16 pages of comments from ~100
people!). The comments were separated into individual topics, but
were not quantified in any way. I counted the numbers of similar
comments - to quickly, but not comprehensively, summarize (let me
know if you would like to get a copy of the comments - I've requested
an electronic version I could email):

~12 - for historical/archeological interpretations/signs/programs (1 -
no historical programs/interest) - some want to get specific areas
(quarries for example) on historical registers.
~4 - geological "
~5 - use property for educational/classroom activities
~8 - maybe/yes on visitor center (some said to use Bock house as
visitor/educational center)
~38 - no/minimal development (+ 2 - specifically no on visitor center)
~2 - want ballfields &/or in-line hockey rink
~9 - want picnic grounds/tables
~16 - connects to Intemann/section 16
~14 - sustainable trails
~18 - make sure there are (enough) difficult level trails
~22 - make sure there are enough trails (of all types)
~51 - multiuse trails (there were also ~11 comments each regarding
limiting bike or equestrian use to some degree)
~11 - freeride trails/area
~15 - trail signs
~9 - keep trails narrow singletrack
~18 - allow rock climbing (1 - no on rock climbing)

As an example of some of the things you may want to bring up, I'd
personally like to see:
- sustainable trails
- a significant level (~5mi?) of highly technical trails (think
Templeton Trail in Palmer Park)
- minimal development (no visitor center, ballfields, etc)
- no pavement
- no lights
- incorporate rock/hogbacks into the technical trails
- make the connection to Intemann Trail a technical trail (narrow &
twisty if through the sloped meadow @ SW corner of RRC)
- trail signs like Palmer Park
- incorporate highly technical (freeride) lines, as options, into a
difficult trail loop
- consider using snyder quarry as a technical riding area
- keep all intermediate/advanced trails narrow (singletrack)
- be able to get to all areas of property on either
beginner/intermediate/advanced trails (w/o having to mix trails of
different ability levels)

Hope to see you there! Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions and please distribute to any other bikers you think may be
interested!

Jim Yount
(719) 540-1505
jyount@...