Special Report: Cycling

Chedoke Path Gets Fenced In

If City technocrats plug away in secret, harmful ideas like putting up a fence and cutting down trees make it into the final proposal. Nobody should be surprised when the community gets annoyed at this.

By Ted Mitchell
Published April 07, 2010

I am disappointed to have to revisit the bike path proposal for Chedoke Golf course.

Now that we have a cycling coordinator and one of the most citizen oriented councillors in Ward 1, why does it come to last minute announcements that surprise everyone and leave little time for review?

Where credit is due, it is fantastic that this path is now coming to fruition, as it has been talked about and badly needed for many years. I am so looking forward to using it.

However, sometimes the devil is in the details.

The most onerous of those details is the erection of a six- to eight-foot high chain link fence between the path and the golf course. Perhaps VANOC has moved to the Hammer.

Chedoke Golf course near the proposed bike path, Aberdeen Ave. is on the left.
Chedoke Golf course near the proposed bike path, Aberdeen Ave. is on the left.

When I last brought up the issue in 2006, Chedoke Golf Course management wanted to close the walking path / access road on the north end of Chedoke Martin course by fencing it off, ostensibly to prevent vandalism.

I thought then that this was silly and the risk of conflicts between golfers and path users was negligibly small.

Vandalism is on the whole prevented by encouraging the neighbourhood to use and develop a sense of ownership for this public golf course.

Their eyes and ears provide free security to make phone calls and keep the area safe. It is in the neighbourhood's interest to do so.

But if the golf course acts in an entitled, confrontational manner, as they did in 2006 meetings, neighbourhood altruism and ownership go south.

Wisely, Councillor McHattie heard the concerns of neighbours and killed that fence proposal.

Chedoke Golf Course
Chedoke Golf Course

But now it comes up again.

A New Fence

Some of the affected neighbours were sent a long, technical proposal for the bike path from the Niagara Escarpment Commission, dated March 26 and received on April 1.

This came with a deadline for submitting appeals of April 9. None of these details are available or even mentioned on either the Hamilton or NEC websites.

I've spoken with some of the neighbours, who have concerns about the fence, the path location, and the removal of trees.

One lamented the loss of mutual respect between golfers and neighbours, like how in the old days they used to hush their conversation when golfers were putting.

I can't reprint all the maps here, but here's my best guess as to where the trail will go:

Possible trail route through Chedoke Golf Course
Possible trail route through Chedoke Golf Course

Note: you can explore this area with Google street view.

As you can see, some trees will be removed for the 4.5m paved path, but it looks for the most part that reasonable effort has been made to minimize the damage.

On Easter weekend I came across this fantastic rest spot in a grove of pines, a little bit of heaven along the path. This will be preserved as far as I can tell.

Rest spot in a grove of pines
Rest spot in a grove of pines

Where trees are removed, new ones can be planted, but the ugliness of a chain link fence is forever. I heard that even Robert Frost doesn't like chain link fences.

Many Factors

There are a lot of factors to balance in coming up with a solution. Some of these are:

  1. Safety risks.

    1. of trail users from errant golf balls and carts
    2. of golfers from errant cyclists
    3. of cyclists from vehicles when using alternate routes on Aberdeen and Longwood
    4. of rollerbladers from themselves (kidding, sort of!)
  2. Environmental concerns

    1. Asphalt vs. gravel (also speed and conflict safety issues, see rollerbladers)
    2. Tree cutting
  3. Slowing of play due to conflicts

  4. Access and vandalism

    1. Pro - limiting easy access for riffraff
    2. Con - watchful neighbours prevented from community policing
  5. Path continuity

    1. Commuter uses, lack of road cycle lanes
    2. Enhanced recreational volume
  6. Inconsistent rules

    1. Fence proposed for north end trail
    2. No fence at radial trail despite play across path and relatively much reduced sightlines
    3. No fence at similar courses (Whirlpool Golf in Niagara Falls where parkway trail goes along side of fairway)
  7. Activity and health

    1. Encourage cycle commuting [PDF link] as per Shifting Gears plan, as Hamilton lags the Canadian average for cycling to work.
    2. Discourage golf carts. Seriously. OHIP should tax these things.
  8. Promote / degrade community cohesion

It is the City's job to identify and discuss issues like this, obtain input from all stakeholders and come up with a plan that optimizes all these criteria. This requires communication, not going into hiding for four years.

Since the summer of 2006, the community has heard nothing from the City while they were coming up with a complete plan including extensive architectural drawings.

If City technocrats plug away in secret, harmful ideas like putting up a fence and cutting down trees make it into the final proposal. Nobody should be surprised when the community gets annoyed at this.

Engaging Citizens Produces Better Ideas

I know I sound like a broken record, but citizens can always come up with better ideas than city staffers and biased stakeholders. Effective leadership is not paternalistic or top-down, it is facilitative.

This is the lesson for City leadership: don't think, instead engage others to think and then integrate everything for the best result.

More people + more ideas + superior creativity = better-quality solutions.

A great place to sit and gaze at the fence?
A great place to sit and gaze at the fence?

I don't know what the City thinks about the fence, as neighbours have been getting mixed messages. Apparently the idea originated from golf course management, although this is in question.

One of the problems might be that the Chedoke management believes they should have exclusive use of this property. A basic economic analysis will show that an exclusive use attitude is misguided.

Chedoke Golf Course

The 72 holes of Chedoke Golf course are one of the gems of Hamilton. Few places in the city are more beautiful. But this comes at a price.

Players need both significant time and money to participate, which excludes many citizens.

No other sport has anywhere near the land requirement. Chedoke's area is about 80 hectares or 200 acres, almost the size of Westdale, and would swallow McMaster University with room to spare.

Google Maps: Note how the golf course consumes a good chunk of West Hamilton.
Google Maps: Note how the golf course consumes a good chunk of West Hamilton.

Not only is Chedoke large, it is surrounded by prime residential- and commercial-zoned land that starts at about $1M per acre and goes up from there. If you can get a quarter-acre lot for $250,000 on Chedoke Ave, let me know.

Green fees are relatively cheap, but comparison is difficult because private clubs in similar urban surroundings such as Ancaster (HGCC) and Burlington (BGCC) keep their membership fees secret.

Affordable clubs in rural areas are surrounded by farmland that goes for less than $10,000 per acre (1% of city real estate).

Hamilton's public courses, Chedoke Martin/Beddoe and King's Forest, turned a profit of $230,000 in 2009. This represents 43,519 rounds of golf at Chedoke at adult fees of $31-50 per round, not counting memberships. The players, and profits, are down about 15% from 2007 levels due to the recession.

Chedoke's annual profits are less than $1,000 per acre. If the course was valued like its residential surroundings, it would be worth at least $200M, which amortizes at 5% to $10M annually.

With present usage, assuming $1.5M operating costs, green fees would average $264 per round! This is a conservative estimate, and one can only imagine what industrial zoning would do to green fees.

It's Fair to Share

Now I'm not saying we should subdivide the golf course any time soon, but you have to acknowledge an economic analysis of lost opportunity. Realistically, Chedoke golf course is at least as strongly subsidized as any hockey rink or swimming pool in Hamilton.

People at the local public swim are under no pretence that the $5 they pay covers the cost of running the pool. Neither should Chedoke golfers believe that the green fees they pay would hold for a private club on prime urban land.

So they should consider sharing the space a little bit.

Which means, no ugly fences. Fences which also say loud and clear to neighbours and path users, you're not worthy.

Today's Dynamic is Working

There is no reason why the present dynamic between cyclists and golfers cannot continue. Each waits for the other when appropriate and such conflicts are pretty rare anyway.

Since the proposed trail is primarily attractive to commuter cyclists, it will see maximum use on weekdays when golfing is sparse. On weekends, there will be less bike traffic on the path.

At the south end of the Martin course, the radial trail sees heavy recreational traffic on weekends, and Martin hole 16 plays right across it. There is no fence.

It should be pointed out that this situation is considerably riskier than the proposed bike path for conflicts, so let's be a bit more consistent.

There is an informal meeting tonight, and afterwards I will post an update.

400 Yard Cycle
400 Yard Cycle

Ted Mitchell is a Hamilton resident, emergency physician and sometimes agitator who recently completed a BEng at McMaster University. He is fascinated by aspects of our culture that are harmful, but avoid serious public discussion.

20 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By gullchasedship (registered) - website | Posted April 08, 2010 at 01:45:55

One of the other issues that you didn't mention is that some of the locals (primarily students, I would think) on either end of the golf course like to slip on to the course and play a few holes without paying. It may be that the fence is intended to reduce that as well.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted April 08, 2010 at 07:37:04

primarily students, I would think

Why would you think it's primarily students?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted April 08, 2010 at 07:59:40

geez, we blame students for everything in this city. too noisy, too drunk, too unruly on patios, too much golf.....

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted April 08, 2010 at 09:52:22

and not enough studying, the lazy slackers!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted April 08, 2010 at 09:53:00

Ted, what is the ETA for construction over the rail bridge? This is a link we desperately need - as soon as possible!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jeffzuk (registered) | Posted April 08, 2010 at 10:10:35

Another environmental effect is the fracturing of an ecological corridor. Species will have reduced transmission due to the fence.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted April 08, 2010 at 11:02:45

About 30 people showed up at last night's meeting, also Councilor McHattie and cycling coordinator Daryl Bender. (nice tie btw)

At present there is no fixed construction timetable. Daryl quoted $700K for the whole trail Glenside to Rifle Range, which seems cheap!

Essentially no discussion about the west end of the trail (Studholme to Stroud), nearly all the people who showed up were from the Aberdeen/Chedoke end. Which makes sense, since the Studholme/Beddoe townhouses are already pretty isolated from both the golf course and the path. And perhaps there is a better reason for the fence in that area because of the railyard, however safety concerns about being fenced in on both sides in an isolated area did arise. If I was a woman, this would make me think twice about entering such a trail.

No timeline for the next meeting, but the NEC appeal is somewhat peripheral, NEC just wants to know everything is ok from the escarpment's point of view. But the wildlife concern is significant and might make them act.

The city still has time to change the plan. Daryl and Brian seemed a little miffed that neighbour's concerns are just coming up now, as these plans were presented in Dec 2008 at a clubhouse hosted meeting that few seem to have heard of and even fewer attended.

Apparently this was publicized with flyers in select neighbour's mailboxes, and no trace can be found online on the City or McHattie's website. The golf course doesn't even have a website, save for a one page description via old.hamilton.ca and a pdf of 2010 green fees. (can we nominate the city of Hamilton's website as the most useless anywhere?)

Subsequent announcements did not mention the fence.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hshields (registered) - website | Posted April 08, 2010 at 12:34:47

Hi Ted,

A great article! I'm a resident on Stanley Ave. and wasn't aware that this fence issue was up for discussion (yet again). I use the trail regularily to walk the dog, and myself. A few observations from a frequent user:

a) I've never noticed tension between golfers and path users. The vast, vast majority of path users are completely aware they are entering a section of the path where they need to be aware that golf balls are flying. Golfers conversley know that there are path users that walk by and try to take shots as safely as possible. I think the cooperation between the two groups has worked for years.

b) I haven't seen renegade golfers on the course in my years of walking around the area (students or otherwise). I do see in the late fall or early spring lots of people walking their dogs and taking advantage of the vast expanse of green space for non-golf reasons. I think this line of argument is a red herring. All golf courses face this risk and that is why most courses (public and private) employ course marshalls that do have the power to ask for your green card and can kick you off the property on the spot. If the City is so concerned, employ some summer students for this purpose like any other course.

c) Your land cost and optimal usage argument is by far the most persuasive argument I've seen to be the foundation for how the City should develop the most efficient use of this large piece of real estate. I think it is clear that given the value of the land and the amount of subsidy given to golfers, a multi-use approach to the land base is needed. I think this flows well into your approach to getting rid of fences to encourage this kind of welcoming environment.

Speaking to the Kirkendall Neighbourhood Association, it looks like a more formal meeting will take place soon to accommodate the growing number of concerned neighbours. Well done on raising this issue.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 08, 2010 at 12:51:41

There are a lot of factors to balance in coming up with a solution. Some of these are: 1.Safety risks.

I don't mean this as support for the fence, but the fact a Hamilton man is suing Dofasco for $1.5 million for taking a softball to the face, while playing slo-pitch on a Dofasco owned ball diamond, demonstrates these sorts of "safety concern" proposals aren't simply made up. The fence is a C.Y.A liability reduction device.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By zookeeper (registered) | Posted April 08, 2010 at 13:02:36

The fence is a C.Y.A liability reduction device.

Sounds like the reason why the city doesn't like to put in cross walks, it might make the city liable if a driver ignores the cross walk and hits a pedestrian.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 08, 2010 at 14:18:53

Sounds like the reason why the city doesn't like to put in cross walks, it might make the city liable if a driver ignores the cross walk and hits a pedestrian - zookeeper

I prefer the safety of jaywalking : )

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted April 09, 2010 at 09:00:27

Exactly how high do you have to build a fence to stop people from getting hit with a golf ball? Last time I checked they frequently exceed the 8' fence height. And why does the trail have to be 4.5m wide? I was the construction inspector on about 10kms of the Welland Canal multiuse trail (cyclists, rollerbladers, walkers and emergency vehicles fit quite handily) and that's 3.0m wide...

If you want to CYA, put up a sign that says, "Watch out for flying golf balls you're crossing a golf course, idiot". As far as the dude who got hit in the face with a softball on Dafasco's diamonds...why is that even a court case? Provided there were the appropriate fences on the field, Dofasco's fulfilled its duty of care and IMO a court case like that shouldn't even get past a visit to a lawyer's office.

Jeff are you being serious??

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 09, 2010 at 12:46:39

I hear ya' frank.

It is all pretty ridiculous. The Dofasco suit claims they should have had sun screens... sun screens!?!?!? I assume the complainant wants them movable and automated too???

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted April 09, 2010 at 13:30:14

I played baseball my whole life and my glove was my sunscreen when needed. geez. what a society we live in.

Ted, I second your motion naming the city's website as the most useless ever. It's crap. try Google. You'll get more relevant city of hamilton results than on the city's bungled search function.

I'd like to see more scramble intersections, more shared space, more 'naked' streets etc.... so it goes without saying that I don't see the need for an ugly fence to somehow protect me from a golf ball. If I'm that scared of getting hit with a golf ball, I'll go walk the other way, or turn around at the course, or walk on top of the escarpment or at the waterfront etc........ I can't believe time is being wasted on this.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted April 09, 2010 at 13:44:26

geez. what a society we live in. - Jason

Yep.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted April 09, 2010 at 16:35:10

At the meeting it came up that one neighbour has a very high fence (20'?) and still gets plenty of golf balls in the back yard and pool. The trajectory from the 4th tee is such that the east half of the path will be vulnerable to golf balls coming down on a steep angle, making the fence useless.

I would vote for moving the 4th hole, exchanging it with a putting green / practice area. This almost eliminates golf ball risk and makes for a much better dynamic between golfers who would be in no rush to play through and path users wanting to watch the next Tiger putting.

Probably a good plug for golfing in general, Chedoke in particular, certainly much better than a fence and adversarial attitude!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By grassroots are the way forward (registered) | Posted April 10, 2010 at 02:40:19

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By a (anonymous) | Posted April 10, 2010 at 11:51:45

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Gofer Not Golfer (anonymous) | Posted April 14, 2010 at 13:08:55

1) I don't golf. Just doesn't appeal. But that may explain why the only time I've ever been worried about being hit by a golfball was when someone started wacking them my way from the park that's on the other side of an eight-foot fence at the foot of my backyard. I was plenty concerned, but I still have little expectation that a fence will protect me from malicious random lunacy. I decided to spend less time in my backyard.

2) I ride a bike. I often ride it downtown along the radial trail that passes through Chedoke golf course, and doing so has made me realize what an asset this open space is for the city. Though I see more hikers, bikers and mountain stair-climbers at the clubhouse than I do golfers, whenever I pass by, I am very pleased this open property has been maintained as a golf course. I can share.

At the clubhouse I sometimes continue down the trail east into the city centre, and sometimes I follow the road down to Aberdeen and into Westdale. I've never seen the parking lot behind the clubhouse more than half full. I've never been passed by more than two cars (in both directions) on the road to Aberdeen. I don't actually see the need for a separate biking trail through the property than the two that are there already. At most, there might, eventually, be a need to widen the roadway down to Aberdeen: a real bike/pedestrian/skate-board/wheel chair lane. I could use a similar widening along Aberdeen and the bridge over the 403 to the west end rail trail, and also down Longwood Road. Something more substantial than a painted line and a narrow piece of asphalt to be sure, but, speaking just for myself, I don't currently see the need for a separate trail. I would like to see a trail down the Chedoke Valley linking to the waterfront, however, as an alternative to Longwood Road. It should be a nicer trip. Anyway, I digress. And yes, it's happenned before.

3) I like to go to Montreal, where people make a lot of use of a large, central open space known as Mount Royal. Along a well-used road that bisects the mountain is a large parking lot where people stop their cars and get out to hike the trails, enjoy a pond/skating rink, ride bikes, skateboard etc. Some hike and bike to get there. It's a popular spot. There's also an old administrative building that houses a small outdoor cafe on one side. The twenty-plus seats are usually full anytime I've been there, though the menu and the winelist are pretty small. It seems to be a popular place for families and couples to relax and enjoy some good, inexpensive food while enjoying the sunshine. Others, I suppose, pack picnic lunches or move off the mountain to eat, but my point is that the place is a small business success that serves people who are there and even attracts a few to the location. I think of this place whenever I'm near the Chedoke Golf Course clubhouse.

I've only gone into the clubhouse coffee shop once. Staff was pleasant, only one counter person. Though the selection was bigger, I think, than that at the Montreal cafe, it was much sadder and not significantly cheaper in my estimation. If I want a hotdog I can do better in a Canadian Tire parking lot, I think. Only one other table seated people: golfers sipping post-round beers if I had to make a guess. Others came in, took a look and left, because the room was dark and spare. Decore consisted mostly of a big-screen TV. Beyond a row of out-dated windows, and down a short but dark stairwell was an unfurnished, paving-stone patio. No patio table service, though this spring I did see a couple of guys sitting on lawn chairs, sipping something as I headed down to Westdale. There's a really great view of the city from this big, mostly unused patio, and some possibility that people would use it if it were made more inviting. There's a lot of foot and bike traffic on the radial trail and the mountain steps just a few feet away.

My question is, when talk about the need for local economic development turns to building infrastructure, how does it so often end up discussing the merits of eight-foot chain link fences? Why is there not a single word about how to attract a local restauranteur to develop the Chedoke club-house to realize its potential to make a few bucks and employ a few more people than it does now? I know that ten or twenty part-time employees don't pay the same taxes as the hundreds who are soon to be unemployed at the Siemens plant, but improving these facilities is something we CAN do that has some probability of success, given the number of people who like being at this location already. And who knows, maybe, if there were a decent web site promoting the joys of this location, it might be a small but important cog in a bigger local tourist industry, one that might employ even more people who would then pay more local taxes to pay for those widened bike lanes I'd like to ride on.

4) Well, probably not. I've probably missed something obvious. Some pecular Hamilton reason why this cannot be done.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jenn Merriam (anonymous) | Posted April 23, 2010 at 07:35:24

CHEDOKE TRAIL PUBLIC MEETING -we have just found out that the City has scheduled the Chedoke trail meeting on same night as the meeting about the Reservoir Park - if you were planning on attending the res-park meeting, the good news is that it is a drop-in format from 6-9pm so it is possible to attend both:

CHEDOKE TRAIL MEETING DETAILS:

Public Meeting Date (open to all): Thursday April 29, 2010

Time: 7:30 p.m.

Location: Stanley Baptist Church

– we hope you can come – this affects all of us even if you don't use the golf course property and are just concerned about the process of ensuring this trail is done correctly, with minimal environmental impact, the first time!

DETAILS/DISCUSSION POINTS:

As many of you know, the City is planning a multi-use trail through Chedoke Golf Course. The idea is fantastic and I have not heard of anyone disputing that the idea itself is wonderful. However, there are some significant issues that must be explored and discussed to ensure that the trail is done right!!



A bit of background: the City must have the approval of the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) to construct the trail, therefore the NEC has circulated the detailed plans for construction (most received April 1 or 5th) to residents residing within 120m of the proposed trail. Currently at least 6 appeals have been filed with the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) opposing the construction of the trail, as proposed. Only those within 120m of the trail could appeal, however anyone with valid reasons can request to be a party to the appeal (but not yet -they must wait to apply at the pre-hearing that has not occured yet). Again, it is important to note that these appeals (as far as i have been told) are in regard to the City’s proposed plan and not against the trail itself!



Concerns regarding the plan include:

a fence blocking access from Chedoke/Glenside to the golf course – City has since opened discussions with the golf course and proposes limiting the length of the fence and lowering its height (pleased that we have made some progress there because we were initially told the fence was a done deal!)
cyclist safety: cyclists will be on a path that backs onto a golf green (approx. 30 feet away) and therefore in the direct line of golf balls. Cedar trees are proposed and there is the concern whether this offers adequate protrection from a golf ball (currently backyards are 'protected' by a 25 foot fence and coniferous trees and golf balls still get in). Also cyclists will not be able to see the ball coming at them or see the golfers, as they can on the present path, due to the proposed cedar trees. There would be no opportunity to wait and avoid risk of being hit by a golf ball, as is the usual practice now on the existing path and upper path.
Tree removal – not sure of exact number, but have heard that around 16 trees will be removed to construct trail
Pavement in a forest – proposed route goes through forest - is the expense and violation of natural forest habitat/eco-playground appropriate if there are other possible routes?
Proximity to existing property owners – trail will be located approximately 1 metre from some property lines - is this fair? Perhaps it is, however if other options exist they should be explored.
WHY this route? The biggest question I have heard from residents is why not just use the existing trail (which most assumed this is where the trail will be located and the City's plan was to simply formalize that situation)– the answer has been that the golf course no longer wants people cutting through its course. This is understandable to a certain extent, however it happens at the top of the course and has been happening for years on existing lower trail (is there no inherent heritage value in the pattern of multi-use of the golf course space over so many years?). There are examples of golf courses that exist with multi-use trails running through golf fairway areas without the use of fences. There is some confusion about the history of the golf course lands and what it was intended for - the NEC documents refer to this space as CHEDOKE PARK! Why is that and what is the history of use and what impact does that have?. If someone knows anyone that can confirm the history of the golf course and how it was intended to be used/shared, it would be great to hear about that.



WHY the fence? We have been told that the originally proposed 6-8 foot chain link fence was required by City's risk management staff for protection and also requested by the golf course staff to stop people from cutting through... now 4 foot fence with bushes... some confusion there...



KEY ISSUES - What is appropriate use of this space? What is its history? How can we all continue to share this beautiful space? Should the golf course reconfigure? Should some of the space (perhaps just area north of existing service road through golf course) be re-designated as park space? What options were explored in the past, how extensive/detailed were they and why was this selected over other options? What is the cost/benefit analysis that has been done regarding various options-are other options more or less expensive than what is proposed? What are the risk management issues - fence, no fence, this route vs. another, cedar bushes as adequate protection...??



POSSIBLE SOLUTION – we have suggested that perhaps there are alternatives – perhaps some reconfiguring of the golf course could be done – there seem to be a range of alternatives that could be undertaken (some extensive, some minor) – we would just like to be a part of the discussion and ensure that all options are fully explored – we’d like an accounting of the rationale from a risk management perspective regarding the risk of the proposed plan vs. using the existing trail (perhaps with modifications – Golf course is willing to make accommodations for the proposed route such as relocating Tee box). We would also like to see the range of options that have been explored in the past – currently that has not been explained.



Hope to see you on the 29th. Discussion is great - we hope that everyone comes out - both in favour of trail and those who aren't - let your voice be heard!!



Jenn and Ron Merriam






























Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds