Bike Trail

[SmallTown]

I started a thread here a few days ago about people causing a big fuss about a bike trail being built here. It quickly became a "SMIB-ANTISMIB" conversation and never got back on course. So I'll let them play over there while we again use this thread to discuss the bike trails.

To try to please, here is a little PC paraphrase of what happened:

A meeting was held recently by the commissioners concerning a proposed bike trail. Many of the homeowners and farmers who have land near the proposed trail were very upset, saying they did not want the new trail because of a fear of increased crime.

Another user here mentioned that other trails do exist in the area, but it is not known if these trails spawned an increase in crime in the area.

I personally do not feel that a new trail would increase crime in an area. The traffic on the trail would tend to keep away people committing crimes. In many places I have lived, it as a bonus to back up to a trail, even garnishing "lot premiums" for houses that backed to the trail.

So what are your opinions on the subject? If you want to make personal attacks or just talk about anything else besides this topic, please take it to the Nimby thread.

[Frank]

Originally posted by SmallTown

A meeting was held recently by the commissioners concerning a proposed bike trail. Many of the homeowners and farmers who have land near the proposed trail were very upset, saying they did not want the new trail because of a fear of increased crime.

Another user here mentioned that other trails do exist in the area, but it is not known if these trails spawned an increase in crime in the area.

I personally do not feel that a new trail would increase crime in an area. The traffic on the trail would tend to keep away people committing crimes. In many places I have lived, it as a bonus to back up to a trail, even garnishing "lot premiums" for houses that backed to the trail.

So what are your opinions on the subject? If you want to make personal attacks or just talk about anything else besides this topic, please take it to the Nimby thread.

I've lived in areas where there are bike trails as part of the community - such as Columbia - and have been put in later, such as Reston and Alexandria, or the ones up in Laurel and other places towards DC. In every instance that I know of, they have improved matters rather than worsen them.

I think there's probably two negative reactions to this - one is that people hear of joggers and cyclists being attacked at night on unlit trails. Sometimes, I'm not sure how much sympathy I have for anyone who is in a deserted dark place at night unaccompanied - where I once lived, I'd read the crime report and find out that the knifing that took place near my house was in the back of a supermarket at 2 am to a non-resident. I think people are reacting to this kind of story. To my knowledge, these attacks happen anywhere where it is dark, late and remote. A bike trail does not 'attract' this.

The other is the automatic resistance to change, and having lived down here long enough to appreciate the rural nature -- I sure understand it, even if I don't agree with it. Bike trails can be done excellently - if done well, we could have trails up and down the county that families, even commuters or people riding or blading on weekends could use. Would a trail mean, destroying anything already in place? Other trails I've seen were either converted railroad tracks (which are GREAT - basically flat, straight trails) or were part of the design of the community. They can also be done badly - would they rip up land, finish it partly, then stop? I've seen good trails done, and they are a boon to the community.

I've noticed that many times, change is resisted for no rational reason, or based on assumptions without facts. When they argued to remove the gates in the Ranch Club, it was feared that crime would move in - until someone mentioned that it was already a county hot spot - WITH the gates. At least without them, police can come right in.

I'd like to see the details of the plan, and the facts of new bike trails before I say yay or nay, since a bad trail is worse than no trail.

[Kyle (Premo)]

Since I don't know all the particulars of what neighborhoods this would be built behind, how close to the houses etc. this is more from the hip and please excuse that until I read more about this.

That said... I for one would object to having a Bike/Hiking Trail along the back property line of my home. One of the things that rural living provides is a significant degree of privacy. I live in a subdivision of homes built on 1-1/2 to 12 acre lots. I can only see into one neighbors yard, even during the winter. That degree of "semi-privacy" would be disrupted by having a trail right on my back property line and I can understand how some would object. NIMBY.

There are always exceptions to these things. If this is an undeveloped neighborhood where these plans are being discussed then anyone moving in would have the opportunity to either buy into there or not with full knowledge of the facilities and their placement. But if this is following a path along existing housing they have every right to object. They will be losing something. Even if that small degree of privacy loss is not important to you it may be to them.

Now for one of my peeves… Why do some of those who move to Southern Maryland from more urban areas insist on changing everything to mimic what they left behind? I moved here 25+ years ago and when I arrived it took a “bit of getting used to”. The nearest place to shop was either Waldorf or Lexington Park. The only entertainment for someone young was in Waldorf. Almost everything was a drive. But instead of concentrating on what I missed, from the District and suburban MD where I lived, I learned to appreciate what was down here. Particularly the pace. It’s relaxed, quiet and in quite a few places still… undisturbed.

Riding a bike in N.E. traffic was an interesting exercise… But a quiet walk through the woods or along the beach down here is just as much exercise and a lot more enjoyable.

JMHO.

[pixiegirl]

I for one would object to having a Bike/Hiking Trail along the back property line of my home. One of the things that rural living provides is a significant degree of privacy.

Hey.... Whatcha need all that privacy for? Something fun I hope. Can I come? Party at Kyle's!!!! J/K.

[SmallTown]

The land in question is county owned and will follow the course of an old rail line. (I'm not familiar with the rail industry here, I assume it hasn't been running for awhile now)

Nobody is trying to make things like they were before we came here. Just following the simple idea of progression, allowing people to live a nice life and enjoy themselves. Not saying people who have been here for awhile did not enjoy themselves, but we all need to be open to other forms of entertainment.

And this issue was brought forward by the commissioners, not a bunch of residents.

[Kyle (Premo)]

Originally posted by pixiegirl


Hey.... Whatcha need all that privacy for? Something fun I hope. Can I come? Party at Kyle's!!!! J/K.

Nothing untoward, I assure you!

[SmallTown]

The article is in this past Friday's edition of the Enterprise.. Is there an online version of the paper that we could link to?

[Kyle (Premo)]

Originally posted by jetmonkey
I've ridden the old railroad tracks and don't really remember them butting up to any housing. Why don't you find the article again and share it with us?

Correct me if I'm wrong Jet... But wasn't the old spur dedicated to horse/bike/hiking trail status about 20 years ago?
If so there's nothing the commish need to do with it. It's already public access property.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Frank
I've noticed that many times, change is resisted for no rational reason, or based on assumptions without facts. When they argued to remove the gates in the Ranch Club, it was feared that crime would move in - until someone mentioned that it was already a county hot spot - WITH the gates. At least without them, police can come right in.

Frank, thank you for pointing this out. I think the Ranch Club residents were being blind about the gate issue. They refused to accept that it was THEIR OWN KIDS causing the crimes there, not "outsiders".

[Tonio]

Originally posted by jetmonkey
I had always assumed that the gates were there to keep the bad kids IN. The Ranch Club and Wildwood have much in common in that much of the crime is committed by the residents own out of control children, not outsiders.

Reminds me of a cartoon that ran right after Columbine: Teenager in black trenchcoat is leaving the house. Parents say, "Have a good day, or whatever," without even looking up from their breakfast.

At the risk of generalizing, I wonder how many of the parents in those two communities are shallow social-climbers. I used to live in Wildewood and many parents said they had moved there so their kids wouldn't go to Great Mills HS with "those people."