California taxpayers probably paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a slick half-hour ad on NBC Bay Area Sunday night. It was quite the propaganda coup, although we doubt many people actually watch “OpenRoads with Doug McConnell.”
The Trail’s grandiosity was underscored by the contrast between the two principle presenters, the fairly fit Mr. McConnell and the contrasting unfit Elaine Hogan who doesn’t exactly come across as a poster woman for outdoor fitness that the Great Redwood Trail that she’s the point person for.
The show was paid for by the Great Redwood Trail organization (and a few associated parks and trails organizations) according to their funding list at the end of the ad, but, curiously, they never mentioned actual dollar amounts for either the “Trail” or the ad.
McConnell and Hogan were filmed cheerfully “biking” along a couple of short segments of the trail between Arcata and Eureka where, we were told, “500 people a day” use the trail. But the visuals contradicted the stat because, besides McConnell and Hogan, there were only one or two other hikers/bikers on the trail during the filming.
Of course, because it was a paid ad, there was the expected gross simplification of the Trail project which “will stretch for 307 miles from San Francisco to Arcata.”
Viewers were told of all the wonderful stuff that will accompany the Trail: Exhibitions! Interpretive signage! Museums! Native American tributes! Bike rentals! River raft rentals! Birding! (There were no birds during the filming which the narrator said was because it was a windy day (?).) Viewers were also told that the Trail “will revitalize the economy of the entire region” and bring jobs!
A nature conservation non-profit called the “Wildlands Conservancy” has purchased 18.5 miles of Eel River Canyon (price and source of funding not mentioned, of course) and chirpy reps from that organization were interviewed with more giddy wild promises about the trail with vague phrases like “when the Great Redwood Trail is finished…” They at least acknowledged that the Eel River Canyon itself is “very remote,” and “only a few people will venture into it,” as they rafted down their “one little part” of the river and pointed up to the inaccessible collapsing old tracks where the Trail is proposed to run someday.
The entire half hour was accompanied by the familiar KZYX-style hum&strum that is supposed to evoke the back country but has become trite and a symbol of pot smoking neo-hippies and silliness nowadays.
Besdies McConnell’s NBC crew which filmed the very abbreviated bike riding and river rafting segments, all the dramatic photos and aeriel film of the nearly inaccessible Eel River Canyon were provided by the oh-so helpful Great Redwood Trail staff.
As the chuckling rafters floated down the relatively calm (during the filming anyway) and “very remote” Eel, we couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if something went wrong. A raft capsizes, an injury occurs, a medical emergency arisis, an accident, a missing person or child, a drug episode, lightning, escaped campfires, a crime…
Funny, there was no mention of any of that kind of thing.
And there certainly wasn’t any mention of the many criticisms and complaints from critics and neighboring property owners.
They never made it to the five mile Ukiah segment of the Trail from the shiny metal buildings north of Ukiah to the scenic sewage treatment plant on the south, Supervisor Maureen Mulheren’s own home-segment. Perhaps that will covered in an upcoming ad.
and the contrasting unfit Elaine Hogan who doesn’t exactly come across as a poster woman for outdoor fitness that the Great Redwood Trail that she’s the point person for. What makes you say Elaine Hogan doesn’t “come across as a poster woman” ? Certainly not her physical appearance.
The Ukiah segment does get a fair amount of use from folks who spend a lot of time outdoors, though the cheerful enthusiasm is a little low. At least they are close to emergency services, should that be required.
Jesus what an ass can’t you make your point without resorting to comments about someone’s appearance. Oh maybe you went to the Trump University of Journalism.
I agree – this is way over the top.
I would suggest erecting a sign where the trail exits northward from Willits: THIS WAY TO MURDER MOUNTAIN.
So Mark – why are you being so negative about this trail plan? It may not do as much as those supporting it envision, at least at first, but I do think that it is a very good idea. I do think think that people will want to explore it and I do think that they will spend money locally. Have
you ever been anyplace and ridden a bike on a rail-trail? I have, several times, and despite my aging and flabby appearance, I loved it and
I spent money as well – rooms, meals, gasoline to get there, repairs to my bike, etc. etc., money that went to local people who were really
happy to see me and talk with me. What is it that you so dislike about this?
It’s a boondoggle.
According to a state analysis, entire buildout of the GRT would cost $5 billion dollars in 2020 dollars. The longer it takes to build, the higher the costs go. Most of the touted economic benefits are health benefits, not financial ones. The assumption being is that by building the GRT, people will be more physically active, becoming healthier and that will lead to improved health outcomes saving money on health care costs. Multiply that assumed impact by number of GRT users, and you get the total impact. If the assumptions are wrong, which I think they are, then the benefit is over estimated. If assumed number of users is very high. I manage a ranch between Redwood Valley and Willits that is adjacent to the GRT. According to the master plan, we will see 500-1000 users a day. 30-60 users an hour during a 16 hour day, one person every minute or two. If that is anywhere near true, that will be a huge impact that will require mitigations and maintenance which will add to the cost.
It’s assumed there will be $102,568,000 in annual recreation/tourism/retail, health, and transportation benefits. Even if this is achieved, it would take almost 50 years to recoup the investment capital not taking into account inflation, interest/opportunity costs, or rising construction costs. This is a large project with a seemingly poor rate of return on investment. I can think of many other areas-existing roads, schools, water/sewer infrastructure, etc-that I would rather fund with public tax dollars. I would also rather pay less in taxes to better afford basic necessities of living and invest in my families future than to fund the GRT.
I see potential benefits to the development of the GRT in some areas. The city’s of Ukiah and Willits are spearheading the development in city limits. These areas are easy to access, easier to maintain and still construction has been running over $1 million a mile. I can see a Hopland segment being a boon to the 101 corridor areas and surrounding vineyards/wineries and ranches to bolster the tourism/recreation economy.
I do see the potential for some conflict. The GRT master plan proposes that the agency undertake some of it’s own economic endeavours to help financially support the agency-campgrounds, bike rentals etc-which would directly compete with local entrepreneurs effort as well as possibly incentivize the agency to use eminent domain in order to expand GRT service and amenities. This is where government agencies become self serving and operate to self perpetuate rather than serve the public.
The trail has Fresh air not fresh fear !
What an insulting and nasty opening to a generally uninformed piece. Is Mark implying that only “fit” people deserve access to the outdoors? What other lines is he willing to draw based on peoples’ physical appearance about who should and should not be accessing public outdoor spaces?
The Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Coast Trail are two of America’s most famous walking trails. Imagine arguing against them.
The Great Redwood Trail could be a boon to the entire north coast, but it will take time, stewardship and vision. The best part is not the almighty tourist eco dollar. It isn’t getting people outside, or burning some calories with healthy activity.
The great benefit is over time, it might lead to local residents seeing their environment in a new light and taking pride in their communities. Not only would travelers from around the world feel invested in our region – but locals might finally see this place as a special place worth preserving for their sons and daughters, for the future. Stories of where we come from are crucial to people’s perception of themselves and their belief in who and what they are and can be. If people believe they live in a special place – a lot could grow from that. The Great Redwood Trail could lead to a springboard of new businesses and new opportunities for many people who would otherwise leave the area, as well as being a boon to wineries, farms and recreational areas that already exist.
I don’t know that the landowners currently outraged by the idea of hikers and bikers passing by on a nearby trail have that kind of long term vision. They are busy thinking about meeting payroll tomorrow because running a small business is stressful and it gets more difficult every day. Some of them are more interested in keeping prying eyes away from their property, worried about trespassers and security, and wary of cleaning up messes when the government tax dollars dry up. If it doesn’t benefit them here and now, they see no need for it. I can’t really blame them, either, though I wish their attitude was different.
In America the notion of the good of the commons seems to be an idea that is barely hanging on. Too many people are starting to believe that what is good for them, right now, is what matters.
You’re on Mushrooms, right?
MAGA Marmon
They aren’t really comparable. The PCT and Appalachian Trail are long trails that mostly pass through national/state parks and other publicly owned areas. The GRT is a 50-75 foot strip that passes through almost entirely private property. There is camping and such avail for the PCT and AT, while most private landowners that abut the GRT are not keen to allowing camping on their property.
I am not an owner but I manage a ranch that has a few miles of the GRT running through it. I have spoken to a lot of landowners that will be affected. Most have the concerns you mention. They also don’t want a new impact allowed. They bought property knowing there was a rail line and fine with that impact and many would like to see rail service return. They are not fine with the impact of the GRT.
There are many opportunities for locals to get out in nature. Adding another option to go walking is not likely to change people’s behavior and suddenly make them more health conscious. The options we already have are not fully utilized.
There are some areas that may benefit and increase winery/vineyard based tourism. One area I can see that helping is Hopland by adding a day loop that connects to Old River Road. People wine tasting aren’t generally looking to hike 20 miles a day for weeks as people do on the PCT.
I see it as a waste of tax payer dollars for something frivolous. Mendocino County has a lot of needs already not being met and here we are looking at spending billions of dollars on a project that will never make enough money to pay for itself. It will either be abandoned or continue to drain our coffers to maintain.
That seems a bit disingenuous, Mr Gaska.
The National Park Service was not established until 1916.
The ATC was first proposed in 1921.
It’s not like the ATC sprang into life and just happened to conveniently go thru readily available public lands and parks. The development of the trail, and the creation of nearby public lands and parks was directly correlated.
It wasn’t until 1968 – after the trail had been in progress for 40 plus years, impacted by a major hurricane, battles over private land and highways – that the national trail system was even created by Lyndon Johnson.
I would be hard pressed to name one single landowner along the GRT who has shown any kind of long term vision for the lands they theoretically caretake. Many are primarily concerned with passing their inherited properties – with their ever increasing valuations – to their own offspring while paying the smallest tax possible along the way, even as they use precious water resources and add to the community chemical burden in order to monofarm a glam luxury item like wine.
I appreciate your viewpoint and I understand it. We do have a lot of real on the ground needs in Mendocino County that this path does not address. My argument in this case is that judging every public endeavor solely on your chosen economic criteria essentially limits projects to only those that benefit the already wealthy who get the most of our system already. Whether we develop the GRT or not is probably not going to affect whether our other needs get met. No one is going to stop funding the sheriff’s department because of the GRT. If anything the GRT is an effort to bring more federal and state money into the area.
I dont really trust the people behind the GRT. I can’t say whether it will be a success or a failure. But I don’t necessarily trust those who have aligned against it, either.
Not really. I have mapped the length of the GRT from the Mendocino/Sonoma border to the City of Willits. 99% of the GRT is surrounded by private property. 99% of the Appalachian Trail is publicly owned. So basically those enjoying the GRT will have to stay within the 50 foot strip because outside of that, they would be trespassing. Any amenities made available would be by private property owners and likely cost money. Large stretches (tens of miles) will not be accessible except through private property. The ranch I manage is just outside Redwood Valley. There isn’t public access between Laughlin Way in Redwood Valley and East Hill Road in Willits. So you could get on either side but not get off in between without trespassing. I just don’t see how that would be alluring.
Everything costs money, nothing is free. At some point, spending money on something comes at the expense of something else. Even the GRT planners admit they need “partners” to commit to on going operations and management after construction. The money is going to come out of our pockets one way or another whether we directly support it or indirectly with our tax dollars funding it.
“I would be hard pressed to name one single landowner along the GRT who has shown any kind of long term vision for the lands they theoretically caretake. Many are primarily concerned with passing their inherited properties – with their ever increasing valuations – to their own offspring while paying the smallest tax possible along the way, even as they use precious water resources and add to the community chemical burden in order to monofarm a glam luxury item like wine.”
OK, k h. Let me guess, the k stands for klueless. People who make a livelihood from the land by either exploiting or managing it are connected to it, and have a land ethic that is based on a vision of sustainability. There are many owners of land who are disconnected from it, yes. This is the case for the general public who own a lot of public land. Don’t be so hard pressed to name a single landowner, not everyone is like you.
I think residents of Mendocino County have been watching noble landowners practicing their ethical vision of sustainability for many decades, George. A bunch of books have been written about it, one is famously called “LOGGING THE REDWOODS.”
Most of those landowners were disconnected from the land they owned, just as the general public is to theirs. Land ethics are from people who make their livelihoods from the land by exploitation, or management, or both. I make money from my Chevron stock, but I am certainly not connected to it, and have no Idea how that sort of business works. There is another reality, you can not care for people who do not care. For those landowners disconnected from the land, most are quite sure of themselves in their ignorance, and are happy staying that way, regardless of what the people working their land happen to know. We have some great examples of that locally now, and in our history.
Speaking of ignorance… It seems to me that you consider those who reach conclusions that don’t agree with yours as “disconnected” or “ignorant”, when they may, in fact, know far more about the issue than do you. You are not the sort of person from whom I would seek advice–on any subject.
This waste of money reminds me of the California High Speed Rail project to nowhere that will 1) never be completed, and 2) never attract enough riders to become profitable. As Adam notes, this is money that can be spent on much more important projects that could have meaningful (emphasis on meaningful) impacts on people’s lives. Instead, between the two projects, billions of dollars are being spent on feel good PR campaigns by politicians whose sole interests are catering to paid lobbyists and staying in office.
The Appalachian Trail is 2190 miles long. It goes thru 14 states, from Maine to Georgia. Many of the public lands and parks that it travels through were founded after the trail itself was started in 1921, 103 years ago.
The Great Redwood Trail is a 300 proposed path on a former rail line from Sonoma County to Humboldt County, abutting public and private property parcels, including BLM land and private reserves. There are proposed connectors to state parks in Humboldt County, including Humboldt Redwood State Park. The trail is in proximity to wilderness areas, wildlife refuges and national parks, as well as Grizzly Creek State Park and the Headwaters Reserve. There is no reason not to believe that if it is created, in 100 years, this trail could connect multiple state, local and national parks, with offshoots to the Lost Coast Trail, the Yolly Bolly and Trinity Wilderness Areas, as well as Redwood National Park north of Eureka.
A map of the AT is here
A proposed map of the GRT is here
I’m not going to argue about how best to use tax dollars. IMHO, in terms of how those are currently being spent, a path through the wilderness sounds like a great improvement.
The Appalachian Trail required the taking of 2550 properties to complete. Of those, around 400 the property were taken forcibly through eminent domain. It was legally stolen without consent. I don’t agree that a hiking trail is enough of a public benefit that justifies stealing private property. These kind of trails, and their use, mostly benefit those wealthy enough to take off the time to hike for months spending an average of $5000-$7000. This is the type of precedent that makes me oppose the GRT.
What some see as wilderness, others such as myself, see as crucial of our livelihood. I don’t see what entitles someone to steal property that I am putting to beneficial use and stewarding so they can go hiking. It just strikes me as an unfair redistribution of property that isn’t being done for the benefit of the public at large but to cater to a wealthy, entitled minority.
Looking at the data of both trails and freeways, it looks as though 1 in 6 properties will be taken through eminent domain to achieve an unbroken stretch of either freeway or trail.
That’s tyranny and needs to be fought.
I can’t say whether I agree or disagree, but that’s a more interesting argument.
I think we have a philosophical difference that can’t be bridged, but I appreciate your viewpoint.