A case of bike rage
The dispute over an event at West Seattle's Lincoln Park unleashes a "cycle" of anger. Once again, parks make good battlefields.
This dispute was off my radar screen until a reader emailed me late last week, but it goes to the heart of a long-debated Seattle topic: what, or who, is a park for?
The Seattle Parks Dept. approved a "cyclocross" race in West Seattle's Lincoln Park, a bike version of motocross racing that involves doing laps over roads and rough terrain. A similar event had been held there some years ago and done a lot of damage to the park. Cyclocrossers had helped with some of the repair, but the city decided not to host it again. Someone forgot about the prohibition (apparently, it didn't make it into the new electronic records system), so this year, the event was on.
This time, Lincoln Park users and neighbors objected, pointing out that parts of the race course went through areas without trails that had been designated for low-impact uses, and they worried about the damage to native plant restoration efforts. The Parks Dept. canceled the event, which was moved by organizers to another park in White Center. But not before enraging cyclocross fans.
The West Seattle blog has covered the controversy, but I was struck by the comment thread and the rage of the cyclists. There has been tension in Seattle and Portland between bike riders and drivers, but here we're talking anger between cyclists and everyday park users. At least that's how the cyclocross fans see it. The bike fans called the West Seattleites "whiners," "lame," and worse. "So is the park just for those on foot and professional dog sitters?" one wondered.
The level of anger from the cyclocross community surprised some West Seattleites, partly because it took on the flavor of a kind of class or generational war: stuffy old geezers versus the young and fit. Are Seattle parks simply for the elderly elite who live nearby and grumpily tell the kids to get off the lawn? Said one commenter:
Ya know, kids playing soccer really trashes the fields. Baseball players’ spit is unsightly. Joggers might bruise the gravel when from the impact of their plodding along. It is also really unfortunate that the elderly folks' canes leave such a pin-point indentation on the ground. Let's fence the park off to keep anyone from destroying our public facility! Get real folks, healthy outdoor recreation is a good thing!
Wrote another:
We should hold a Critical Mass at the park on Saturday to show our solidarity as cyclist[s]. Thanks West Seattle for showing your true colors as citizens...just a bunch of whiners!!
Another argued that West Seattleites were being short-sighted:
The more times I read this the more I get sick. Some folks are just disgusting in their quest to ruin West Seattle. All the hungry racers are going to go buy food and buy a pint in someone else's neighborhood now! And all the kids that were planning on racing (which is a HUGE AMOUNT) just got jacked. You people disgust me.
The attitude of many pro-cyclocross posters seems to be that the damage done to the park would be reparable and that because they were fun-loving taxpayers, they had every right to hold their event there. It's reminiscent of arguments used by snowmobilers who want great access to places like Yellowstone.
On the other hand, opponents were extremely concerned about the cavalier attitude of the cyclists toward environmental damage, and the sense of entitlement. Cyclocross skeptics also played the age card:
I'm not sure what part of "their race damages the park" the cyclocross dudes don't understand, but apparently from their comments here they either don’t understand or don't care. Maybe they're all really young, that would certainly explain the lack of thought.Wrote another:
Who are the environmentalists here, the cyclocross advocates or the cyclocross adversaries? I'm surprised at the harsh words of the advocates in this thread (but perhaps not totally if they are of the self-centered Critical Mass mindset). Someone mentioned muddy fields from soccer. I presume these are designated play fields. If cycle races were permitted, I would expect there to be a plan to minimize damage during the event and to repair any damage after the fact. Did the organizers have such plans? If not, then I, a dedicated cyclist, would kindly ask you to find a different venue than our favorite park, a jewel of the community.Another wrote:
Boy, speaking of whiners...I just read through this string and the whining about experiencing a little roadblock in your cycling life is unreal. Threaten, bluster, call people names, link this little bump in your road to national politics. That'll endear your cause to those of us who were curious about your event. I was thinking it was too bad the event was canceled until I read this thread...now I'm thinking it’s probably for the best. Who needs your attitude in our neighborhoods. You'd probably berate a youngster who accidentally got in your way or run over a wild critter who appeared in your path. How do you deal with real big roadblocks in your life? Throw tantrums?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 7:22 a.m. inappropriate
What is this doing in crosscut? I do not think it should have made it beyond West Seattle's local rag. It reminds me of a student essay with little content that reaches the required word count by excessive quoting. This is not "high quality local journalism".
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 8:57 a.m. inappropriate
Speaking as a militant bicyclist (and militant pedestrian), it sounds like some of the bicyclists are crybabies on this one.
Bicycling is a green way to get around and great recreation. But the race is not "getting around," and while it's great recreation it apparently impacts other people and the park too much...in the park's case, both environmentally and in blocking access for others.
There's a new several-acre bike park under I-5 at Eastlake. If that's popular (I have no idea), then it would make sense to carve out another similar park or two somewhere else, perhaps more open-sky than the Eastlake one, which has the great benefit of being dry. That way, bikers could have their area much as soccer players do, with neither getting in the way of regular park use.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 9:26 a.m. inappropriate
I'd like to echo mhays. They should either check out the Eastlake course as an option, or if there are enough W. Seattle cyclo-crossers, they should petition and work with the city to get a track put into Lincoln Park.
As a youth in the early 1990's, I was an avid skater - my group was a highly ignored and scorned culture comprised of mostly good-willed kids. Not only did we petition the city for a place to practice our sport, but we offered to raise money, do the work to build it, and even called in the National Skateboarding Assoc. to help design it. It didn't really happen in my time, but nowadays there is a skatepark in nearly every neighborhood. It was a long time coming, and we had a lot of work convincing the public that what we did was a great sport.
I know some of the folks who were part of the Eastlake course - likewise, they put in the labor and gathered as a community to get it installed. Community comes from mutual respect. I think that is the thing that is lacking here. In this case, the cyclo-crossers are the minority... they would do well to respect the locals and find a progressive way of getting what they want rather than continuing to incite a polarizing debate.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 10:17 a.m. inappropriate
The battle cyclo-cross in West Seattle is so reminiscent of the conflicts over the use of Discovery Park that it should spark a conversation over the purpose of Seattle Parks. Are the parks meant for all citizens of the city or are they just green bits of nature for the pleasure of the neighbors. Are all city parks meant to be quiet, passive spots of green or is it appropriate to have more rigorous activity?
The urban mythology is full of stories of parks neighbors fighting to shut down group activities: The folks of View Ridge objecting to any development of the Magnuson Park because it disturbs their view, the Magnolia neighborhood being up in arms over the development of playfields and the citizen enforcers of the hours at Alki Beach. A few years ago, the neighbors called the police because our company picnic in an approved and reserved shelter became to noise when we turned on a sound system. Yes this is a generational issue, but it is also a question of who Seattle Parks administrators listen too.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
Comments in the West Seattle blog forums do not represent the totality of view points composing the community surrounding Lincoln Park; just as the political construct "Friends of Lincoln Park" does not represent the views of all those who cherish Lincoln Park. The fact is that the West Seattle Blog forum's are dominated by a small, self-selected, network of West Seattlite's who spend more time in the forum's than the parks. A last minute cancellation of the event--I saw announcement in the park days before the event--would undoubtedly cause anger and sense people scrambling, so that typical militant, biker shtick seems misplaced--again base solely on postings in a blog forum.
As to the damage cause by the activity, this is the typical over-reaction one come's to expect from a society uneasy with their relationship with the natural world. Conveniently, they'd rather focus on the activities and habits of others rather than their own, while idealizing sanctuaries to the level of the Sacred rather than the poor substitute they actually represent. Seasonal High School Cross County events cause routine damage to the park. The cost of maintaining sod fields due to the confluence of spring and fall rains, and baseball and soccer season seems predictably wasteful. Or how about the Parks Dept. vehicle usage in the park? Parks employee's DRIVE everywhere through Lincoln Park--the ballfields are even striped by a vehicle.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 11:01 a.m. inappropriate
Knowing no more of this than I do from the article, it makes me wonder if there aren't a couple of different things at work here. First, it occurs to me that the "say no" sentiment from the neighborhood may come from some sense of encroachment owing to this or other special events held at the park in the past. With any special event, stuff like traffic & parking - c'mon, you can't tell me that every participant rides his or her bike to the event; I'm sure a bunch of extra vehicles show up - general noise/disruption, sanitary facilities, etc. become an issue. Park neighbors may simply be fed up with all the bother. If the park is closed to all others during the event, as I suspect it might be due to liability concerns, they may simply resent it. Or, they may have had problems with the event in the past (did they rip up the place the last time?) - or perhaps problems with bicyclists in general - that leave them feeling this way. How is it that the bicyclists have labeled them all as old people? Not sure I would want it next door to me, either.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 11:01 a.m. inappropriate
Knowing no more of this than I do from the article, it makes me wonder if there aren't a couple of different things at work here. First, it occurs to me that the "say no" sentiment from the neighborhood may come from some sense of encroachment owing to this or other special events held at the park in the past. With any special event, stuff like traffic & parking - c'mon, you can't tell me that every participant rides his or her bike to the event; I'm sure a bunch of extra vehicles show up - general noise/disruption, sanitary facilities, etc. become an issue. Park neighbors may simply be fed up with all the bother. If the park is closed to all others during the event, as I suspect it might be due to liability concerns, they may simply resent it. Or, they may have had problems with the event in the past (did they rip up the place the last time?) - or perhaps problems with bicyclists in general - that leave them feeling this way. How is it that the bicyclists have labeled them all as old people? Not sure I would want it next door to me, either.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 11:50 a.m. inappropriate
Ah, the purpose of Seattle parks:
Into that hopper you must now throw the new planning concept of forcing urban neighborhoods to shift their back yard activities to communal space, e.g. parks. Atop that throw elected planners inability to remember back yards being the site of any valid activity.
Brewster, in tabulating what he likes about this election, listed the full supporting cast of the most aggressive side of the impasse. "It's certainly appealing to young people, to global-economy workers, to idealists, to urban singles." Last listed, most questionable, although definitionally they do tend to occupy housing one to a unit.
I agree with your concern, but have to point out that this is less generational than it is the supreme certainty and arrogance inflaming any garden variety war (pun not intended).
The outcomes of generational wars one can generally guess. These squabbles portend the wars caused by degradations of over-consumptions at a global scale. Sing Chew has a phrase for it--Google him.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 12:28 p.m. inappropriate
I have to agree with the neighborhood on this one. If the bike race tears up the park then the park's not a good place for it. This isn't about "who has access to the park?"--every cyclist has the same access the rest of us have to Lincoln Park. The question is, how much can we use the parks, and how, without destroying them? Sure, people should be able to do fun and exciting things in parks, but I also think we have to keep in mind the wildlife that live in places like Lincoln Park. Maybe there's a better place for bike racing.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 12:48 p.m. inappropriate
I ride hundreds of miles aweek all over the city and have come to the conclusion that most bicyclists are as stupid at operating a bike as most drivers are at handling a car. And like all true Seattleites, they are experts at whining their asses off.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 1:21 p.m. inappropriate
As editor of West Seattle Blog, I would like to correct what "fly..." has written, impugning our site's discussion forums and confusing them with the news section of our site.
The WSB Forums are a section of our website. The comments that Mr. Berger has chosen to excerpt from our site are NOT from the forums (which have 8,000+ members, whom I wouldn't characterize the way "fly" has chosen to, but she/he is entitled to her/his opinion). This controversy was NOT discussed in the forums.
We reported two NEWS stories on this situation - one when the cancellation was announced (before it was even posted on the promoters' website), almost simultaneous to our organization having been CC'd on a letter from one of the complainants - another, when it was moved to Lakewood Park later in the week.
The first story drew 146 (thus far) comments, many of whom our moderation system indicated had never commented on WSB before, as the story circulated elsewhere online among cyclocross riders and other interested parties (and was linked by our partners at the Seattle Times, before they did their own followup); the second story drew 21.
Our news section is separate from our forums, and I don't believe Mr. Berger's story alluded to the forums, so it's not clear why "fly..." brought them up. The only role they played in WSB coverage of this is the fact that promoters posted an advance announcement of the original race plan in the forums, as another way of notifying the community. That announcement drew a grand total of 1 comment (separate from a couple notes I added), and a positive one at that; I followed it up with a brief news-section advance mention, which went similarly un-discussed.
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 2:54 p.m. inappropriate
I am a cyclocross racer (as is my husband). We also do a lot of cycling on the road and some mountain biking. We also like nordic skiing, hiking, and lots of other outdoor activities. We also own a home, pay property taxes, and support parks levys whem they come up for a vote. And we own a car on which we also pay taxes and which we drive all around the town. My point is that it's as unfair to pigeon-hole the cyclocross racers as it is for them to pigeon-hole other folks. This article was very one-sided and would've benefitted from looking into our point of view.
Why so much anger? Well, this race had been scheduled for many months and there were lots and lots of us who'd been looking forward to racing there for about as long. Suddenly, at the last minute, we're told that an event we'd been so excited about was cancelled. Wouldn't you be a bit upset if something similar happened to you? We as a racing community work hard to be considerate users of the spaces we're fotunate to use. There are always at least two cycling teams assigned for clean-up after a race and clean-up involves not only picking up any litter left behind but raking up and reseeding grass areas that are damaged.
Lots of folks not familiar with what cyclocross is have suggested venues that really aren't suitable for a host of reasons. This isn't mountain biking where we race on single-track trails in the woods. Cyclocross is a very particular discipline that requires particular elements. And by having races at different locations from week to week we minimize any potential damage at a given site. Yes, certain parks are just not suitable and yes, courses are beat up following a race. But as you can see from this link ( http://www.spectasport.com/images/mediagallery/After%20Effects%20for%20Website.pdf ) they bounce back quickly.
We were fortunate that King County Parks (the same parks that are in danger of budget cuts) came through at the last minute and we had a fabulous course on Halloween with terrific weather. Turnout was nowhere near the numbers that Lincoln Park neighbors feared and I don't believe that there were any problems. In fact, this is the second time this season we have raced at Evergreen/Lakewood Park and we're all greatful that King County has been so good to us.
Before you condemn a community of folks, come out to race and see what we're really all about. I guarantee you'll have a good time and you may even decide to try it yourself! Here's the links to the two local series:
www.mfg.com
www.seattlecyclocross.com
Posted Tue, Nov 3, 4:29 p.m. inappropriate
Knute said it clearly; the bicyclists would have taken away a city park for one day. The event would have severely restricted other (I have to say, normal) uses of the park. Why should this be done? why does Parks allow Hempfest to completely remove Myrtle Edwards Park from normal use for nearly a week? special uses of a city park should not be available to anyone merely because they have the foresight to apply for a permit six months in advance. Grownups should be in charge of this. That does not look to be the case here.
Posted Wed, Nov 4, 2:36 p.m. inappropriate
It is understandable why the cyclers were angry. But, it seemed (to the stuffy whiners like me) that the angry cyclers were not considering the potential impact of racing in city parks. It seems like it is all about wanting to have fun, feeling entitled to have it, and not considering what this will lead to over time. This was such a bad place for a race! In addition to the sports fields (where racing may have been acceptable), the race course map showed it criss-crossing through an area of forest -just as in the race six years ago. I have walked in this forest pretty much every day for about the last 20 years, and I witnessed the damage done in that earlier race. Unlike the grass in the sports field, the forested areas never fully recovered. If there had been more races, the effects would have only compounded. The really important part in all of this is that this is a rare bit of remaining forest in the city. It actually has quite a lot of value in an ecological sense, plus it is a place for people to see and learn about nature. This and a few other acres of forest in a few other parks is pretty much all we have left. But it won't last unless we take care of it. It is our responsibility to protect it, like previous generations did for us, so that future generations have a place to see what a forest looks like (not to mention birds and other wildlife). It may not be the most "fun" way to enjoy the forest, but it is the wisest.
Posted Thu, Nov 5, 7:26 a.m. inappropriate
It sounds like the race should never have been approved for Lincoln Park. I can understand why cyclocross racers would be disappointed by the last-minute cancellation, but I'm very glad the mistake was caught before the race, which was appropriately moved elsewhere.
Posted Sat, Nov 7, 2:05 p.m. inappropriate
I like the ideas that are coming out of the closet,i.e. repair, setting up a designated location - we could always bribe the neighbors, build a bike tunnel under Lincoln.....love all these psycho-cyclo's and psycho-anti-cyclo's. It's all supposed to be fun, right?
Posted Thu, Nov 12, 9:24 p.m. inappropriate
Webster's definition of park (noun):
1) an area of public land; specif.,
an area in or near a city, usually laid out with walks, drives, playgrounds, etc., for public recreation
2) an open square in a city, with benches, trees, etc.
3) a large area known for its natural scenery and preserved for public recreation by a state or national government
None of these appear to envision bike motocross activity, especially that in which, as Lara above admits, "yes, courses are beat up following a race".
Because someone wants to do something for recreation doesn't call upon a municipality to allow that something to happen. It does seem to be a generational thing, although not necessarily an age thing. If you're of the generation that feels entitled to do what you want when you want to, then any hindrance is going to piss you off. The fact that you may property tax, etc. doesn't entitle you to be unhindered in your recreation.