TheLonerider
Well-Known Member
never got a straight answer on that... perils of rules not being authorized by law u can look up and made in a backroom.
Ask some folk who got it in the recent ticket blitz this past year they might know.
Of course, if the gov't decides all of a sudden some ordinance means something it didn't before that might change at any moment... just like it did in 95
Remember may 18 vote didn't "ban" mt biking just cancelled the trails for it. It's status is no different than whatever it was or wasn't before -- and gawd alone knows what that is.
I mean, on one hand in my original OPRA response the county said the freeholders didn't act to ban it -- meaning no legislation and therefore no legal penalty -- but on the other they instituted a policy excluding it in 95. On the other hand this was based on an ordinance from 83 which was never changed in 95. Then they claimed the old ordinance was enforced from its inception in 83 to 93, and then arbitrarily stopped, then "resumed" in 95. But then at the Oct. trailside meeting, parks officials not only claimed there was an ordinance against it, they also said they could not arbitrarily allow or disallow it -- what they actually alleged they did do in 93-95. But wait... was the ordinance enforced prior to 93? Because in the 95 mt biking white paper, county said mt biking was going on for way before 90 and had "dramatically increased" since then -- it was actually the opening sentence! -- so whatever the ordinance meant it was obviously not being enforced against mt biking until 95. ... And then we all know they have a policy against it, but if you read the ordinance it is about "roads, paths, sidewalks, not blocking cars"... but the county has repeatedly misquoted it over the last 20 years explicitly saying it says "trails" when the word trail is not in it... all in all I think it depends on what day it is or who you talk to, lol.
Ask some folk who got it in the recent ticket blitz this past year they might know.
Of course, if the gov't decides all of a sudden some ordinance means something it didn't before that might change at any moment... just like it did in 95
Remember may 18 vote didn't "ban" mt biking just cancelled the trails for it. It's status is no different than whatever it was or wasn't before -- and gawd alone knows what that is.
I mean, on one hand in my original OPRA response the county said the freeholders didn't act to ban it -- meaning no legislation and therefore no legal penalty -- but on the other they instituted a policy excluding it in 95. On the other hand this was based on an ordinance from 83 which was never changed in 95. Then they claimed the old ordinance was enforced from its inception in 83 to 93, and then arbitrarily stopped, then "resumed" in 95. But then at the Oct. trailside meeting, parks officials not only claimed there was an ordinance against it, they also said they could not arbitrarily allow or disallow it -- what they actually alleged they did do in 93-95. But wait... was the ordinance enforced prior to 93? Because in the 95 mt biking white paper, county said mt biking was going on for way before 90 and had "dramatically increased" since then -- it was actually the opening sentence! -- so whatever the ordinance meant it was obviously not being enforced against mt biking until 95. ... And then we all know they have a policy against it, but if you read the ordinance it is about "roads, paths, sidewalks, not blocking cars"... but the county has repeatedly misquoted it over the last 20 years explicitly saying it says "trails" when the word trail is not in it... all in all I think it depends on what day it is or who you talk to, lol.
Last edited:
