We haven't been asked to write-up anything.
High Bridge and Clinton both embrace the cycling community, and are working to that end.
There is donated land with restrictions, the state as trustee, and two towns in the process.
I believe our best path is just to "support the process" and trust our advocates that granted the builders access to start this.
Consider this - say High Bridge wants to write the letter to change the restriction.
They have monthly meetings - and want to stay in-process - this isn't the I-95 collapse...
Clinton is involved, so can't go around them....
HB 1, agree to write letter
HB 2, review letter, recommend changes
HB 3, review letter, pass
HB 4, approve letter from last meeting, send to Clinton
Clinton 1: Read letter into agenda, prepare for next meeting
Clinton 2: Discuss response
Clinton 3: Review response, suggest changes
Clinton 4: Review changes, approve response
Clinton 5: approve letter to be sent
HB: Read response into agenda, discuss
HB: Recommend merging changes/suggestions
HB: Approve changes
Letter sent
DEP - Letter read into agenda, agree to review for next meeting
DEP - Discuss letter
DEP - Approve discussion, recommend response
DEP - Review Response, recommend changes
DEP - Approve changes
DEP - Approve sending letter
HB - read letter into agenda, and fast-track dissemination of decision (assuming positive)
Did i just create an 18 month timeline if everything goes as planned? Which it never does.
They are not going to call special meetings over this.
It is clear that MTB was excluded - so the process should show patience and that the community values the mtb presence,
which justifies the change from the 1990s/2000s restriction.
i'll check out the logs, i'm fairly sure they are not an approved barrier.
Someone may have thought they were going to stop people,
just like someone taking down the signs thought it would allow people.....