At 1/31/2003, you wrote:
>I agree. One main issue here is that locked gate. There shouldn't be any
>gate at the Peak. It's the taxpayers park--all of it.
That's the key.
>The FPOA as nothing to do with this. They are subject to the Park policy
>just as we are. It's the State Park that's created this issue.
Here, I have to respectfully disagree.
The FPOA has allowed the State to use it to segregate, to create a specific
class of park user that has extra privileges.
The FPOA on the one hand has appeared to limited its interest to only what
is within the walls of their observatory. Yet, they are the determinant
regarding who is (effectively) allowed to do astronomy on park land behind
"the gate"...
Rich Neuschaefer related a story about the trees, and how reluctant the
FPOA was to represent the interests of the greater astronomical community
in matters beyond the observatory walls. Similarly, I suspect, they have
been anything but vocal about the state making FPOA membership a
requirement to access behind "the gate"...
Or, one could speculate that the FPOA saw the requirement as a way to
increase their membership.
Either way, it is divisive. I suppose they know this. I hope they know
this! ;-)
I would like to see the FPOA repudiate the situation. Perhaps they might
give away membership cards, free, upon request, to anyone who wanted to use
the area behind "the gate"...
> I'm going to make more phone calls to the ranger's office and talk to
> Curtis and then to the Monterey office about the locked gate and the
> "policy", what ever it is, about these points.
Talking to Monterey is what will tell the tale. There is simply no reason
for the situation to change via either the FPOA or CDPR without some form
of impetus. The best way I can think of is for FPOA to work toward
allowing everyone in, and telling the state to not use them in a divisive
manner. The amateur astronomers can make a statement by staying away, and
telling the FPOA and CDPR why they are doing so. Lack of support is the
most direct method I can think of to achieve a change.
The important message is that it is a state park, not a private club.
>About the FPOA and the Park's upgrade money being spent on that side of
>the Peak only, the Park did what it wanted to do with regards to the
>building of
>pads and roads and tree cutting. It was their money and they spent it the
>way they wanted to from last year's surplus budget.
I rather suspect the FPOA had some input in plans.
Still, after all this writing, I do commend the CDPR for removing the
trees. It is the one real positive I have read of thus far. Too bad it is
only of benefit primarily to club members.
Mark