In 1998 board members of the Auburn Recreation District (ARD) adopted ordinances designed to provide minimum safety standards for local area parks. These ordinances restricted certain activities deemed potentially hazardous to people and/or animals and they were labeled as such. After one ARD approved community event caused significant damage to a sensitive area and harmed animals in one local park, a citizen of Placer County formed a small citizen's group. Incensed at ARD's lack of forethought, this citizen's committee went before the ARD board by invitation of the board chairman, to express their concerns. What the citizen's committee found very disturbing was that in addition to acting with total disregard to sensitive environmental areas, ARD  also appeared to be violating  their own safety ordinances. When this was brought up at the board meeting by the citizen's committee,  three out of five board members acted with such hostility that one committee member was told "shame on you" for making these charges. What followed was swift action by ARD to propose policy and ordinance changes that if adopted literally obliterates the 1998 official version that the board had been ignoring all along. If these changes take effect, ARD park users will have little to no protection from certain potential hazards after 99% of ARD parks become approved as "designated areas" for nearly unlimited flying of remote controlled airplanes, remote controlled ground vehicles and model rocket launching as well as fishing in all park ponds, activities which were previously restricted. This means more noise, potential crashes, harassment  of waterfowl, debris from rockets and planes that malfunction and crash or fall, and more ducks/geese/frogs/turtles and even humans and pets that get hooked or tangled in discarded fishing line left behind by irresponsible anglers and basically nothing that the public can do about it.  Policies should respect the rights of all, including those who wish to enjoy the beauty of a park undisturbed by the noise and hazards posed by the aforementioned. If policy and ordinance changes are to be adopted by the board, we the undersigned request a more moderate approach. Instead of designating the majority of parks "open" for these activities, we request that the board designate one park or two at the most for them at a park(s) which would be most suitable, such as Railhead Park which has less daily foot traffic. We believe that this would be a fair compromise which would allow those who enjoy these activities to partake in them without jeopardizing the peace and safety of those who do not.

Sponsor

Links