Steve you are quite correct. I personally cannot currently take my child in a stroller on the dirt trails. Fixing the EXISTING trails in a manner that makes it safe for us to take a stroller down there is a major win for the City.
RNGDN - Absolutly I will take a stroller down the PAVED trail. Dont speak for what a disabled person will or will not do until you walk (or wheelchair) a mile in their shoes. You are ignorant of the capabilities and desires of the disabled and please do not speak for them unless you are educated and informed about what they are willing to attempt.
Folsom is not promoting this as an ADA only trail, it is promoting it as a win for the entire area. Connecting to the waterfront, enhancing the environment, stopping erosion. Do the children and disabled not deserve the ability to enjoy the amenity that you claim to have enjoyed for years. Perhaps you should put yourself in someone elses shoes before eliminating their ability to enjoy this amenity.
Even if the State were to totally fence off the area, you would continue to see erosion, illegal use, people hopping the fence. Doing nothing is not the answer for this, fixing it with an improved trail for all users is the answer. The dirt paths are the problems, fixing those problems is the key.
Those of us who live in or near the Historic District moved there so we don't HAVE to drive to Negro Bar. Why would I want to haul my stroller in my car to walk to something clear across the river. We should be encouraging these improvements not hindering them.
I am not arguing that we should strip the land which was done in the gold rush, I am arguing that there is a balance between preservation of environment and access to that environment. Fencing off this area serves neither purpose. The plan is a modest improvement to the area that strikes a balance between preservation and access. This is a win for the Historic District and the Community.
You need to see the forrest thru the trees. Doing nothing in this area would be its continued demise... the river otter wont have a home when the hillside continues to erode into the lake.
And these words "Improve access to Lake Natoma from the City of Folsom Historic District where appopriate and feasible" were added to the plan. In what other manner would you actually serve this goal? This is the best option to serve this goal with the minimal impact. The visitors and residents of the Historic District are not going to cross the trellis bridge to access the lake. It is simply too far for the average family or group strolling around the area. Either this gets fixed in a manner that serves this goal or you see continued illegal use from visitors and residents alike. Doing nothing creates more of a problem.