hypersnazz

Access BMX already figured out some time ago that *changing* city and county policy takes literally years and is nearly impossible to do. My understanding is the 'no bikes' rule typically has nothing to do with city planners, but with the city's liability. The more activities you can restrict the lower the costs go. And since free parks obviously don't turn ANY profit, cost is a huge factor. It's only slightly easier to convince city planners to consider allowing bikes whenever a new park is built, but again you're banging your head against bean counters, not anyone who has any clue about the sports or the people involved in them. The insurance company says, "If you allow bikes, we increase your premiums." And dollars speak much louder than a handful of votes (hell, a good portion of these BMX punks aren't even old enough to vote) or a little public outrage in the form of empty petitions.

There *used* to be bike-legal parks in CA. Places like Vans, SJ Ramp Club, Ramp Rats and Woodward West. All of these parks are or were privately owned and operated and you had to pay to get in. But the cost of operation is high and the income is *severely* compromised by free parks popping up everywhere. Who's going to drive for possibly hours and pay to skate (and skaters are still very much the majority) when there's a free park in your neighborhood?