" the board decided this wasn't a function......." Here lies the basic issue with Mid Pen, they feel they are the decision makers based on their own viewpoints and biases. They forget they are servants of the citizens, who they largely ignore. Thank god someone is willing to stand against them for once.

Having had dealings on various trails issues w Mr Hassett over the years, I find him to be, for the most part, a likeable public servant.
Much like all the current board members.
However, I feel the mrosd board could use some younger,more energized and broader visioned members that truly reflect current outdoor recreational groups.
Brandon Lewke is such a person.
Please do not interpret my post as blatant ageism, a I am over 60 myself, and looking at the current board and the average ages of folks I meet when recreating on mrosd lands, imo,some board member under the age of 45+would be a welcome perspective within mrod as we move into the future.
Regardless of this elections outcome, I thank all open space advocate's and employee's for their service, and feel truly lucky to have been born and raised here in the Bay Area to witness the lands I've wandered preserved for all generations.

For over 40 years the MROSD Board has focused almost entirely on land acquisition. A few years ago this same MROSD Board made a commitment to balance land acquisition with land stewardship. I commend Larry Hasset for his 14 years of service but now is the time to make a change in leadership and ensure that the $300M from Measure AA bonds goes to public access... no more broken promises.

I think having 60% of trails accessible to cyclists is perhaps enough. I also think that dogs should not be allowed (leashed) on every trail. Most times I come upon dogs on the trails, they are not on a leash. I do think that having some specific trails be designated as "bike only" would be OK only if this was a periodic designation (say first Sunday of the month, etc.). I love mountain biking, but now that I have small kids and am hitting the trails on foot, I have a different perspective. I've encountered too many cyclists recklessly bombing down trails or dogs trotting off leash to support Lewke's issues.

We know that MROSD and POST have been successful acquiring land and that MROSD well maintained trails. What are the tasks they do poorly? What I have seen is an agency and Board that wastes time and money over analyzing issues; an agency that engages the public in master planning for preserves, makes promises of public access then fails to live up to those promises. I see a Board taking years to decide on a balance approach to acquisition and stewardship… something the public has been saying for over 10 years.

MROSD has over 22,000 acres closed to the public (permits for neighbors don't count). That's land purchased through public property taxes closed to the public; and now to open that public land we will pay for it with more taxes. I'm ok with paying that extra cost, but it sure doesn't demonstrate a board of directors committed to the publics interest of access.

Cyclists recklessly bombing down trails and dogs off leash are educational and enforcement issues. An unbiased and balanced approach to trail access for different recreational groups is a policy decision based on the publics interest. I think there are solutions to the access issues I just don't feel like the current MROSD Board is interested in more dog or bike access.

I think that all people should be allowed to use the open space. I have encountered nothing but wonderful people out there. When I have tried to become involved in the process for opening new preserves it has been very frustrating. It just doesn't seem like the management listens. We have voted them a large sum of money to open up the lands for us. I just dont trust the current group to do so. Please vote for change

Thank you to everyone for your comments on this story! I am excited to be running, to be offering an alternative to what we have today. From what I have seen of the board meetings, there appears to be a lot of talk, little action. If I am elected, I don't get a 14 year term, I get a 4 year term. If I want to be re-elected in 4 years, I have got to have something to show for it!

In 4 years I hope to at least get the following done:
1) Open La Honda Open Space Preserve. Been talked about for 10-20 years, it's time to stop talking and do it.
2) Increase the number of trails that are multi-use-Sharing the outdoors, fun for everyone!
3) Increase number of single-track mountain biking trails- Give hardcore mtn bikers a space to play!
4) Get the total number of trails open to bike from 60% to more like 80%.
5) Protect Mt Umunhum USAF Radar Tower from being torn down. I work in a tech museum- My vision is to turn that 5 story building into a history museum/visitor and nature center dedicated to our veterans, native americans tribes, local ecology, whatever the public fancies!

I addressed this at last board meeting, look at project 23 on the 25 projects plan, the official use of taxpayer funds from measure AA. Web Link We were shown a picture of a Tower and verbiage that says, "Determine and carry out plan for Tower." Nowhere does it mention that the board had voted in 2012 to scrap the tower in 2017 unless the public came up with the funds to save it. IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO "CARRY OUT PLAN" AKA DESTROY OUR HISTORY, TRUTH IN ADVERTISING: SHOULD HAVE HAD DISCLAIMER ON USAF TOWER PICTURE SAYING "TOWER NOT INCLUDED!!!" So my plan to "determine plan"- save the Tower as mission related history museum/ visitor center, and "carry it out" -open a museum to the public so they have a fun place to visit after conquering the hike/bike, horse ride up the mountain.

The board needed a federal earmark to clean up the toxic waste and tear down all the other buildings on Mt Umunhum. After nearly 30 years of neglecting Tower maintenance they want the private sector, a nonprofit, to bailout saving a building they bought on their property. If you (board) didn't want to be responsible, if you wanted the federal government or private sector to be responsible for your mess (buying land you don't want to take ownership of), then why did you buy it in the first place?

Stop shopping for more property to neglect for just a second and take responsibility for what you have and give the public access to it! Is that really so hard?

If you want more talk, vote for Larry, he's been doing this for 14 years, with another 4 that's 18 years, let him talk about your issues, he may get around to your concerns eventually. If you want someone that's on a short leash (4 years) who's only option is take action or go home, vote for me, Brandon Lewke!

If you would like the district land to remain the purview of the privileged few, who look at them as "their lands", vote incumbent. They get upset if someone goes against their view of how things should be. Oh someone interrupted my wonderful day. This land belongs to everyone and a much more inclusive view needs to begin taking hold. You must consider the needs of the public as a whole, not those who simply view it with a motivated and narrow view. Yeah we voted in 300 million, now we expect a lot. .

More of the same then vote for the past, want to move into the future and a more progressive view then vote for change

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an incumbent who has served several terms. In fact, it tells me that Larry Hassett has been fulfilling the communities' goals. It is really a cheap shot to disrespect Larry this way, to get a shot at being elected.