I wouldn't hire anyone, I would issue an RFP for each project (and that could be a combination of a few trails) and then let known builders submit their tender to get the job. This keeps everyone working hard, lets a Board decide on the overall vision (rather than one fellow), and spreads the knowledge around to many members. Kinda like every other org does, to prevent one bad apple from bringing down the rest of the group.
But hey - that's just my opinion. Everyone says they're neutral but quick to make judgements, so take that at face value.
So, join the board and advocate for this position. If you do a good job in advocating then people will vote for your initiative at the AGM. If not, they won't. That's how it's supposed to work.
What confuses me is the idea that we can somehow 'do away' with the NSMBA entirely and the land managers will magically be OK with dealing with 20 or 30 different trail builders individually. I just don't see that as realistic. The whole point of the NSMBA is to provide the land managers with one group to communicate and plan with. That gives them a lot of incentive to work with the mountain biking community in a constructive way, especially when there are things like TAP and they can see that other groups such as the business community are on board. I'm not about to speak for the District or the GVRD but my assumption would be that they would not see as much value in a whole bunch of individual relationships with trailbuilders who may or may not have values in line with theirs.
It's clearly a touchy issue as telling people "you may not build on the shore without being under the NSMBA tent" seems unfair as well. But this is all 'managed' land and the managers have the ability and right to just shut it all down if they feel their interests and concerns aren't being respected. A sometimes dysfunctional organization is the price you pay for the massive official acceptance and progress we've seen over the past years. This is mountain biking in an urban setting. I feel like if people want to just go build trails on their own there are plenty of less populated areas where this approach is more appropriate and less fraught with complexity and pitfalls.
I get Lee's point that the overall vision for the shore shouldn't rest with one person. But I do think that maybe it should rest with one organization.
