Tree planting in Sydney Marcus Park

Trees Atlanta, Boy Scouts of America, and Morningside Lenox Park with close involvement of neighborhood residents Pierce Pape (Pack 17) and Stephanie Coffin, sponsored and delivered a neighborhood tree-planting event this past weekend which includes trees planted on Cumberland and trees mulched in Sydney Marcus Park, along with plantings along Amsterdam and Adair in Virginia Highland. In all, more than a hundred trees were planted and mulched.

It was great weather and great participation from everyone in the neighborhood.

Below are some pictures of the event at Sydney Marcus.

South Fork Conservancy change of leadership

Just confirming some news that had been rumored for a while. Sally Sears has left her position as Executive Director of South Fork Conservancy, though she remains on the board. Her position is filled by Barry Martin. He was most recently Georgia State Director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The MLPA Parks will be seeking to meet with him in the next month or so to see if we can get a reset with South Fork Conservancy. It would be ideal if we can get them to move away from an adversarial position against the neighborhood and get them focused on the conservation activities we endorse. We'll see.

USGS Topographical maps of our neighborhood

The US Geological Service, (USGS) has been making maps of our country for more than a century. They are just about done digitizing their entire collection of maps, historical and contemporary and they are available for free at USGS Map Locator & Downloader. I thought you might be interested as topographical features play such a key role in conservation and planning.

Here is the map for our immediate area. If you download the 2014 map for the area, you get all the topographical markings as well.

An interesting development

A little history.

In 2012, Park Pride, at the behest of South Fork Conservancy, conducted a Visioning workshop over four months in Morningside Lenox Park. South Fork Conservancy is, despite their name, a public infrastructure development group. They are neither a conservation group nor are they a water resources group. Park Pride initiated the meetings and described their role as that of an independent outsider with no stake in the outcome. It was later learned that they in fact had already endorsed South Fork's plan to construct trails through the neighborhood.

South Fork Conservancy initially made the commitment that they would not proceed without consensus in the neighborhood that supported the idea of trails through the nature preserves and adjacent to private property. The South Fork Conservancy position began to shift as it became clear that not only would there not be a consensus but that there was overwhelming opposition to the plan to construct trails. The opposition was rooted in well researched concerns about environmental degradation, ecological destruction, reduction in quality of life and crime/security. Research which South Fork was unwilling to address.

Bob Kerr, the chairman of the board of South Fork Conservancy, presented the final SFC position as "We are going to build these trails no matter what the neighborhood wants."

All of this history is well documented.

In response to this development threat to the neighborhood, members of Protect Morningside Greenspaces approached numerous government officials in an attempt to 1) make neighborhood views known, 2) seek support for an official, public and transparent decision-making process, and 3) seek support for a fact-based decision-making process. Among those with whom we met was Jeff Rader, District Two Commissioner and Kathie Gannon, District Six. The response from all those with whom we met to these three seemingly reasonable requests was circumspect, evasive and noncommittal. It seemed as if there were deeper waters. We documented that some of the corporate financial supporters of South Fork Conservancy were also donors to various local political campaigns and that these corporations also had major contracts with the City of Atlanta and the County of DeKalb. However, there is a limit to what citizens who work full time can do and our research went no further than that.

Now to the present. As you are probably aware, there have been continuing issues of corruption in DeKalb County government in recent years, culminating in the appointment of a Special Investigator by Interim CEO Lee May. An initial report is now in, finding that

Appalling corruption and a stunning absence of leadership in the DeKalb County government are a disgrace to its citizens and an embarrassment to our state. A pattern of corrosive and widespread misconduct has destroyed public confidence in the integrity of the governing authority.

One of the areas highlighted is illegal gratuities, the payment of gratuities from public funds by County officials for purposes not in the "sphere of the official’s legally delegated powers." Specifically,

There is no authority for a member of the BOC, or a county employee, to make charitable contributions using government funds.

There are five such payments of interest to us, four by Jeff Rader and one by Kathie Gannon.

In 2012, when Park Pride was conducting its Visioning sessions in a fashion non-compliant with its own policies and methodology, Jeff Rader made two payments of $10,000 each to Park Pride, totalling $20,000. He made a second donation of $200 in 2013 and made a donation of $100 to South Fork Conservancy in 2014. In total, Jeff Rader's office made $20,300 in contributions to two external advocacy groups who he knew at the time were acting against the wishes of his constituents.

The fifth payment was made by Kathie Gannon, with whom we also had met. Gannon was also the recipient of corporate donations to her campaign from the same companies who were funding South Fork Conservancy. Gannon's office made a donation of $6,000 to Park Pride in 2013.

The Report of the DeKalb Special Investigator can be found here.

Jeff Rader's response is here

It is interesting the divergence of views between the two documents. For Bowers, this is a straightforward legal issue. County executives are not allowed to make non-commercial payments to third parties, unless it is directly within the scope of their responsibilities. For Rader, it is not about the law so much as whether the payments were beneficial to some goal of the county. Rader does go on and

agree that we need better controls to differentiate between permissible and impermissible use of public funds; rules that if in place, would prevent the abuse that now overshadows DeKalb’s government.

With the dismissal of the Special Investigator by May, Rader indicates that "The Governor has announced a review by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation."

So the saga of DeKalb County misgovernance continues. I thought you would be interested to know that there were additional monetary flows occurring between Park Pride, South Fork Conservancy and the County of DeKalb of which we were unaware and which add to the miasma hanging over the county and its over-responsiveness to advocacy money and its lack of responsiveness to actual residents.

Video of trees initiatives in Atlanta

A presentation from Dr. Rosemary Cox, 11/12/2013, Lorax Lesson: Preserving Atlanta's Urban Tree Canopy.

Some interesting information. Covers The Lorax, tree plantings, invasives, native plants, Atlanta initiatives, etc.

Forecasting accuracy!

As you may recall, in the Park Pride Visioning sessions in 2012 to discuss the impact of connected trails through Morningside Lenox Park, neighbors identified several sources of potential negative consequences. Research was prepared around all of those issues and brought to the Visioning Sessions for discussion. The principle areas of predicted negative impact were Ecosystems, Environment, Quality of Life, and Safety.

With regard to safety, the research we found indicated that increased trails were associated with increased crime and that a primary mechanism for this increase was via permeability. Permeability has to do with the degree to which a neighborhood is easily accessible to non-residents as well as the volume of non-residents circulating in the neighborhood in any given time period. The higher the volume of non-neighbor circulation in the neighborhood and the greater the number of points of ingress and egress to a neighborhood, the higher the associated crime rates. More trails means more permeability.

Based on that research we forecast that any established residential areas opened up via new trails would experience an increase in crime. We made this forecast in the Park Pride sessions and in presentations to the City, to DeKalb County and to the MLPA.

South Fork Conservancy rejected all research predicting negative impacts on ecosystems, environment, quality of life, and crime (safety?), indicating that they would proceed with building connected trails regardless of neighborhood concerns and research evidence.

The one geographical location where South Fork did not receive strong pushback was at the confluence area around the western end of Lindridge Martin Manor where it abuts I-85. Using mitigation funding from the Department of Transportation, South Fork Conservancy built two trails in the confluence area, adjacent to the Lindridge Martin Manor neighborhood.

It now appears that there has been a sharp spike in rates of crime in Lindridge Martin Manor subsequent to the opening of the new trails, a spike that exceeds the crime levels in surrounding neighborhoods. This issue is now in front of APD’s Zone 2 to try and figure out how to address. There are no ready and apparent solutions.

It is regrettable that neighbors in Lindridge Martin Manor are bearing these difficult consequences. We advocated many times to Park Pride, to South Fork Conservancy, to the City Department of Parks, and to DeKalb County that all decisions around trails ought to be guided, not by good intentions and persuasive advocacy, but by evidence-based decision-making. It was such an approach that led us to forecast that there would be an increase in crime wherever the trails might be built. The subsequent crime increase at Lindridge Martin Manor validates our evidence-based approach. Our research and forecasts were accurate. We must continue to bring these facts to the attention of decision-makers to ensure that other neighborhoods do not bear similar consequences as a result of connected trails.

Question about any ecological or environmental benefits to heirloom plants

We have native plants and invasives. Native plants almost always have a superior beneficial impact on the local environment and ecosystem in terms of food for urban wildlife, diversity of life, reduced water consumption and water runoff, etc. Separate from the native versus invasives distinction, I wonder whether there is any observable urban wildlife benefit between contemporary pants versus heirloom plants. I have heard of heirloom apples, potatoes, tomatoes, and roses and I am sure there are many other forms. In fact, I saw heirloom tomatoes in the local grocery store just the other day. In my brief reading on heirloom plants, while there is acknowledgement of the benefits arising from their fitness for local circumstances based on their evolutionary history, I am not seeing any discussion about whether there is a environmental or ecological benefit. I assume that heirloom plants may put less stress on the environment by being more resilient in the face of weather variation and may require less water but I wonder if that is correct. Anybody know?