Sources

Below are some source documents related to greenspaces in Morningside Lenox Park which were commonly accessed during the 2012 Park Pride Visioning Process.


Public Record Documents

Greenway_Acquisition_Plan
MPHOA Perman Sewer Easemt 2002 (link dead, available as a pdf)
Easements 2007 Mside Pl to Atl (link dead, available as a pdf)
Morningside Pl Conserv Easement Map 2 (link dead, available as a pdf)


Annotated Bibliography

Here is a subject matter organized list of sources relating to positions taken by Protect Morningside Greenspaces. Each major point regarding the South Fork Conservancy plan is followed by a list of relevant sources.

Expensive – from the minimum amount of information SFC has been willing to share, it appears that the capital expense for this initial phase of the project (MNP to Emory University) is on the order of $2-4 million and the estimated annual operating costs (security and maintenance) are$1.7 million. In addition to the financial burden on local government, residents adjacent to the park system can anticipate a loss of 7% in property value, approximately $6.5 million.

Source:

Capital Costs
DeKalb County Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan 2000. Estimated cost of $1.8m adjusted for inflation, converted to a per mile basis and then compared to known estimates for bridge construction and Zonolite Community Garden costs as a reality check.
(http://www.co.dekalb.ga.us/parks/pdf/strategicplan.pdf)

Bridge Cost: Morningside Nature Preserve bridge cost over $200,000 a substantial portion of which was City of Atlanta funds, according to a City of Atlanta Parks official.

Operating Costs:

Security: BeltLine Experiencing Crime, AJC December 16, 2012. APD estimates of required additional policing converted to a per mile basis – $400,000 X 4 miles = $1.6m

(http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/beltline-experiencing-crime/nTW9R/)

Maintenance: Olmsted Linear Park Resident fee of $130 multiplied by 800 residents = circa $100,000

Property Costs:

The Effect of Environmental Zoning and Amenities on Property Values: Portland, Oregon, City of Portland, Bureau of Planning, May 2003

(https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/7961/Portland_Environmental_Zoning_Effects_Report.pdf?sequence=1)


Dangerous – There is a robust body of data that highlights the increase in both crime and safety issues arising from such connected trails. Crime in neighborhoods adjacent to parks with high access and high non-resident usage have crime rates 2.0-2.5 times higher than they otherwise would be. From BeltLine statistics, we can anticipate that there will be roughly 20 robberies per year on the connected trail in northern Morningside.

Source:

The Role of Neighborhood Parks as Crime Generators, Elizabeth Groff and Eric S. McCord, Security Journal, 2011

(http://www.elizabethgroff.net/documents/Groff_McCord2011.pdf)

Linear Parks and Urban Neighborhoods: A Study of the Crime Impact of the Boston South-west Corridor, Katherine Crewe, Journal of Urban Design 2001

(http://www.thempc.org/documents/Transportation/Reports/Crewe_Greenways-Crime.pdf)

BeltLine Experiencing Crime, AJC, December 16, 2012. Three robberies in three months, annualized and then adjusted for known underreporting of robberies.

(http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/beltline-experiencing-crime/nTW9R/)

Underreporting of Crime, comparing FBI Uniform Crime Reports for Robbery versus National Crime Victimization Survey to determine degree of underreporting by nature of crime.

(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr)

(https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/demographic/national_crime_victimization_survey.html)

Dealing with Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks, Department of Justice, May 2009

(http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/pdfs/urban_parks.pdf)

Neighborhood Permeability and Crime Rates, Garland F. White, 1987

(http://www.chathamnc.org/RezoningSubdivisionCases/2006/5-15-06_BOC/Fearrington_Place/7-7-06/cup_5f.pdf)

Permeability, Access Opportunities and Crime by Stephen Brown

(http://americandreamcoalition.org/safety/Permeability.pdf)

Defensible Space: Deterring Crime and Building Community, Department of Housing and Urban Development
(http://www.huduser.org/Periodicals/CITYSCPE/SPISSUE/ch2.pdf)

The People Paradox, Nicole Stelle Garnett, January 2012, University of Illinois Law Review

(http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/1/Garnett.pdf)


Harmful – It is well established that recreational connecting trails are materially detrimental to wildlife conservation and ecological preservation and that is especially so given the constricted space which is being considered for trails and the already threatened ecological condition. Wildlife populations can be expected to decline by 50-75% and ecological degradation increase by at least 50% (social trails).

Source:

Analysis of Social Trails in Mt. Rainier National Park, Dr. L. Monika Moskal, National Park Sevice, 2008. Unplanned social trails as a percentage of total trails.

(http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.cesu/reports/J8W07090020_final_report.pdf)

Nesting Success and Life-History Attributes of Bird Communities Along an Urbanization Gradient, Joseph A. Reale and Robert B. Blair, Urban Habitats, December 2005.

(http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v03n01/nesting_full.html)

The Impact of Recreational Trail development for Human and Domestic Dog Use on Urban Wildlife Habitat, Jeff Young, June 2012

(http://www.slideshare.net/ThroughtheMagicDoor/research-report-recreational-trail-development-impact-on-wildlife) [This paper includes many other sources]

Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind, Colorado State Parks, 1998

(http://www.fs.fed.us/outdoors/naturewatch/start/planning/Trails-for-Wildlife-Handbk.pdf)


Ineffective – Recreational connected trails have a very high failure rate as measured against stated objectives. 35% of connected trail projects cause a decrease in trail usage. 100%experience user displacement and reduced user diversity (local users of all ages are displaced by 25-55 year old dog-walkers or bikers). 100% fail to have any impact on community health.

Source

Trails and Parks, Michigan Department of Community Health, February 2010

(http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Trail_Report_4-10_329070_7.pdf)


Opposed – This has also been well documented. There is no independently and objectively documented local support from either residents or commercial businesses for the proposed connected trail plan. Documented opposition to the recreational connected trail plan ranges from68-90%.

Source:

South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan, November 2012, Park Pride
(http://www.parkpride.org/get-involved/community-programs/park-visioning/content/more-info/2012_southfork_overview.pdf)

Factual Analysis of the South Fork Conservancy Proposal, Charles Bayless, Park Pride Visioning Steering Committee member, June 2012

(http://www.slideshare.net/ThroughtheMagicDoor/factual-analysis-of-the-south-fork-conservancy-proposal)