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)

PMG Responds to the Park Pride Visioning Report

Park Pride has completed the South Fork Visioning process and issued their final report, South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan.  In a letter to our City and County elected representatives, Protect Morningside Greenspaces has pointed out that Park Prides advises South Fork Conservancy to acknowledge neighborhood desires and therefore not build connected trails in those areas opposed to them, but also describes serious problems with the Park Pride process and other conclusions.  Read the letter here. . .

 

 

 

Reponse to Park Pride Report (Letter to Officials in Atlanta and DeKalb)

Response to Park Pride Report

(Letter to Officials in Atlanta and DeKalb County)

 

To government officials in receipt of the South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan,

There is no doubt that Park Pride faced a difficult challenge.  South Fork Conservancy (SFC) needed a report (in order to raise money) that would demonstrate neighborhood support for their plan but at the same time the neighborhood was clearly and overwhelmingly opposed to SFC and its connected trail proposal.  The resulting report, South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan, was released the last week of November.

It is not initially obvious from the report but Park Pride has taken a big step forward by recommending that South Fork Conservancy acknowledge neighborhood desires and therefore not build connected trails in those areas opposed to them.  Since 68% of those Morningside neighbors east of Morningside Nature Preserve (as surveyed after the final public meeting) expressed opposition to the connected trails proposal, this means that Park Pride is recommending that SFC abandon its efforts to build trails in the 2/3rds of the trail east of Morningside Nature Preserve.  We, the coordinating members of Protect Morningside Greenspaces, strongly endorse this recommendation and encourage our representatives to make that recommendation the cornerstone for future plans.

Recommendations

The neighbors signing this letter (and we believe the majority of the residents of northern Morningside) desire and recommend that City and County officials:

• Recognize that the proposal for recreational connected trails through northern Morningside is overwhelmingly opposed by those neighbors affected by the proposal (some 800 homes) as demonstrated and quantified during the conduct of the Park Pride South Fork Visioning process¹


• Reject any further activities by SFC to implement this plan for recreational connected trails in northern Morningside as incompatible with neighborhood desires; as incompatible with improvements in conservation, safety, crime, quality-of-life issues, and property values; and as incompatible with the usage priorities of scarce City/County resources


• Reject any further proposals or modified versions of this plan for such trails that are not properly shown to be compatible with neighborhood desires; improvements in conservation, safety, crime, quality-of-life issues, and property values; and usage priorities of scarce City/County resources


• Investigate the opinions of residents adjacent to the areas west of Morningside Nature Preserve before proceeding with any plans in those locations


• Focus on the actual residents rather than putative representative groups


• Engage residents directly with transparent processes and data rich information so that decisions can be made in an evidence-based fashion


• Encourage actions and investments that will improve conservation of wildlife and ecology in northern Morningside


• Encourage actions and investments that will improve park and greenspace security and compliance with ordinances and support no actions which might decrease security of residences


• Take into consideration that third party advocacy groups not sourced in the neighborhood can only operate effectively when there is trust and confidence and that the Park Pride Visioning process has generated a breach of that trust and confidence.

Our question to our City and County representatives is: how can we make the neighborhood’s intentions the basis for action?

Many community members have invested good faith efforts and time to adhere to a process which is supposed to reflect the desires and intentions of the community.  Undermining these efforts, the Park Pride Visioning process appears to have intentionally obscured the community’s desires while favoring the views of an external advocacy group not otherwise having any involvement or connection to the neighborhood.  As a result, this external advocacy group, with opaque motives and little experience or qualifications, will use this report to attempt to continue to set the agenda for materially changing our neighborhood.  That is not right.  We ask your help to achieve a proper decision process for this matter.

Once a proper decision process has been carried out, it may be that different affected communities approve of trails confined to their specific neighborhoods.  We do not advocate rejection of all recreational trails – rather, we advocate that each community make its own decision and not have trails imposed on them by third parties.

Review and Corrections of the South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan

The newly released South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan, created at the behest of the South Fork Conservancy (SFC) by Park Pride is intended as a representation of the visioning process conducted by SFC and Park Pride in the first half of 2012.  By a process of omitting key facts, obfuscation, and misdirection

• The report leaves the impression that the SFC proposal to build recreational connected trails through northern Morningside is a community based initiative when it is not,


• The report leaves the impression that after nearly a year of planning and meetings that there is some form of consensus on the plan when there is not, and finally,


• The report leaves the impression that there is some material level of support for the connected trails plan in the affected community when there is not.

In fact, the report fails to mention at all that from project initiation to project completion, neighborhood opposition has run at levels of 68% to 90% depending on the forum or instrument of measure.  Conversely, active support for the recreational connected trails proposal has ranged only from 10-20% depending on the forum and instrument of measure².

It is important to bring attention to a critical conclusion drawn by Park Pride (emphasis added).

This document should be a guide to the Conservancy [SFC]and should serve as a reminder of the community’s priorities, including where along the study area the community has invoked the ‘no’ option for connectivity. (Emphasis added, Report, page 86)

The community has resoundingly invoked the ‘no’ option east of Morningside Nature Preserve, roughly 66% of the proposed trail.  It is worth pointing out that there was reasonably extensive participation in the public meetings from those neighborhoods east of Morningside Nature Preserve (about 40 neighbors participating in three or more sessions and an additional 60-80 neighbors having attended at least one session for a total of 100-120 neighbors – this from a neighborhood population of some 800 homes).  The opposition of those participating neighbors, as indicated above, was 68-90%.   There was virtually no community participation in the four public meetings from those communities west of Morningside Nature Preserve (the remaining 34% of the proposed trail).

We read the above quote from Park Pride to be a caution by Park Pride that SFC should acknowledge that the community along 66% of the proposed trail does not desire recreational connected trails and therefore SFC ought not to proceed with its plans for recreational connected trails in those locations.  This proposed approach was suggested and endorsed by the community at each of the first three community meetings but was each time rejected by SFC.  However, this critical recommendation by Park Pride is obscurely placed at the end of the report.

The Park Pride South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan recommends that the sponsor of the initiative (SFC) pay attention to the community’s priorities including the fact that the community does not want the initiative to proceed, but buries that critical recommendation on page 86 of an 89 page report, and then devotes the other 88 pages to discussing how the sponsor should proceed with the initiative (presumably on the 34% of the trail where there was no community participation).  It would appear that Park Pride is acknowledging that the SFC proposal was roundly rejected by the community without wanting to draw attention to that fact.  So let us say more clearly:

• The SFC proposal has no empirical objective data to support its numerous claims in terms of a beneficial impact on conservation, safety, crime³ quality-of-life, property values, health and transportation⁴.


• There are many empirical objective studies refuting those claims⁵.


• The connected trail proposal is overwhelmingly opposed by the community despite three years of advocacy, communication and messaging by South Fork Conservancy⁶.

SFC’s connected trails proposal is distracting to the neighborhood, diverts scarce resources (money, time and managerial focus) from more critical City/County needs, is certain to damage key neighborhood attributes (conservation, quality-of-life, safety and crime), undermines six of the eleven identified goals (while supporting only one goal) in Atlanta’s 2009 Project Greenspace Plan, is being imposed on the neighborhood by advocacy groups external to the neighborhood, and should be removed from City and County consideration.  It is damaging, not wanted, and detrimental to the community.

The community of neighbors in northern Morningside have invested significant amounts of time to participate in good faith in the SFC/Park Pride Visioning process.  It is not unreasonable to expect the results of that investment of time to be accurately reflected in the final report of the Visioning process.

To further understanding of why the report is so misleading,⁷ we will recap the proposal and context for the public meetings as well as the process by which the report was generated.

South Fork Conservancy

South Fork Conservancy has proposed connecting a series of parks and greenspaces by building connecting trails through the northern part of Morningside.  South Fork Conservancy is a ten person trails advocacy group with two individuals being the principals of the group and the remaining eight board members apparently playing a passive role.

While presenting itself as a wildlife and conservation group, SFC is not.  Their singular and primary goal is to build a recreational connected trail.  They do not do conservation on their own (they coordinate the efforts of others) and have explicitly indicated that their involvement ends with the construction of trails.  They have rejected neighborhood suggestions that they focus solely on conservation and have indicated that their involvement with conservation is strictly as a means towards construction of the trails.  SFC is a trails advocacy group and not a conservation group.

The SFC proposal is to build a series of connected trails through northern Morningside, along the banks of the South Fork Creek, the pathways running through the backyards of some 300 neighbors and affecting the living environment of some additional 500 neighbors on access streets to the parks, greenspaces and proposed trails.  The purpose of the trails is to increase the number of people accessing the neighborhood and using the trails.

While neighbors have participated in the Park Pride Visioning process in good faith, such behavior has not been reciprocated.  In addition, SFC’s lack of awareness of critical neighborhood issues, fundamentals of property law, and other behavioral attributes have led to a significant breach of trust between SFC and neighbors.

• SFC has demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the rudiments of trail creation, in particular regarding property law


• SFC has repeatedly made statements that are known to be inaccurate


• SFC has provided no empirical or objective evidence to support any of its inaccurate statements


• SFC has proven itself unreliable in terms of the commitments it has made (ex. Initially accepting that they would not proceed unless there was a neighborhood consensus to do so, then changing that threshold to not proceeding unless there was at least majority support, and then finally indicating that regardless of majority opposition they would proceed with trails anyway)


• SFC has repeatedly sought to avoid having to acknowledge the opinions of the community and has sought to preclude empirical objective measures of neighborhood opinion


• SFC has sought to circumvent the goals of the community by lobbying regulatory and government bodies in the absence of convincing neighbors of the value of the connected trails proposition.

Park Pride

Following an earlier contentious Visioning project in Candler Park, Park Pride articulated its three fundamental operating principles⁸ – 1) That projects should be originated within the community affected, 2) that Park Pride should play a neutral role in the facilitation of the Visioning process, and 3) that Park Pride should play an objective role as an unbiased sounding board for all participants.  In addition to those fundamental precepts, Park Pride made three additional commitments to the participants in the SFC Visioning Process.  1) Park Pride committed that the neighborhood would have an opportunity to indicate by voting up or down on the connected trails proposal by the end of the four public meetings, 2) Park Pride committed that they would work on a consensus basis, that nothing would be endorsed or recommended without the consensus agreement of the neighborhood community, and 3) Park Pride committed that the Steering Committee would review the final report before publication and distribution.  Park Pride has failed to deliver on any of these six precepts and commitments.

1.       Projects should be community generated - The connected trails proposal was generated by a ten person trail advocacy group, none of whose ten members live in or are connected with the affected neighborhood.  The proposal was not generated by the neighbors but was brought to the neighbors by an advocacy group hoping to elicit support.  Park Pride elected to undertake the Visioning process by ignoring the fact that the proposal was not generated by the community.  In addition, participation in the public meetings was open to all members of the public.  Efforts to ensure participation from the residents of the affected neighborhoods were either ineffective or non-existent (with many if not most neighborhood participants learning late in the process that such a proposal was on the table).   At the same time significant numbers of non-resident trail advocates were in attendance in the public meetings.  Park Pride made no effort to distinguish between community participants and non-resident advocacy participants.

2.       Park Pride should play a neutral role in the facilitation of the process – Park Pride has worked hand-in-glove with SFC to generate the appearance of a positive reception of the SFC proposal for connected trails.  The Visioning Steering Committee was formed by Park Pride and continually repopulated with members of Park Pride’s choosing over the course of the project as members dropped out.  The Steering Committee was stacked with members from outside the affected community, all of whom were connected trail advocates.  Only three members of the Visioning Steering Committee were members of the neighborhood and served from start to finish.  All the other members were affiliated in some fashion with SFC and/or were not members of the community.  In addition, the Park Pride Visioning process relies heavily on facilitated sessions in the public meetings.  In all three public meetings where this was used, Park Pride used trail advocates or individuals with groups who had a stake in an affirmative outcome to the proposal as facilitators.  Between its choices of the Steering Committee and its choice to use trail advocates as facilitators, Park Pride created the compelling impression that its intention was to produce a report affirming the desirability of a connected trail regardless of the input and views of the actual community involved.

3.       Park Pride should serve as an unbiased sounding board – Neighborhood participants had voluminous questions regarding the specifics of the SFC connected trails proposal (Who benefits, Key Performance Indicators, How would SFC know when they were successful, How many people would use the trails, What would be the impact on crime, on safety, on quality-of-life, on property values, on conservation, How would trails be maintained, What were the factual merits of SFC’s claims, etc.).  Aside from a single instance⁹, Park Pride was unable to address any of these questions in an objective, empirical fashion and did not fulfill its stated role of serving as an unbiased sounding board.  It is notable that the South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan does not include any of the voluminous feedback generated by the neighborhood directly to Park Pride – feedback in terms of commentary, opinion, research and analysis.  Park Pride has essentially only reported on the SFC proposal and not on the community’s participation and contribution. ¹⁰

4.       Commitment to a neighborhood vote on the proposal – At the beginning of the public meetings there was a strong perception among neighbors that this was simply a charade and that the outcome was predetermined.  Several participants sought confirmation that participation in multiple public meetings would be worthwhile.  Park Pride committed that participants would have an opportunity to signify support or opposition with an up or down vote on the proposal.  Despite multiple assurances, by the end of the public meetings the overwhelming neighborhood opposition was not permitted to be registered in the public meetings.  When the neighborhood undertook to conduct an independent and neutral survey of neighborhood sentiment, allowing neighbors to indicate their support or opposition to the proposed recreational connected trails, Park Pride was adamant that such a survey should not be conducted.

5.       Commitment to consensus decision making – One of the critical assurances to neighborhood participants was that no decisions to proceed would be made without some sort of community consensus.  If there was no consensus then SFC would not proceed with the plan.  No consensus was reached on either the overall desirability of connected trails much less on proposed details such as the particular location of a potential path or other amenities.  The single issue upon which there was any degree of consensus was on the issue of the importance of conserving wildlife and the ecology of the area.  Regrettably, SFC early on made known that they were not committed to pursuing conservation activities unless it involved a connected trail as well.  The upshot is that despite commitments not to proceed unless there was a community consensus, the entire Visioning Plan is couched in terms of how to proceed with a plan that has already been roundly rejected by the community and despite the complete absence of consensus on trails.

6.       Visioning Steering Committee review of final report – Owing to the absence of consensus on any critical elements of the plan as well as wide areas of factual dispute, it was agreed at the final Visioning Steering Committee meeting that a draft of the final report from Park Pride would be reviewed by the members of the Visioning Steering Committee so that there could be agreement on the final representation of the process to the public.  Instead, Park Pride has elected to issue the report without a final review by the Visioning Steering Committee and without Visioning Steering Committee endorsement.

While these are the main issues attached to the generation of the South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan, the issues are not solely ones of process.  A very lengthy review could be spent detailing all the errors of fact or representation in the report and will be provided on request if required.  A simple illustrative example of a substantial error of reporting on a significant issue might serve instead.  On page 46, Park Pride reports that (emphasis added).

Specific concern about a proposed pedestrian bridge location along Robin Lane was expressed by homeowners of 1084 Robin Lane and 1876 Lenox Road.  Their main concerns were placement of the bridge, impact on privacy and potential trespassing.  Park Pride met with both homeowners to discuss the concept.  During this meeting, a mutually agreed upon location was found to illustrate the proposed pedestrian bridge.

This reporting makes it sound as if an issue was raised and resolved.  One of the neighbor participants in that meeting directly refutes this – “We did not come to any agreement about placement of a bridge” and “We were adamantly against having a bridge built from Robin Ln and thought it the worst place for a bridge to be built.”  So on an important feature of the proposed trail, Park Pride has intervened on behalf of SFC to try and resolve a major issue (such action being an abrogation of Park Pride’s neutrality).  Park Pride then reports in South Fork of Peachtree Creek Visioning Plan that the problem was amicably resolved with an accepted solution – in direct contrast to what the participants believe happened.

Conclusion

We, the neighbors of northern Morningside affected by the South Fork Conservancy proposal for recreational connected trails, believe that the report issued by Park Pride does not adequately represent the opinions and facts of the process.  We welcome the opportunity to spend more time with any of our government representatives to address any of our assertions and believe that we can substantiate them all with objective evidence.  We ask that our representatives examine the facts and pursue a course of action consistent with our recommendations.

Respectfully,

Protect Morningside Greenspaces coordinating members:

Robin Lane:  Jeff & Melinda Young

Homestead: John & Carol Almond

Charline: Rich & Anna Godfrey

Beech Valley & Pasadena: Charles & Sally Bayless

Helen & Kay: Meg McCallum

Edmund Park: Sally Montgomery

 

 

Notes

1  See email to Dusenbury, Wan et al with results of neighborhood opinion survey, 10/2 and 7/21 respectively.  NEIGHBOR SIGNATORIES OPPOSING:  Robin Lane - Angie Carrano – 1020, Eric & Jenna Dietz – 1026, Jill Pryor & Edward Krugman – 1034, Jeff & Melinda Young – 1064, Mary Patton & Beth Karp – 1074; Lenox Road - Christine McGuire – 1876, Angie Carrano – 1836; Homestead - Sarah & John Blackman – 1646, James & Jennifer Stafford – 1679, Jana Eplan & Craig Frankel – 1736, Nancy Jo Schafer Heene – 1787, Jonathan & Kay Bookspun – 1804, Carolyn & Larry Walker – 1817, Carol & Charles Bible – 1824, Brian & Janet Reed  - 1830, Linda Harris & J.R. Phillips – 1831, Garth & Marlyn Tagge – 1836, Christopher Beeman & Barry McCaleb – 1837, Ronald & Cindy McCoy – 1847, John & Carol Almond – 1851; Charline -  David Wade – 1784, Katherine Pringle – 1811, Barbara & James Elasmar – 1818, Judith Forio – 1829, Anna & Richard Godfrey – 1831, Lisa & Dale Danneman – 1833, Inverness - Tryba Cofrin – 1752, Susan Sayre – 1728; Meadowdale - Lisa Olmsted – 1820, Noble - Merrill Draluck – 1739, Mary Huntz – 1693, Pasadena - Janet Reynolds – 1232, Nancy Wolk – 1275, Beth Kooby  - 1308, Beth & Courtney Nathanson – 1315, Hayden & Craig Kelly – 1325, Martha Iwamoto & Danny Haddad – 1332, Margarita & David Sniadack – 1335, Marjorie Cohen – 1347, Jennifer & David Tetrick – 1350, Robert Persky & Robert Perryman – 1361, Fran Wallace – 1373, Karl de Santos – 1377, Henry Oat & Teya Ryan – 1381; Beech Valley Road - Richard Felker – 1184, Andy Albert – 1286, Sidney Dew & Tillie Yow – 1322, Brian & Katherine Collins – 1328, Georgia Bedfoird – 1334, Charles & Sally Bayless – 1338, Brenda & Rick Dickson – 1346;  Helen - Kathryn & Peter Seaton – 1782; Kay Lane - Debra Fritch-Levins – 1466, Meg McCallum & Ken Medernach – 1475, Anne Choi – 1489, Elizabeth Lewis – 1510, Ted Vigodsky – 1563, Jeff Clements - 1567

2  Factual Analysis of the South Fork Conservancy Proposal, June 15,2012, Page 6

3  For the connection between recreational connected trails and crime, see Connected Trails and Safety

4  Factual Analysis of the South Fork Conservancy Proposal, June 15,2012

5  ibid

6  Factual Analysis of the South Fork Conservancy Proposal, June 15,2012, Page 6

7  See email to Margaret Connelly, July 26, 2012 for greater detail on process failures

8  See Park Visioning Tabled.  Specifically, “For Visioning to be successful, it is critical that the community drive the process and trust Park Pride as a neutral facilitator and unbiased sounding board.”

9 Park Pride cited a study on the effect of trails on property values (decline of 7%), see “The Effect of Environmental Zoning and Amenities on Property Values: Portland, Oregon” by Dr. Netusil

10 For examples of community generated commentary, research and content, see Protect Morningside Greenspaces or neighbor Jeff Young’s Research Report: The Impact of Recreational Trail Development for Human and Domestic Dog Use on Urban Wildlife Habitat, June, 2012 as examples.

 

Connected Trails and Safety – An Answer

One of the key questions raised during the public meetings this summer regarding South Fork Conservancy’s proposal to create connected trails through the Morningside neighborhood had to do with what impact those trails might have on neighborhood crime.  SFC had no answer to the question other than to hypothesize that more people on trails might reduce crime.  When asked for any empirical evidence to support their hypothesis, they were unable to provide any.

Neighbors did some research trying to identify what impact trails have on crime but in general came up empty.  There just did not appear to be any significant literature or studies that could provide evidence one way or the other.  The question has remained unanswered all these months.

Oftentimes, how you frame the question is critical to whether it can be answered.  We had been looking for information about trails and crime.  Right thought but not quite the right formulation.  It turns out that there is in fact a good deal of information about crime in neighborhoods but it is cast along different vectors.  What we really want to know is whether having more non-residential traffic in the neighborhoods is likely to lead to an increase in crime (whether that increase arises from increased foot-traffic on the trails or vehicle traffic to trailheads).

When you ask that question, you discover that there is quite a bit of research.  The research falls into three categories:  1) the effect of volume of vehicle traffic on neighborhood crime, 2) the effect of neighborhood permeability (access) on crime, and 3) the effect of mixed-use activities (commerce, trails or any other feature that increases use of a neighborhood by non-residents) on crime.  In all three cases the evidence is clear that increased vehicle traffic is associated with increased crime, that increased permeability is associated with increased crime and that increased non-residential use (up to a certain density) increases residential neighborhood crime.

In light of this evidence, we have a much clearer answer to the question which SFC was unable to answer – Yes, increased connected trails through the neighborhood is likely to lead to an increase in crime in the neighborhood.

SFC was heavily criticized during the Visioning process public meetings for being unable to answer two other critical questions which were 1) Who will pay for and maintain the trails and bridges once they are completed and 2) Who will pay for and conduct security along the new trails.  SFC had no plans to deal with either maintenance or security.  Indeed, leading up to the public meetings, SFC denied that there were any existing Quality-of-Life issues or crime associated with the existing greenspaces; a position they maintained until Park Pride employees actually visited one of the existing parks and discovered the extent of the existing QOL/crime problems.

The upshot of this is that it is now clear that despite SFC’s hypothesis that increased trail traffic might control crime in the neighborhood, empirical data establishes that increased vehicular traffic, increased neighborhood permeability, and increased non-residential use are individually and together likely to lead to increased crime in the neighborhood and SFC has no plans in place to deal with that increased crime.

I think the discovery of this empirical information is important.  It is now clear that there are very material costs to the SFC plan (aside from the financial costs of building the trails and bridges) and virtually no benefits.  We now have the research and documentation that answers the questions which SFC was unwilling or unable to address.  Connected trails will reduce conservation (wildlife and habitat).  Connected trails will reduce property values.  Connected trails will reduce Quality-of-Life.  Connected trails will reduce neighborhood security and safety.

Sources of information regarding the links between vehicular traffic and crime, neighborhood permeability and crime, and non-residential use and crime are:

Neighborhood Permeability and Burglary Rates by Garland F. White

“Permeability is a significant influence on neighborhood burglary rates when neighborhood economic factors, instability, and structural density are controlled.”

 

Permeability, Access Opportunities and Crime by Stephen Brown (UK)

“Current national and local planning guidance places a significant emphasis on sustainable forms of transport with the aim of encouraging walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to the private car. However, the Government also now recognizes that crime free communities are a crucial component of sustainability.  Research and Crime Pattern Analysis shows a direct link  between access opportunities and crime. In other words, the way and extent to which people can move around an area has a very significant influence on its likely level of crime.”

 

Defensible Space:  Deterring Crime and Building Community from Department of Housing and Urban Development

“In Atlanta, Georgia, and Richmond, Virginia, neighborhoods that are harder to drive through (narrow streets, one way streets, few straight thoroughfares) have significantly less crime than those that are more permeable. In St. Louis, Missouri, private streets have much lower levels of criminal activity than adjacent blocks with similar housing types.”

 

Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Reduce Some Violent Crimes, Study Says by Christopher Browning.  The headline is misleading as to the actual findings of the research.  Key finding with emphasis added.

"The researchers found that the number of homicides and aggravated assaults increased in low-density mixed-use neighborhoods as the density increased, but then began to decline after a threshold of density was met.  However, robbery levels continued to increase right along with commercial-residential density."

 

Traffic Calming and Crime Prevention by Kate Wright

“Although few studies of the relationship between traffic calming and crime prevention exist, there’s growing evidence that residents in neighborhoods with slower streets are more likely to take ownership of those streets and in so doing increase the surveillance that is key to deterring crime.”

 

The People Paradox by Nicole Stelle Garnett

“All of these studies cast serious doubt on Jacobs’s (and the new urbanists’) core claims about the benefits of mixed-land-use neighborhoods.  Commercial land uses [i.e. increased non-residential use] appear to generate, rather than suppress, crime and disorder. And, at least insofar as neighborhood-level social capital is reflected in resident surveys about neighborhood social cohesion and trust, they also appear to suppress, rather than generate, social capital.”

City of Atlanta Parks Department Presentation October 1, 2012

What follows is the presentation made to the City of Atlanta Parks Department. Click on any slide to enlarge.

Presentation to City of Atlanta Parks Department

Meeting with City of Atlanta Parks Department

Rich Godfrey and I met with City of Atlanta Parks Commissioner George Dusenbury along with his team Mr. Paul Taylor (Director Office of Park Design) and Mr. Doug Voss (Director, Office of Parks) yesterday, Monday October 1^st.  Summary:

• A very positive meeting.  A strong disposition on their part to deal with facts.


• Acknowledged our concerns regarding South Fork Conservancy’s misrepresentations regarding neighborhood support of the SFC proposal.


• Indicated that SFC has proposed a couple of projects on the western end of their map, i.e. around Radio Tower and which City of Atlanta Parks will be supporting.


• Affirmed that nothing has been proposed by SFC for the area between Morningside Nature Preserve and Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve.


• Affirmed that if and when anything is proposed by SFC, that there will be a rigorous review process which will include the neighborhood.


• Indicated that City of Atlanta Parks has become aware in the past twelve months of just how widespread a problem aggressive off-leash dogs has become in many Atlanta parks.


• As of six months ago Doug Voss has launched a program of hiring off-duty APD officers to write tickets for off-leash dogs in City parks.  The program is being trialed at a number of parks already and might be extended to Johnson Taylor as well.

Trust and accurate communication

South Fork Conservancy (SFC) has recently sent out their September newsletter. An article by Sally Sears provides an update on the Park Pride Visioning process. Is it an accurate report?  In total, the article indicates:

Park Pride Brings Trail and Creek Plan to Neighbors

"Ten months of Park Pride visioning is ending this fall with a plan supported by most neighbors up and down the creek. The work confirms core principles of respect for the environment, private property and obeying rules, especially dogs on leash. The route supported by most participants is already on the Park Pride website."

As one neighbor put it: “Three sentences – Three untruths. A pretty impressive ratio.”

Let's look at the assertions.
 “A plan supported by most neighbors up and down the creek”
Well not in any conventional understanding of “support” or “most”. This is spinning of impressive proportions. Here are the facts regarding neighborhood support for the proposed trails.  Three out of four of these facts were generated by South Fork Conservancy and Park Pride.

In a South Fork Conservancy survey explicitly designed to generate positive support for their recreational connected trails proposal, only 17% of respondents were dissatisfied with the greenspaces/parks status quo and wanted changes.

In the first public meeting, 81% of neighbors indicated that they were opposed to the plan as presented with only 19% indicating that they either supported the plan or needed more information.

In the fourth and final public meetings, 90% of all feedback from participants was opposed to the plan and critical of the Park Pride Visioning process.

The neighbors, in the areas between Lenox Road and Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve, conducted an electronic, auditable, and neutral survey of the three hundred homes directly affected by South Fork Conservancy’s proposed actions. There was a 29% response rate compared to South Fork Conservancy’s survey with a response rate of less than 1%. Of the respondents, 80% either opposed the plan (68%) or needed more information (12%) and only 20% supported the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trail plan. Does 80% opposition sound like “a plan supported by most neighbors”?

When asked why they believe that there is support for their plan, SFC has indicated that their assessment is based on conversations in the neighborhood. When asked whether there is any evidence to back up their statement, SFC has indicated that they have no evidence.

The net is that there are four sources of publicly recorded data confirming that the maximum recorded level of support for the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trails proposal over 10 months of discussion has been 20%. There is no other evidence to indicate otherwise. There is no conceivable way to accurately claim that this is “a plan supported by most neighbors up and down the creek”?

“The work confirms core principles of respect for the environment, private property and obeying rules, especially dogs on leash.”

If “confirms” means simply that the plan acknowledges that environment, private property and obeying rules are existing problems, then the statement is true. If “confirms” is intended to mean that the plan acknowledges and addresses the existing problems with environment, private property and obeying rules, then it is false.

Respect for the environment - The plan explicitly removes an amount of land that is currently unused by people and dogs and redirects it to recreational use. All the scientific research and field literature documents and confirms that increased trails leads to reduced wildlife populations and increased environmental issues, particularly paths in riparian areas where bank erosion is a particular problem.

The 2001 Atlanta Greenways Acquisition Plan acknowledges the importance of undisturbed riparian greenspaces: “Greenways provide a sanctuary within which living tissue live and multiply in space and time. Some of the species living within greenways are endangered or threatened. Greenways protect riparian corridors from human activities such as development, recreation, and resource extraction. This in return protects species that may be in danger of becoming extinct.” Converting protected greenspaces from undisturbed land to recreational use does not constitute “respect for the environment.” It is instead a value-based decision that recreational use is more important than environmental protection. SFC values recreational trail use above environmental damage.

This value judgment is in contrast to that of the Morningside Lenox Park neighborhood where conservation and environment are much more highly valued than recreational use. In Park Pride Visioning public meeting one, on April 10th, the neighbors prioritized the issues about which they were most concerned. Conservation and environment were the second most frequently cited issues of concern.

In addition, not only is the proposed plan harmful to the environment and wildlife, there are no plans for future maintenance. SFC has explicitly said that on-going maintenance is beyond the scope of their proposal. They believe the new trails will not be maintained by the City/County and their hope is that maintenance will be done by neighbors.

Considering all these issues, it is hard to characterize the current plan as respecting the environment.

Respect for Private Property – Numerous neighbors have expressed concerns about social trails which would cross private land, misread maps which would cause the public to intrude on private land (an issue reinforced by SFC having already repeatedly led group excursions across private property), and in general a loss of privacy and increased incidents of property encroachment. In some areas, such as Johnson Taylor, this is already a routine issue with off leash dogs entering properties to attack pets, people passing through backyards in order to reach the road, people entering gardens to pick flowers and fruits, etc.

Throughout the Park Pride Visioning process, SFC has asserted in both the public meetings and Steering Committee meetings that they were entitled to build paths along sewer easements (an extensive feature in this terrain). This assertion has been contradicted by City of Atlanta, County of DeKalb, and Parks Department personnel in both jurisdictions, as well as independent lawyers.

The current plan has no elements that address the protection of private property other than that in some locations they would place signs to better mark trails and in other places SFC has suggested that they might plant vegetation to serve as a screen. The primary element in the plan to protect private property has been the repeated suggestion on the part of SFC and Park Pride that the onus for property protection resides with neighbors and that they ought to build fences to protect their property.

The basic plan is that SFC will create the conditions for a dramatic increase in private property incursions and that property owners need to fend for themselves. When presented to the neighbors, this was not interpreted as respecting private property.

Obeying rules, especially dogs on leash - This has been a pervasive issue, lumped under the broader term of Quality-of-Life. Quality-of-life issues cover all those infractions of city ordinances which fall short of a major crime. These include off-leash aggressive dogs (and aggressive owners), alcohol use, drug use, bonfires, after curfew park usage, noise, littering, off-path activities (cross country bicycling, paint-balling, etc.) and other such activities.  There have been pet injuries and deaths as well as injuries to people from off-leash aggressive dogs.

The experience of increasing park access at Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve by the construction of a bridge in 2005 was that all of these issues increased dramatically and the expectation is that increasing trails and access would do likewise. Atlanta Police Department, Atlanta City Parks, DeKalb County Commissioners and other representatives of local government all acknowledge that Quality-of-Life issues are common in many neighborhood parks, that increased park usage leads to an increased volume of Quality-of-Life issues and all have indicated that there are no good means of addressing the problems other than by increasing police patrols. Everyone acknowledges that rule enforcement via the police force is the only means of addressing Quality-of-Life issues and that there is little prospect of police resources being made available to do so. Both SFC and Park Pride have confirmed that they do not expect there to be the police resources to provide policing of rules. The current SFC proposal has no elements that address Quality-of-Life issues and SFC and Park Pride have both indicated that their hope is that neighbors will undertake to pay off-duty officers to patrol the parks.

The basic plan is that SFC will create the conditions for a dramatic increase in Quality-of-Life issues and that neighbors need to fend for themselves. When presented to the neighbors, this was not interpreted as a credible plan.

“The route supported by most participants is already on the Park Pride website”

SFC has presented only a conceptual plan (run a trail along the creek from Cheshire Bridge Road to Emory University) but has not presented a fixed plan of the particular route, specific locations for new entrances, bridges, etc. The conceptual plan has been rejected by the neighborhood. Feedback during the four public meetings has been to some degree incorporated into the general plan but it still lacks specificity. Some of the elements that SFC has removed at the insistence of the neighborhood, such as a trail across the northern part of Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve, they have indicated they will try and put back in at a later date. Park Pride has not yet released its final report or even presented the draft version to the Steering Committee. The only route that exists on the Park Pride website is the modified conceptual plan from South Fork Conservancy. It has not been approved by the Steering Committee and it was rejected by the participants in the public meetings.

There is no final plan with any sort of specificity or detail and there is no route that is supported by most participants. As mentioned, 90% of the feedback in the final public session was negative.

 

SFC seeks to make significant changes to our neighborhood in ways that will affect the daily lives of some 2,400 people. This requires a lot of confidence in the competence and integrity of SFC. A press release such as this, riddled with inaccuracy, is not a good means for engendering the trust that is required for a project such as they are proposing.

PMG Goals

The goals of PMG are two-fold 1) Do No Harm and 2) Ensure that any decisions made regarding parks and greenspaces in Morningside Lenox Park are driven by the community, are fact-based, and are likely to be successful. This is a community of 800 homes and dozens of businesses, some 2,400 people, and property values of approximately $280 million. It is a diverse community of families, retirees and the elderly, and many young children. The parks and greenspaces are virtually entirely encompassed by these 800 homes and so any actions affecting the parks and greenspaces has intricate and pervasive consequences to those 2,400 people. So what do these two goals mean?

• Do No Harm – Any proposal of change has to credibly address possible negative outcomes, unintended consequences, and results that are not easily reversed.

• Driven by the Community – Any proposals should either originate within the community or should be supported by the majority of the affected community members.

• Fact-based – Any proposals should be grounded in empirical reality with well-established data or research supporting critical assumptions.

• Success – Any proposal should be compliant with tactical neighborhood needs as well as any overarching City or County strategic objectives and should demonstrate the basic elements of disciplined project management commensurate with the scope of work.

PMG supports any proposals that meet these four easy criteria and opposes any proposal that does not meet these criteria.

What this boils down to is a pretty simple checklist. From the Park Pride Visioning process, we have a quantifiable measure of what outcomes are most important to neighbors. From the City of Atlanta we have the eleven key requirements they articulated in the 2009 Project Greenspace master plan (we don’t have a comparable document yet for the County of DeKalb). The basic elements of disciplined project management are available from any engineering or business book.

Project Management Norms

These are norms used for any major change project whether engineering, medical, public policy, commercial, etc. They are norms that, when adhered to, empirically reduce the percentage of occasions of failed projects, projects with bad outcomes and projects with unintended consequences. Any project not adhering to this bare minimum is likely to fail, miss its targets in a material way or have significant unintended consequences. Project management is usually couched in terms of problem solving but can easily be recast to address opportunities rather than problems.

• What problem are you solving? (alternative ex. What benefit are you seeking to create?)
• How will you know when it is solved (specific measurement)?
• What are the specific details of the plan (location of path, bridges, entrances, parking, security, maintenance, gardens, dog parks, etc.)
• What are the mechanisms by which your solution will solve the problem?
• Why is this set of actions the best answer to solving this problem versus any number of other approaches?
• What are the costs to your solution (financial and non-financial) and who will bear those costs?
• What are benefits to your solution (financial and non-financial) and who will enjoy those benefits?
• What is the timeline, resources required, roles defined, responsibilities designated, and forecasted outcomes?
• Are there any empirical examples where this solution has worked under similar circumstances?
• Is there any well grounded research and empirical evidence supporting the key assumptions underpinning your proposition?

City/County Standards

We don’t have the County standards but we do have those that the City put forward in their 2009 Project Greenspace (in which Park Pride was heavily involved among many others.) While other elements might be added and people might debate the ordering and priorities, it is not an unreasonable list and most likely the County version is somewhat similar.

• Goal 1: Significantly increase the acreage of greenspace with a goal of equal distribution throughout Atlanta.
• Goal 2: Establish connections between greenspaces as part of the greenspace system, including greenway corridors, multi-use trails, and complete streets.
• Goal 3: Provide the highest quality of recreational facilities and programs within the greenspace system to meet citizens’ needs. • Goal 4: Maintain parks and recreational facilities to “best-in-class” standards and ensure that parks and other greenspaces are safe and secure.
• Goal 5: Protect environmentally sensitive lands as part of the greenspace system.
• Goal 6: Protect and restore Atlanta’s tree canopy.
• Goal 7: Promote the use of greenspaces as community gathering places, including a major outdoor events site.
• Goal 8: Integrate Atlanta’s history, cultural heritage, and the arts into the greenspace system to express community identity.
• Goal 9: Establish sustainable sources of funding for greenspace acquisition, development, and management.
• Goal 10: Promote public and private partnerships to grow and manage the greenspace system.
• Goal 11: Promote and coordinate the dedication of greenspace within new development and redevelopment projects.

Neighborhood Priorities

From the first SFC Visioning public meeting SWOT analysis, participants generated a list of 166 concerns, issues, and desires. These items were grouped and organized around seven topic areas listed below with their frequency of mention.

• Quality-of-life issues – 25%
• Conservation, ecological preservation, wildlife protection – 20%
• Purpose and confidence in plan (will it deliver?) – 20%
• Security/Property Values – 10%
• Transportation – 10%
• Privacy/Property – 5%
• Miscellaneous – 10%

Wildlife and Environmental Preservation vs. Recreational Trail Development

Debunking the Myth That Connected Trails Are the Best Method of Preservation    

South Fork Conservancy, in discussing its goals for the South Fork of the Peachtree Creek, says it wants to restore “the historic creek,” most of which, SFC asserts,  “is now hidden under bridges, pavement, culverts and invasive plants.”  How do they plan to do this?  They would not be removing the bridges, pavement, and culverts.

Preservation vs. Recreational Restoration

Sometimes SFC suggests that restoration means rebuilding a historic Indian trail along the creek.  SFC couples this goal with an assertion that developing a connected trail along with removal of invasive plants will restore and preserve the creek by increasing human contact with the creek – the “more eyes on the creek” theory.

In stark opposition to the SFC vision is an important goal for Atlanta “greenways” explained in the FINAL APPROVED GREENWAY ACQUISITION PLAN (GAP), approved by EPA and EPD on March 29, 2001

[Greenways] protect plant and animal life within the greenway, they distance relatively impervious surfaces from rivers and lakes, they provide space for best management practices (BMPs), they provide effective flood control, and they control erosion. Greenways provide a sanctuary within which living tissue live and multiply in space and time. Some of the species living within greenways are endangered or threatened. Greenways protect riparian corridors from human activities such as development, recreation, and resource extraction. This in return protects species that may be in danger of becoming extinct. Since greenways are natural buffers, the living and non-living tissue function together as an ecosystem which is healthy for humans and the environment. [riparian: pertaining to the bank of a watercourse]

Treating appropriate segments of the South Fork creek as a protective greenway that is out of bounds to development of a recreational trail will protect the creek’s riparian corridor, and protect wildlife species that presently live in those segments.  This is preservation  -  a major goal of Protect Morningside Greenspaces.

Urban wildlife habitat is a scarce resource that should be carefully protected.  No type of development that could impact it should proceed without benefits that heavily outweigh preservation.  SFC can accomplish its goals without a connected recreational trail and without disturbing segments of the creek corridor that protect wildlife.

SFC would allow on leash dog walking along the proposed trail (off leash dog activity would be a violation of municipal ordinances).  Practically, it would be impossible to prevent dog walking and nearly impossible to prevent users from illegally letting dogs off leash along such a trail.  Dogs significantly increase the negative impact of trails on wildlife.

The City of Atlanta should take advantage of its ownership of segments of the South Fork corridor that provide protective wildlife habitat by preventing all development including trails.  Do trails really matter?  Can a dirt hiking trail harm wildlife populations?  Let’s look at some scientific studies.

Hiking Trails Drive Away Wildlife

South Fork, between Morningside Nature Preserve and Johnson Taylor Park is a narrow riparian zone that provides habitat for a range of wildlife.  Neighbors report seeing deer, opossum, coyotes, barred owls, ducks, pileated woodpeckers, downy and redheaded woodpeckers, red tailed hawks, geese, chipmunks, snapping turtles, box turtles, blue birds, goldfinch, great blue heron, beaver, foxes, raccoons, river otters, and fish.

Scientific researchers have conducted studies of the impact of trails and the presence of dogs in green spaces including narrow riparian zones.  A review of several such studies along with abstracts and citations is found in the recent paper “The Impact of Recreational Trail Development for Human and Domestic Dog Use on Urban Wildlife Habitat.”  The studies led to several conclusions including the following:

• Even quiet recreational development such as a trail generally results in decreased abundance of wildlife.


• South Fork in the Morningside segment is a narrow riparian zone in which the stream and wetland ecosystem are vulnerable because of the small scale.  Fragmentation of habitats is likely.


• There is growing evidence that quiet, nonconsumptive recreation may not be compatible with biodiversity protection.


• The paper concludes with the following recommendations:


• Before approving a trail, require wildlife impact studies suitable for EPA/EPD review.


• Give weight to neighbor knowledge of wildlife populations and the negative impacts they have witnessed when access has been increased.

Consider that some segments may be inappropriate for trail development leading to a need to abandon the concept of a connected system of trails.
Set aside sensitive South Fork segments as “no trail wildlife preservation zones,” including the segment between Zonolite and Morningside Nature Preserve (this segment has beach zones flanked by narrow areas containing animal nests and burrows that are sensitive to dog activity).  By the same token, access to Johnson Taylor Preserve should not be increased.

An additional study by the University of New South Wales found that scents left by dogs (even on leash) tend to drive away wildlife.

Connected Trail is Not the Path to Preservation

SFC has not shown that building trails aids in preservation of wildlife habitats in environments like the South Fork segment from Morningside Nature Preserve to Johnson Taylor Park.  Nor should benefits to human recreation automatically be assumed to trump potential negative impacts on quality of life and wildlife habitats.

Should the trail be developed in this segment, we fear that dogs would dig up small animal burrows and destroy nests, the red-tailed hawks and owls would not have enough prey, the ducks would be frightened away from their mating and nesting grounds, and we would find a general lessening of animal and bird populations along the creek corridor.  Significant evidence predicts these setbacks to preservation.

Let’s not let it happen.

How Not To Assess Neighbor Reaction To A Project

Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy Sell A Vision

When Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy announced the meetings comprising their “visioning” process, many neighbors attended with the understanding that Park Pride intended to deal objectively with neighborhood input on the SFC connected trail proposal.  Several hundred hours of neighbor time was invested in this process based on these assurances.  We should have realized that the made up verb “visioning” meant sharing and selling the vision, not vetting it.

As a result of disappointment with the visioning process, we have established Protecting Morningside Greenspaces and this website to provide a forum for points of view that do not buy into the SFC vision for a connected trail.  We do not vilify SFC or Park Pride for sticking to their beliefs, but we do object to their holding themselves out as speaking for the community.  In our view, they have not been unbiased, objective or fact-based in their proposition.  Here are some of our criticisms of the visioning process.

Divide and confuse.  Starting with the first meeting, Park Pride split those attending into several groups to collect views.  They said the meeting would conclude with the groups coming together to share those views with everyone.  The final sharing phase was cancelled, possibly because there was unanticipated strong opposition to the connected trail proposal.  Most of the moderators of the groups seemed to be strongly in favor of the trail plan, but their inconsistent understanding of the proposal was sometimes confusing.  For example, one moderator said a benefit of the lengthy connected trails would be that kids could bike between neighborhood areas, while another moderator assured her group that the trails would not be for biking.  Not surprisingly, participants found that writing on a map marking did not provide a reasonable vehicle for making a logical position statement.

Force opponents to choose between two unacceptable alternatives.  In employing this annoying tactic, moderators or an SFC field agent would confront a person expressing opposition with a question such as: “Which would you rather have, parking along your street or a new parking lot across from the entrance to your cul-de-sac?”  This approach insulted our intelligence.

Selective response to non-central issues. SFC and Park Pride have modified their proposal in aspects that avoid dealing with major objections, to make a show of responding to neighbor input.  Sometimes these modifications actually increase the intrusion of the recreational trail, such as by building parking lots or promising to shore up creek banks where the trail would promote erosion.

Public criticism of opponents as a group.  At the public meetings, SFC personnel characterized opponents as not representative of the community, as “intimidating” others into opposition, and as taking an anti-community “not in my back yard” position.”  These comments are not true of the opposition as a whole, as is reflected in this Protect Mornside Greenspaces web site.

Ignoring and Selective Editing of Opposing Views.  Park Pride undertook to summarize the results of the public meetings on its website, and in doing so left out most detailed opposition viewpoints.  Comments hand-written on maps were often unintelligible on the published map images. Emails sent to Park Pride by opponents containing reasoned opposition were not published.  A request to post a research paper on the impact of trails on wildlife was denied by Park Pride.  Not until after the final meeting did Park Pride list verbatim the comments that people wrote on posters that evening.  We note that the contents of the site favorable to the plan were much better organized.

Burying web site comments.  Park Pride did not provide a readily visible place at their web site for comments on the SFC proposal.  Park Pride provided only one area for the public to post comments.  One had to find the section devoted to individual maps that were marked up at the public meetings, and make a comment on a particular map.  This effectively buried important comments and made them inaccessible to all except those willing to open virtually every page on the web site.  We wonder if SFC is counting on their target funding sources not digging down to the individual map level to discover the level of opposition to their plans?

Celebrating Urban Footpaths

Sidewalks link Morningside Nature Preserves and Parks

By Jeff Young

Sometimes, Melinda and I have an urge to hike in the woods, to enjoy a view of nature and a sense of animal and plant habitat.  More often, we like to walk through neighborhoods, gardens, or commercial areas vibrant with community and architecture reflecting the creativity and craftsmanship of humankind.  Fortunately, Morningside/ Lenox Park has plenty of both kinds of opportunities and is within a short distance of many others in surrounding parts of the Metro area.

For those who seek a longer walk, Morningside offers the best of both experiences.  Sidewalks along pleasant streets connect a number of parks and nature preserves in our neighborhood.  Map 1 below illustrates a grand circle starting and ending at the parking lot adjacent the Georgia Power substation on Lenox Road.  This route is approximately 5.5 to 6 miles long, and traverses trails and sidewalks* along:

• Morningside Nature Preserve (MNP)


• Wellbourne Drive  (*0.4 mi. no sidewalk, shown in yellow)


• Wildwood Road


• Lenox-Wildwood Park


• Berkshire Park


• Sunken Garden Park


• E. Sussex Road


• Berkshire Road


• Beech Valley Road


• Johnson/Taylor Nature Preserve and Park (JTP)


• Pasadena Avenue


• Meadowvale Avenue


• Noble Park/Homestead Park/Hickory Grove Park


• Homestead Avenue


• Johnson Road


• Lenox Road

What a great trek for a pleasant Fall morning!

New revenues required to make this walk possible: $0

One of the many reasons to oppose the South Fork Conservancy trail plan is its high cost. (See post entitled “Trails Are Not Free.”)

Construction of new connections required for this walk: None.

Another reason to oppose the SFC plan is its insistence on a connected trail, when the connections already exist!

Development of greenspace and new disruption of wildlife habitat to enable this walk: None.

In contrast, the SFC plan would of necessity cause some damage to urban forest and wildlife habitat.

Give Wildlife A Chance

By Jeff Young

My son recently visited the Amazon jungle in Ecuador, booking a spot on a series of guided hikes into the jungle.  On arrival, he and his friend found that they were the only ones signed up.  The guide said they might see wildlife, like monkeys and sloths, but there was no guarantee.  What great luck, to be able to go into the jungle with only three people, rather than a large, noisy group.

Over a couple of days of hiking, they saw not a single monkey.  Why not?  I suspect the constant parade of people along the trails caused the animals to move deeper into the jungle.  This would be consistent with the studies reported in another post on this site, in which researchers found that wildlife densities decreased near trails.

So what happens along the South Fork of the Peachtree Creek in the narrow corridor of wildlife habitat when a trail is built and traversed by people and their dogs?  There is nowhere for the animals to go except along the creek.  The fox in the photo above now lives near Robin Lane.  People near the Johnson-Taylor park say they used to have foxes, but no more since usage rates increased following the construction of an access bridge.  That’s when the creek beaches were improperly adopted as a “destination” off leash dog run.  The foxes had to move on.

If the SFC plan results in a 32 mile continuous trail along the entire creek, the animals will go ___?____.

Trails Are Not Free !

By Jeff Young

1. How much will the South Fork Conservancy Trail Plan Cost?


2. Where will the money come from?

 

These are two of many key questions SFC has not answered prior to seeking ommunity support for its proposal.  Don’t be surprised if the answers are:

1. a lot; and


2. taxes, neighbors passing the hat for upkeep, and foundation grants.

Let’s make some educated guesses about just one of the major expenses required.

Bridges

Many bridges would be required to complete the trail from Cheshire Bridge to Decatur and Tucker.  Three bridges would be needed just in the area where the creek runs behind Homestead and Lenox Circle and then crosses under Lenox Road to Robin Lane.  Map 1 below is a portion of a map from the SFC website that I have marked in red to show the approximate positions of bridges at crossings proposed by SFC (existing bridges are in yellow):

[caption id="attachment_358" align="alignnone" width="300"] MAP 1 - Trail Proposal Showing Needed Bridges[/caption]

Where the two bridges would cross the creek itself near Homestead and Robin Lane, the creek has cut deep canyons.  The third bridge would be required to span the tributary stream that runs along Lenox Road.  That stream also floods, but has a smaller flow volume.  The canyon walls are reflected in the close contour lines on Map 2 below. When it rains hard in DeKalb County, the water rushes through these canyons, carrying debris and logs and rising to flood Lenox Road.  These flash floods are dangerous! When you are walking by, take a look yourself from the Lenox Road bridge downstream, and think about how you would get out if a wall of water suddenly appeared heading toward you.

Map 2 below shows the proposed location of the Robin Lane bridge.  The creek is marked in blue, and sewers on both sides of the creek are marked in pink.  The trail would run west to east behind the Morningside Place condominiums, paralleling the newer sewer line that was installed several years ago.

[caption id="attachment_359" align="alignnone" width="229"] Area of Needed Bridge Near Robin Lane[/caption]

We understand from residents that the condominium association sold a trail easement to the city in addition to the sewer easement (which by itself does not allow access for a hiking trail).  The trail runs into private property (white space) prior to reaching Lenox Road, and therefore SFC proposes to build a bridge to extend the trail over the creek onto land the city owns on the south bank.  This property consists of steep terrain up to a narrow, flat strip along Robin Lane.  It extends to Lenox Road (not shown), and the city owns another parcel on the south side of the creek on the east side of Lenox Road (not shown).  Another, older sewer runs along the creek on the south side.  This map includes contour lines – the closer the lines, the steeper the hill.

Some of the challenges of bridge building here would be:

• Designing a bridge massive and strong enough so that its foundation would withstand the flood waters, and tall enough so that its deck would not flood.


• Positioning the footers to avoid interfering with the major sewers that run along both sides of the creek.


• Finding room for all this structure within the canyon walls.


• Avoiding massive damage to the creek banks during construction.


• Figuring out how the massive footers could be placed so as not to channel flows in a way that would increase bank erosion during flooding.


• Constructing huge bridges without significant damage to wildlife habitat in the narrow wetland corridor.

What do we mean by a massive bridge?  Let’s look at the suspension bridge that was built in the Morningside Nature Preserve(MNP).  First, note that this bridge was built where the creek has a relatively flat flood plain rather than steep canyon walls, so the same volume of water would not have the same velocity hitting the bridge.  By the way, we have reports of water rising up to the bottom of the stairs of this bridge.

[caption id="attachment_361" align="alignnone" width="300"] Bridge in Morningside Nature Preserve[/caption]

The MNP bridge is 140 feet long (I measured it).  The bridge deck along is 100 feet, the width of my lot.  The pylons are pretty obviously planted deeply in the stream bed, and the cables are anchored in large, mostly buried concrete blocks positioned up on the banks.  The bridge is a beautiful piece of engineering and design.

The cost?  According to a city official, over $200,000 for one bridge.

Who paid for it?  The official said the cost was split between City of Atlanta funds and the PATH Foundation.

Common sense suggests that the new bridges over the main creek would have more rigorous structural requirements and would be more expensive.  That means that “connecting” trails from this area to other segments of the project would likely require $400,000 to $500,000 up front for these bridges.  But that is the tip of the iceberg.  I count 44 crossings along the length of the SFC trail plan.  Perhaps a handful of these already have bridges.  That total does not include the existing bridges I know of in the MNP, Johnson Taylor, and along Medlock Trail.

Do You Trust Politicians Who Don’t Tell You What a Project Costs?  Do You Trust That a Project Will Come In On Budget When They Do Tell You?  Let’s Require the Same Stewardship of Our Money Here.

The SFC Proposal is Expensive!  

Let’s look at the impact if SFC snares a major foundation grant for this project.  It is always tempting to think that whenever a foundation kicks in, the city should snap up a bargain.  But these are lean times, especially for local governments.  The city’s share is money that would not be available for other purposes.  By the same token, the foundation money would not be available for other purposes, and some grants might help the city accomplish really high priority goals, for example in the schools.  Morningside has more parks than most areas of the city, and even the SFC survey showed that residents are satisfied with their parks.  Building more parks in Morningside should not be a priority for spending.

Turning from construction to examples of longer term expenses, we asked SFC at the public meetings who would maintain the trails and keep them safe.  SFC supporters suggested that nearby neighbors contribute to hire security officers and pay to maintain the trails.  We were not impressed at the idea of people from outside our area coming in and telling us what we need, and by the way we should take on a financial burden lasting long after they are gone.

Some of the SFC folks were involved in the restoration of the Olmstead Parks along Ponce de Leon Ave.  We hear that neighbors have had to contribute regularly to a fund for maintaining those parks.

We cannot count on the city having sufficient funds to patrol and maintain SFC trails.

In summary, SFC is looking to build out a huge project with somebody else’s money, and it will take a ton of cash.  Is this where our taxes and donations should go?