Protect Morningside Greenspaces: December 2012

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,⁷we 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.

Protect Morningside Greenspaces

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Sources

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

PMG Responds to the Park Pride Visioning Report

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