Off Limits: No Public Access Allowed on Proposed Trail Route

The public is prohibited from access to the north side of South Fork Peachtree Creek between Lenox Road and the Morningside Nature Preserve.  A public record contract between the City of Atlanta and the property owner forbids any public access to the trail easement’s narrow corridor until (1) a detailed trail proposal has been reviewed and approved by both the property owner and the City, with input from EPD and EPA, and (2) that trail is completed according to the approved specifications.  Protect Morningside Greenspaces (PMG) reviewed the contract in question after reports of trespassers trying to reach the proposed trail route and evidence of clearing along the route.

Some persons mistakenly think that any public easement allows the public access to the land.  This is wrong.  Easements provide access only where, when and for the purpose specifically described in documents recorded at the Fulton County Courthouse.  Contractual requirements that must be met before any public access in the present case are quite stringent:

“[N]o public access to the Grantor Tract shall be permitted prior to the completion of construction of such trail system. . . . Prior to commencing any land disturbance on the Grantor Tract . . . Grantee [City of Atlanta] shall first provide to Grantor [property owner] the plans and specifications for the trail system for review, comment and approval. . . . Grantee shall not commence any work on the Grantor Tract without first confirming for itself . . . that the plans and specifications as submitted comply with the terms of the Consent Decree, dated September 24, 1998, by and among [EPA, EPD, et al.] . . . and the Greenway Acquisition Plan . . ..”

PMG has called upon the City to honor its contractual obligations and to take actions as needed to prevent illegal public access to the proposed trail route.  PMG looks forward to a full and transparent public review of detailed plans and specifications for any trail proposal if any such proposal is submitted.

PMG believes that some segments of proposed connected trails along South Fork Peachtree Creek should be left undeveloped.  Informal trail blazing before a full public process damages the watershed and wildlife habitat that will remain if trail proposals are denied.  If a trail proponent seeks to make it easier to gain approval of a formal trail proposal by improperly creating an informal trail, proof of that action should be grounds for denial of that group’s formal proposal.

Public record documents mentioned here can be viewed at “Sources.”

Protect Morningside Greenspaces is is a group of concerned neighbors dedicated to promoting a clear and transparent process for evaluating recreational connected trail plans for South Fork Peachtree Creek – a process that must take into account neighborhood issues and concerns, and rely on fact-based decision-making.  All the members of Protect Morningside Greenspaces are residents of Morningside Lenox Park.

Morningside Place public easement documents

Morningside Place Sewer Easement of 2002:

MPHOA Perman Sewer Easemt 2002

Morningside Place Conservation Easement of 2007:

Easements 2007 Mside Pl to Atl

Map excerpt showing conservation and trail easements:

Morningside Pl Conserv Easement Map 2

 

PMG Discussion of the documents

The following comments are PMG's reading of these public record documents.  You may form your own view by reading the documents above.

The map excerpt shows our reading of the legal descriptions in the Conservation Easement of 2007 granted by Morningside Place condominiums (MPHOA) to the City of Atlanta.  We added the colored borders.

• Conservation: the yellow bordered area is the conservation easement, the purpose of which is to prevent the property owner from developing the area and thus preserving the watershed.


• Trail: the red hatched strip is the trail easement, which is subject to many conditions as explained in part in the post Off Limits.  Note the strip does not extend to the centerline of the creek, leaving a gap in trail rights if the City should ever decide it would like to build a bridge across the creek here.  The trail easement area is exactly the same as the permanent sewer easement, and is much smaller than the area of the conservation easement.  We see the narrow easement for possible trail development as a carefully restricted exception to the "no-development" status of the conservation easement area.

The Permanent Sewer Easement of 2002 (2002 PSE) granted by Morningside Place condominiums (MPHOA) to the City of Atlanta (copy attached as recorded at the Fulton County Courthouse) describes a narrow strip of land in which the City built a relatively new sewer line north of the Creek.   The PSE document contains Exhibit A, a legal description of this strip in which the MPHOA granted to the City a permanent easement to “construct and maintain a sewer line only”; Exhibit B, which lists matters to which the easement is subject; and a survey map.  Significantly, the temporary sewer easement also shown on the survey map does not fall within the legal description of PSE Exhibit A.

The MPHOA's 2007 Deed of Conservation Easement (DCE) (copy attached as recorded at the Fulton County Courthouse) provides use restrictions in an area described in DCE Exhibit A and shown on DCE Exhibit B (a survey map to which we added a yellow boundary representing our reading of the attached legal description in DCE Exhibit A).  The DCE legal description is different from that of PSE Exhibit A.

Please note that Exhibit B shows how the private property lines of both the MPHOA and the Robin Lane homeowners all extend to the centerline of the Creek.

DCE Exhibit D is the Trail Easement Agreement (TEA) which grants to the City an easement for a trail limited to a “Grantor Tract” defined with reference to the PSE (that is, the permanent sewer easement strip described in PSE Exhibit A, which is consistent with the red hatching we added to DCE Exhibit B).  The Grantor Tract, along its entire length, is located away from the centerline of the Creek.  Across from the former Cornish property, the edge of the trail easement is away from  the northern bank of the Creek for all practical purposes.

We do not see in the TEA any grant to the City of a trail easement that would allow building a trail or bridge across MPHOA property outside of the Grantor Tract (permanent sewer easement); in fact, access to the conservation easement area outside the Grantor Tract is expressly prohibited.   Thus, the TEA grants no trail easement that would allow the City to approve a trail between the Grantor Tract and the Creek to link to the former Cornish property by a bridge or otherwise.

We note that the trail easement was acquired after the Cornish property was purchased, without allowing a trail from the Grantor Tract to the bank (or to the centerline) of the Creek.    Of course, keeping a trail away from the bank of the Creek is consistent with the important anti-pollution and anti-erosion goals of the Greenways Acquisition Plan.

Response to SFC Publicity

By Charles Bayless

There is more here than meets the eye.    Anyone with a stake in good government, effective government, and citizen rights should be concerned.

This is not a conservation project.  This is a public infrastructure development project dogged from the beginning by low community support (at least 70% oppose the connected trail plan as revealed in public forums, independent surveys and even the sponsor’s own survey) and questions regarding backing and true intent.  Questions that have been deliberately and effectively avoided.

Is it intuitively obvious that 30 miles of connected trail on a fragile creek is a good thing? Connected trails became popular among urban planners 20 years ago and became baked in to City long range plans.   However, over the past 15 years as connected trails projects have come on line across the nation, it is now possible to test the true impact of connected trails and how well they deliver on basic promises: increase public access, improve community security, enhance conservation, alleviate transportation, etc.  Studies show that connected trails don’t work.  35% of connected trails plans decrease trail usage (Michigan).  They increase crime (DOJ, Philadelphia, Portland, UK).  They have a destructive and disruptive impact on conservation and ecological preservation (State of Colorado, State of Washington, National Parks Service).  They cause declines in property values (Portland).  The list goes on.  (See post: The Answer on Safety ).

In the absence of the promised benefits, it becomes unclear why some external advocacy groups are so committed to driving trails through our neighborhoods.

Neighbors have repeatedly sought an open, transparent, public review of the proposed connected trails plan in order to address these issues.  This is critical because no specific plan has been offered with actual trail locations, budgets, cost estimates, time frames, accountability, security plan, maintenance plan, etc.  All the prerequisites for effective project management in order to avoid unintended consequences, budget overruns and bad outcomes are completely absent.  With little local support and more than 90% of funding known to us coming from unaccountable foundations, government agencies, and businesses who may have a financial stake in the outcome, there is cause for concern regarding this project.  All requests for an objective, transparent public review have been deferred or denied.

One public proceeding was conducted by Park Pride in 2011-12 during which 80-90% of neighborhood residents participating in the four public meetings opposed the connected trails plan.  All of the factual questions above were raised but not addressed.  The review was marred by repeated efforts to hide public opposition and to prevent obtaining objective information of community support, and by Park Pride’s representation of themselves as a neutral party to the process even though it later emerged that they had actually publicly endorsed the connected trails proposal two years before.  It was also marred by South Fork Conservancy representing themselves as a neighborhood group when they indisputably are not.

With the paucity of information released, total project cost can only be guessed at, but given the number of bridges and amenities proposed, an all up capital cost of $1-2 million seems reasonable and is in line with a 20 year old county estimate.  A significant amount of that money will come from taxpayers.

Given what is known today from research elsewhere and the plan as it has been presented, it can be anticipated that 20% of currently undisturbed greenspace land along the narrow South Fork Peachtree Creek corridor will be destroyed or damaged.  We should expect a 100% increase in crime and a 7% decrease in property values.  There appears to be a 35% chance that greenspace access will actually be reduced by a connected trail sold as increasing access.

Nobody objects to improved conservation, improved security, improved property values, improved quality of life, etc.  What is disputed is whether an external public infrastructure construction advocacy group with no accountability should set the terms for what happens in a community, particularly given the factual concerns and the absence of transparency.

The EPA and the regenerative power of nature have given us back a little emerald in the urban landscape.  We face a choice.  Do we want to preserve this oasis or do we want a development group like SFC to serve its own interests at the expense of our neighborhood and community.

Please give good government and good project management a chance by supporting a public review of the connected trails proposal before deciding to believe empty promises from unreliable sources.

Guest Post: A Creekside Neighbor Shares Her Concerns With Councilman Alex Wan

By Christine McGuire

Dear Neighbors, The following is based on an email I sent to Councilman Alex Wan on the subject of the South Fork Conservancy trail plan.

I am a resident of your district and remember meeting you when you first ran for council and were going door to door shaking hands.  I was quite impressed and you got my vote.  I am hoping I can bring your attention to something that is causing my neighborhood a lot of distress.

This is a pet project of former WSB reporter Sally Sears -  the South-Fork Trail Project of South Fork Conservancy (SFC).  This trail would follow along the South-Fork of Peachtree Creek and would be right against people’s homes in many cases.  My neighbors and I have voiced vehement opposition against this project since we became aware of it.  The only support in the neighborhood seems to be coming from people who have financially benefitted from selling property to the city for the project, or those few who just plain support it.  I went to all neighborhood meetings, was on various chain emails and heard nothing but vehement opposition.

The people running the project seem to have run right over the neighborhoods and are hell bent on getting what they want where they want it regardless of the impact on the wildlife, the impact on property values, and whether or not SFC have the right to create the trail where they want to.

I currently live on Lenox Rd at the creek and as the plan now stands a giant bridge would be built behind my house with a trail running up against my property line.  The back of my house is all glass.  I cannot build a fence on this trail because it is being built on a flood plain, and neither can others.  This leaves us all completely vulnerable to easy smash and grab robberies.

No one in this neighborhood asked for this trail and the vast majority do not want it.  It will not make our lives better.  It will not make us more connected.  We currently have 2 wonderful nature preserves that are connected by sidewalks; you can walk along Johnson Rd and Lenox Rd. We all agree this works as is.  It is connected.  We are supposed to be protecting these waterways and cleaning them up, not funding transportation projects along them which will increase pollution and crime and bring down house values in an already fragile housing environment.

My neighbors and my voices went unheard by Sally Sears and her team... we are hoping they won't be unheard by you.  The folks from Park Pride were lovely but were misinformed by SFC. I only found out from a neighbor that SFC was planning on building a bridge into my side yard.  I went and told them absolutely not and now the plan has it right there on the property line.  Tell me how will they build that bridge without crossing into my property during construction, damaging my property and destroying the natural tree canopy that is currently there?

My neighbors and I will be writing to you again.  I am hoping you can do some research into this project and prevent any unnecessary building of bridges and pushing of easement boundaries to build a path so much of the neighborhood is against.  We have invested most of our wealth into our homes.  Please do not let Sally Sears’ ego and need to stamp her name on a legacy project ruin what has been a wonderful in-town neighborhood for decades.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Christine McGuire

Will This Raptor's Prey Be Driven From the Creek By A Trail?

This beautiful Red-Tailed Hawk posed for me between Robin Lane and the South Fork Peachtree Creek on January 21, 2013.  The trail proposed by South Fork Conservancy along Robin Lane would disrupt its habit and that of its prey, as explained in the post Wildlife and Environmental Preservation vs. Recreational Trail Development.

SFC should not disrupt this section of the creek with a trail because

• The trail and its use would harm wildlife habitat


• The trail and its use would harm the creek watershed


• We already have trails within a short walking distance from Robin Lane


• The cost of trail, bridges, and perhaps stairways would be prohibitive. See Trails Are Not Free !

Connected Trails Boondoggle: Expensive, Dangerous, Harmful, Ineffective, Opposed

South Fork Conservancy, an outside special interest group, is pursuing your tax dollars to spoil miles of undeveloped stream corridor along the South Fork of Peachtree Creek with connected trails.  Here’s how the SFC plan fails to meet even minimal common sense requirements:

·         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 $1.8 million

·         Dangerous – A robust body of data highlights the increase in both crime and safety issues arising from such connected trails. 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 19 robberies per year on the connected trail in northern Morningside.^*

·         Harmful – Studies show that recreational connecting trails materially harm wildlife conservation and ecological preservation.  The data leads us to expect extraordinary harm given the constricted space available for SFC’s proposed trails and the stream corridor’s already threatened ecological condition.  Wildlife populations can be expected to decline by 50-75% and ecological degradation increase by at least 50% (social trails).

.        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 measurable impact on community health.

·         Opposed – Neighborhood opposition to the SFC recreational connected trail plan has been well documented. There is hardly any objectively documented local support from either residents or commercial businesses for SFC’s plan.  Documented opposition to the recreational connected trail plan ranges from 68-90%.

PMG does not oppose all trails.  However, PMG believes that trail proposals should be adopted only after a thorough and transparent process demonstrates community support, a positive impact on preservation, and financial reasonableness.  No such process has been required for the trail proposal of SFC, which has yet to issue detailed plans or a detailed budget. This PMG web site contains research explaining how trail development impacts wildlife and the incidence of crime along trails, as well as the methodology and results of an auditable survey of impacted Morningside neighbors.

For more information on the points of failure summarized above, see the following posts on this PMG web site:


Connected Trails and Safety – An Answer

Trust and accurate communication

PMG Responds to the Park Pride Visioning Report

Wildlife and Environmental Preservation vs. Recreational Trail Development

Trails Are Not Free!

Frequently Asked Questions About the SFC Plan

* - Increasing non-residential usage of parks as a predictor of crime is well documented:  See US Department of Justice Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks.  Per DOJ research park and community crime is associated with increased access, increased non-residential use, increased community permeability and absence of effective policing.