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.