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.
