Tree planting in Sydney Marcus Park

Trees Atlanta, Boy Scouts of America, and Morningside Lenox Park with close involvement of neighborhood residents Pierce Pape (Pack 17) and Stephanie Coffin, sponsored and delivered a neighborhood tree-planting event this past weekend which includes trees planted on Cumberland and trees mulched in Sydney Marcus Park, along with plantings along Amsterdam and Adair in Virginia Highland. In all, more than a hundred trees were planted and mulched.

It was great weather and great participation from everyone in the neighborhood.

Below are some pictures of the event at Sydney Marcus.

South Fork Conservancy change of leadership

Just confirming some news that had been rumored for a while. Sally Sears has left her position as Executive Director of South Fork Conservancy, though she remains on the board. Her position is filled by Barry Martin. He was most recently Georgia State Director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The MLPA Parks will be seeking to meet with him in the next month or so to see if we can get a reset with South Fork Conservancy. It would be ideal if we can get them to move away from an adversarial position against the neighborhood and get them focused on the conservation activities we endorse. We'll see.

USGS Topographical maps of our neighborhood

The US Geological Service, (USGS) has been making maps of our country for more than a century. They are just about done digitizing their entire collection of maps, historical and contemporary and they are available for free at USGS Map Locator & Downloader. I thought you might be interested as topographical features play such a key role in conservation and planning.

Here is the map for our immediate area. If you download the 2014 map for the area, you get all the topographical markings as well.

An interesting development

A little history.

In 2012, Park Pride, at the behest of South Fork Conservancy, conducted a Visioning workshop over four months in Morningside Lenox Park. South Fork Conservancy is, despite their name, a public infrastructure development group. They are neither a conservation group nor are they a water resources group. Park Pride initiated the meetings and described their role as that of an independent outsider with no stake in the outcome. It was later learned that they in fact had already endorsed South Fork's plan to construct trails through the neighborhood.

South Fork Conservancy initially made the commitment that they would not proceed without consensus in the neighborhood that supported the idea of trails through the nature preserves and adjacent to private property. The South Fork Conservancy position began to shift as it became clear that not only would there not be a consensus but that there was overwhelming opposition to the plan to construct trails. The opposition was rooted in well researched concerns about environmental degradation, ecological destruction, reduction in quality of life and crime/security. Research which South Fork was unwilling to address.

Bob Kerr, the chairman of the board of South Fork Conservancy, presented the final SFC position as "We are going to build these trails no matter what the neighborhood wants."

All of this history is well documented.

In response to this development threat to the neighborhood, members of Protect Morningside Greenspaces approached numerous government officials in an attempt to 1) make neighborhood views known, 2) seek support for an official, public and transparent decision-making process, and 3) seek support for a fact-based decision-making process. Among those with whom we met was Jeff Rader, District Two Commissioner and Kathie Gannon, District Six. The response from all those with whom we met to these three seemingly reasonable requests was circumspect, evasive and noncommittal. It seemed as if there were deeper waters. We documented that some of the corporate financial supporters of South Fork Conservancy were also donors to various local political campaigns and that these corporations also had major contracts with the City of Atlanta and the County of DeKalb. However, there is a limit to what citizens who work full time can do and our research went no further than that.

Now to the present. As you are probably aware, there have been continuing issues of corruption in DeKalb County government in recent years, culminating in the appointment of a Special Investigator by Interim CEO Lee May. An initial report is now in, finding that

Appalling corruption and a stunning absence of leadership in the DeKalb County government are a disgrace to its citizens and an embarrassment to our state. A pattern of corrosive and widespread misconduct has destroyed public confidence in the integrity of the governing authority.

One of the areas highlighted is illegal gratuities, the payment of gratuities from public funds by County officials for purposes not in the "sphere of the official’s legally delegated powers." Specifically,

There is no authority for a member of the BOC, or a county employee, to make charitable contributions using government funds.

There are five such payments of interest to us, four by Jeff Rader and one by Kathie Gannon.

In 2012, when Park Pride was conducting its Visioning sessions in a fashion non-compliant with its own policies and methodology, Jeff Rader made two payments of $10,000 each to Park Pride, totalling $20,000. He made a second donation of $200 in 2013 and made a donation of $100 to South Fork Conservancy in 2014. In total, Jeff Rader's office made $20,300 in contributions to two external advocacy groups who he knew at the time were acting against the wishes of his constituents.

The fifth payment was made by Kathie Gannon, with whom we also had met. Gannon was also the recipient of corporate donations to her campaign from the same companies who were funding South Fork Conservancy. Gannon's office made a donation of $6,000 to Park Pride in 2013.

The Report of the DeKalb Special Investigator can be found here.

Jeff Rader's response is here

It is interesting the divergence of views between the two documents. For Bowers, this is a straightforward legal issue. County executives are not allowed to make non-commercial payments to third parties, unless it is directly within the scope of their responsibilities. For Rader, it is not about the law so much as whether the payments were beneficial to some goal of the county. Rader does go on and

agree that we need better controls to differentiate between permissible and impermissible use of public funds; rules that if in place, would prevent the abuse that now overshadows DeKalb’s government.

With the dismissal of the Special Investigator by May, Rader indicates that "The Governor has announced a review by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation."

So the saga of DeKalb County misgovernance continues. I thought you would be interested to know that there were additional monetary flows occurring between Park Pride, South Fork Conservancy and the County of DeKalb of which we were unaware and which add to the miasma hanging over the county and its over-responsiveness to advocacy money and its lack of responsiveness to actual residents.

Video of trees initiatives in Atlanta

A presentation from Dr. Rosemary Cox, 11/12/2013, Lorax Lesson: Preserving Atlanta's Urban Tree Canopy.

Some interesting information. Covers The Lorax, tree plantings, invasives, native plants, Atlanta initiatives, etc.

Forecasting accuracy!

As you may recall, in the Park Pride Visioning sessions in 2012 to discuss the impact of connected trails through Morningside Lenox Park, neighbors identified several sources of potential negative consequences. Research was prepared around all of those issues and brought to the Visioning Sessions for discussion. The principle areas of predicted negative impact were Ecosystems, Environment, Quality of Life, and Safety.

With regard to safety, the research we found indicated that increased trails were associated with increased crime and that a primary mechanism for this increase was via permeability. Permeability has to do with the degree to which a neighborhood is easily accessible to non-residents as well as the volume of non-residents circulating in the neighborhood in any given time period. The higher the volume of non-neighbor circulation in the neighborhood and the greater the number of points of ingress and egress to a neighborhood, the higher the associated crime rates. More trails means more permeability.

Based on that research we forecast that any established residential areas opened up via new trails would experience an increase in crime. We made this forecast in the Park Pride sessions and in presentations to the City, to DeKalb County and to the MLPA.

South Fork Conservancy rejected all research predicting negative impacts on ecosystems, environment, quality of life, and crime (safety?), indicating that they would proceed with building connected trails regardless of neighborhood concerns and research evidence.

The one geographical location where South Fork did not receive strong pushback was at the confluence area around the western end of Lindridge Martin Manor where it abuts I-85. Using mitigation funding from the Department of Transportation, South Fork Conservancy built two trails in the confluence area, adjacent to the Lindridge Martin Manor neighborhood.

It now appears that there has been a sharp spike in rates of crime in Lindridge Martin Manor subsequent to the opening of the new trails, a spike that exceeds the crime levels in surrounding neighborhoods. This issue is now in front of APD’s Zone 2 to try and figure out how to address. There are no ready and apparent solutions.

It is regrettable that neighbors in Lindridge Martin Manor are bearing these difficult consequences. We advocated many times to Park Pride, to South Fork Conservancy, to the City Department of Parks, and to DeKalb County that all decisions around trails ought to be guided, not by good intentions and persuasive advocacy, but by evidence-based decision-making. It was such an approach that led us to forecast that there would be an increase in crime wherever the trails might be built. The subsequent crime increase at Lindridge Martin Manor validates our evidence-based approach. Our research and forecasts were accurate. We must continue to bring these facts to the attention of decision-makers to ensure that other neighborhoods do not bear similar consequences as a result of connected trails.

Question about any ecological or environmental benefits to heirloom plants

We have native plants and invasives. Native plants almost always have a superior beneficial impact on the local environment and ecosystem in terms of food for urban wildlife, diversity of life, reduced water consumption and water runoff, etc. Separate from the native versus invasives distinction, I wonder whether there is any observable urban wildlife benefit between contemporary pants versus heirloom plants. I have heard of heirloom apples, potatoes, tomatoes, and roses and I am sure there are many other forms. In fact, I saw heirloom tomatoes in the local grocery store just the other day. In my brief reading on heirloom plants, while there is acknowledgement of the benefits arising from their fitness for local circumstances based on their evolutionary history, I am not seeing any discussion about whether there is a environmental or ecological benefit. I assume that heirloom plants may put less stress on the environment by being more resilient in the face of weather variation and may require less water but I wonder if that is correct. Anybody know?

It takes a forest: How intown development puts Atlanta’s tree canopy at risk

It takes a forest: How intown development puts Atlanta’s tree canopy at risk by Layla Bellows.

Within the 133 square miles that constitute the city proper, this is no trick of the eye. The tree canopy covers almost half of the city—47.9 percent to be precise—according to an assessment released in 2014 by the Atlanta Tree Conservation Commission and Georgia Tech. Using satellite imagery to determine coverage down to the neighborhood level, the researchers confirmed that Atlanta has the country’s densest urban tree canopy. Without an oceanfront or mountain chain or broad river flowing through downtown, Atlanta’s most distinctive natural feature is its trees. Despite stringent ordinances aimed at protecting those trees, our canopy faces a paradoxical new threat: renewed interest in urban living. Population growth within the city and a surge in denser development may represent eco-friendly shifts from Atlanta’s car-centric sprawl, but those trends are paired with infill development that puts trees—especially older, taller “overstory” trees that form the canopy—at risk and reduces space to plant replacements. - See more at: http://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/it-takes-a-forest-how-intown-development-puts-atlantas-tree-canopy-at-risk/#sthash.4Zmps3dS.PAjaRDGi.dpuf

Read the whole thing.

Morningside trail development funding removed from City budget

A couple of months ago, we became aware that there were two requests for funding included in the City budgeting process, both related to trail development (through public and private properties) in northern Morningside. One request was for a million dollars and the other was an open-ended request. These apparently were long standing requests for funding. Given the overwhelming public opposition in Morningside Lenox Park to these proposed trails, expressed in Park Pride's Visioning process in 2012, we were surprised and alarmed.

We immediately went through the MLPA to get those funding requests removed from the City budgeting process. But having been unaware that those requests had been out there for some years, we were concerned that perhaps other funding requests might be lurking in the darker corners of the budgeting process, and in particular, concerned that requests might have been included in the finalized list of projects to be covered by the recently passed public infrastructure maintenance bond.

We now have confirmation from our City Councilman, Alex Wan, that there are no funds anywhere in the City budget for development of trails in Morningside Lenox Park. He also advised that he is aware of the community opposition and that the issue remains on his radar screen.

Deer in our midst

No this is not from out in the countryside. This is City of Atlanta, Morningside Lenox Park. The primary deer herd in our neighborhood resides in Zonolite but they migrate up and downstream for food and can be seen in backyards along the riparian corridors , in Johnson-Taylor Nature Preserve and in Morningside Nature Preserve. A trail construction group have been active in Zonolite this spring and the disruption appears to have unsettled the herd. Sadly, two stags were struck and killed on our neighborhood roads in the timeframe when path work was being done.

We continue working to contain the public infrastructure development which threatens our remaining greenspaces and urban wildlife and are making some progress. It is hard to estimate the size of the herd but based on various reports from around the neighborhood, I am guessing there are at least a half dozen deer in our midst and possibly more.

This picture was taken by a neighbor from their back porch, Spring 2015.

Click to enlarge

Urban wildlife means . . .

Perhaps we need to update our street signage.

Sally, out for her morning walk with Daisy, approached Johnson Road from Beech Valley. Out of the corner of her eye she saw an animal cavorting in a neighbor's yard. As she turned to observe more closely, it walked out of the yard and casually crossed the street. Not a cat, dog, fox or coyote. She turned to a fellow pedestrian, also watching. "Was that an otter?" A slow nod of the head accompanied by a look of disbelief.

The challenge is to find a nuanced balance between enjoying nature and protecting it

From this past February in the New York Times, Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again by Christopher Solomon.

Solomon hits many of the issues that underpins the MLPA Urban Wildlife initiative and its Park Portfolio Approach.

When we think of injuring nature, it is easy to point an accusing finger at mining companies and their strip mines or timber barons and their clear-cuts. But could something as mellow as backcountry skiing or a Thoreauvian walk in the woods cause harm, too?

More and more studies over the last 15 years have found that when we visit the great outdoors, we have much more of an effect than we realize. Even seemingly low-impact activities like hiking, cross-country skiing and bird-watching often affect wildlife, from bighorn sheep to wolves, birds, amphibians and tiny invertebrates, and in subtle ways.

Impacts from outdoor recreation and tourism are the fourth-leading reason that species are listed by the federal government as threatened or endangered, behind threats from nonnative species, urban growth and agriculture.

[snip]

You’d be surprised by the ripples left by a day-hiker’s ramble through the woods. In 2008 Sarah Reed, an associate conservation scientist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, and her colleagues found fivefold declines in detections of bobcats, coyotes and other midsize carnivores in protected areas in California that allowed quiet recreation activities like hiking, compared with protected areas that prohibited those activities.

“That is the kind of difference that you don’t see often in ecological studies,” Dr. Reed said. Dogs, a frequent villain, weren’t the issue for these carnivores; people were, according to her research.

Birds get ruffled, too. Researchers who studied trails around Boulder, Colo., found that populations of several species of songbirds, including pygmy nuthatches and Western meadowlarks, were lowest near trails. “There’s something about the presence of humans and their pets when they go on hikes that causes a bit of a ‘death zone’ of 100 meters on either side of a trail,” said Prof. Rick Knight of Colorado State University. Running, canoeing, cycling and similar activities negatively affected birds in nearly 90 percent of 69 studies that researchers reviewed in 2011. Reductions were seen in the number of nests built, eggs laid and chicks hatched or fledged.

In Connecticut, wood turtles, labeled a “species of special concern” in the state, vanished from one wildlife preserve over 10 years after the area was opened to activities like hiking, researchers found.

[snip]

The uncomfortable fact is, we’re all complicit. In a not-yet-published review of 218 studies about recreation’s impacts on wildlife, researchers found more evidence of impacts by hikers, backcountry skiers and their like than by the gas-powered contingent.

[snip]

A century ago, nature had elbow room. Now, there’s a lot less of it, while recreational activities and nature tourism are growing in most parks, wilderness areas and other protected areas around the world.

[snip]

Conflicts with nature are a result. Still, scientists insist they don’t want to lock people out of nature. Spending time on a mountainside, or hip-deep in a trout stream, is tonic for brain and body. Research bears this out. And people who recreate outdoors are among nature’s most ardent constituents. Without them, “our landscapes would erode even faster than they are now,” said Dr. Heinemeyer, the wolverine researcher.

The challenge is to find a nuanced balance between enjoying nature and protecting it, recognizing that recreation does not necessarily complement conservation or preservation.

[snip]

And in the case of future parks and protected areas, we need to carefully consider the goals for such places and how recreation fits in or doesn’t, because once it is allowed, it is tough to restrict. “Whether or not to allow public access is probably the most important decision that gets made,” Dr. Reed said.

Of course not all wildlife is the same. Some species flee; others habituate. Some populations might be healthy enough to withstand disturbance; others, too fragile. We now know recreation is having impacts in ways that we hadn’t imagined. We must plan accordingly.

National groups focusing on Urban Wildlife

Dr. Marzluff kindly responded to my email with several sources of information. Two are national organizations which might be of assistance. They are:

The Urban Wildlife Working Group

and

Biophilic Cities

I haven't yet looked through them but they appear to have a lot of information likely to be pertinent to our efforts. I highlight items as I come across them. If anybody beats me to it, please make a comment.

Thanks

Birdland

A stimulating article from John M. Marzluff, professor of wildlife science at the University of Washington, and a renowned ornithologist and urban ecologist, Birdland. It is worth reading in its entirety but here are some key points.

In London, where the comings and goings of avoiders, adapters and exploiters have been tallied for more than a century, bird diversity has steadily climbed as the city has diversified its land base and improved its health with greener parks, bluer water and cleaner air. In 1900, 25 kinds of bird were known to inhabit the 40 square kilometres of open land that lay within the 25-mile radius managed by the City of London Corporation. In 1975, there were 40 species in this area, including 20 of those present in 1900. In 2012, 60 species called it home. The heterogeneous mix of lands in and around cities begets diversity, as different, albeit tolerant, birds capitalise on the variety of foods and nesting locations that are found close together. Reptiles and amphibians have fared less well – natterjack toads, for example, became extinct in London the 1960s, and poisonous adders and common toads continue to decline.

[snip]

My enthusiasm for wilderness remains intact, but it’s become part of a broader conservation ethic that places equal value on nearby nature. Wondering and learning from our urban ecosystem teaches us to value nature in its broadest sense. In our cities and backyards, we experience how natural processes pay economic, spiritual and biological dividends. Noticing the responses of animals and plants to our actions provides a glimpse into the creative power of natural selection. As our appreciation for nature and the ecological and evolutionary processes that shape it grows from direct experience, our gardens work symbiotically with wilderness to inform our land ethic and conserve the full range of life.

He has a list of actions conducive to fostering diverse bird wildlife in an urban environment.

1. Do not covet your neighbour’s lawn. Devoting less space to mowed and cultivated lawn and more space to diverse plantings encourages bird diversity. Turf, meanwhile, is an ecological disaster that demands our time and energy, requires fertilisers and herbicides, and causes us to waste more petrol than you might imagine.

2. Keep your cat indoors. Free-ranging cats kill one in 10 wild birds, and billions of small mammals. Indoor cats also live longer and less stressful lives than those roaming our neighbourhoods.

3. Make your windows more visible to birds. After death by cat, collision is the leading cause of preventable death among urban birds. Stickers that reflect ultraviolet light (which birds can see) offer homeowners an unobtrusive way to reduce collisions.

4. Do not light the night sky. Birds, especially those that migrate at night, are attracted to the light of buildings. Many die colliding with towers, wires, windows and walls. Turning off lights saves money, power and bird lives.

5. Provide food and nest boxes. By doing so, you can bolster overwinter survival and reproduction, and discover a world of diversity just beyond your windows.

6. Do not kill native predators. Native predators cull the weak and overabundant, and reduce non-native predators that are more dangerous to birds. Celebrate their actions as a sign of a healthy ecosystem.

7. Foster diversity of habitats within cities and the natural distinction among cities. When we resist homogenisation, by respecting regional differences and cultivating distinct neighbourhoods within cities, we support bird diversity. Rather than supporting the same few exploiters, unique cities foster distinctive assemblages of native adapters.

8. Create safe passage across roads and highways. A resilient ecosystem needs more than birds. Wildlife tunnels and bridges can make crossing roads less deadly for those that must crawl. Leaving spaces near highways unmowed can save eggs and nestlings.

9. Ensure functional connections between land and water. Many birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects require access to both land and water. Diverse native vegetation around waterways also provides a natural filter than helps keep our water safe.

10. Enjoy and bond with nature where you live and work. Nurturing wildlife within human environments develops environmental ethics. We become better stewards of the planet when the natural world is a valued part of everyday life.

I have contacted Dr. Marzluff to see if there is any additional research available of if there are any national organizations pursuing this view of urban wildlife.

Urban Wildife and Parks Portfolio Approach

The Morningside Lenox Park Association Parks Committee is in the process of developing an overall plan with two components.

The first component entails a focus on urban wildlife. Given our relatively fixed greenspaces AND all the land represented by residential gardens, what are the things that residents can do to create a more supportive environment for urban wildlife. This can range from garden architecting (trees, bushes, plants), to plant selection, to decisions about manmade habitats such as birdhouses and watering ponds, etc. We are especially interested in integrating what people do in their gardens with what we do with the public greenspaces as well so that the activities are mutually reinforcing.

The second component entails a focus on the portfolio of greenspaces. There is a strong focus at the City planning level to increase access to greenspaces. Given the impact people have on the environment, MLPA Parks Committee is looking at a more balanced approach, referred to as a Parks Portfolio Approach. We are looking at our greenspaces as a portfolio of uses including: 1) Preserves that are relatively untouched by people and therefore representing more of a shelter for urban wildlife, 2) Light Recreational Parks, principally those with trails used for walking and biking, and 3) Heavy Recreational Parks such as those with playgrounds, recreational facilities such as tennis courts, picnic tables, etc. We believe that it makes sense to look at all these uses as a portfolio. You don’t want all of one and none of the others, there needs to be some mix and balance.

We are seeking to balance multiple goals with this overall plan: an environment that enhances urban wildlife, greenspace conservation, neighborhood recreational facilities, sensitivity to the fragility of urban environments and ecosystems, neighborhood engagement with greenspaces (such as trails), neighborhood security, quality of life issues, privacy, traffic impacts, etc. With 7,000 residents, there are many agendas and we are trying to make sure there is something for everyone.

NWF Resources for Urban Wildlife

Three NWF sites with information that might be useful.

Garden for Wildlife including Certified Wildlife Habitats

Creating Bird-Friendly Urban Landscapes: By helping birds, residents of cities and suburbs can contribute to conserving biodiversity by Laura Tangley

NWF Honors America’s Top 10 Cities for Wildlife: "America’s most wildlife-friendly cities are located in every corner of our nation." by Miles Grant – Atlanta is #3.

Atlanta is #3 Wildlife-Friendly City in U.S.

Back on April 2, there was an interview by Celeste Headlee with the head of the National Wildlife Federation's Education and Advocacy Program, Na'taki Osborne Jelks about Atlanta being ranked #3 in the country as a wildlife friendly city.

Here is the interview for your listening pleasure: Atlanta is #3 Wildlife-Friendly City in U.S.

I have contacted Ms. Jelks to see what information the NWF might be able to share with the MLPA Parks Committee as it crafts an urban wildlife centered Park Portfolio approach.

Urban wildlife, songbirds, ecology and economics

From How much is that birdie in my backyard? A cross-continental economic valuation of native urban songbirds by Barbara Clucas, Sergey Rabotyagov, and John M. Marzluff.

From the Abstract:

Human-wildlife interactions in urban areas, both positive and negative, often involve people and birds. We assess the economic value placed on interactions with common native songbirds in two different urban areas (Berlin, Germany and Seattle, Washington, USA) by combining a revealed preference (recalled expenditures on bird feed) and a stated preference approach (determining willingness to pay for conservation or reduction of birds). Residents in both cities purchase bird food, engage in a range of bird-supporting activities and are generally willing to pay a small amount for native songbird conservation. Demographic, cultural and socio-economic factors, as well as specific attitudes towards birds and general attitudes about conservation were found to influence these decisions. This study presents the first attempt at estimating the economic value of enjoying common native urban songbirds and estimates the lower bound to be about 120 million USD/year in Seattle and 70 million USD/year in Berlin.

Another item from within the paper.

On the whole, our results suggest that a sizeable economic value is derived by urban populations from the presence of common, native, “backyard” songbirds. Furthermore, these birds can provide several indirect ecological services for humans such as seed dispersal (e.g., Hougner et al. 2006) and reducing insect pests (e.g., Heyman and Gunnarsson 2011), which if the value were to be estimated, would increase our estimates.

As we think about Morningside Lenox Park as a community encompassing a range of parks and preserves as well as hundreds of acres of gardens, it is worthwhile keeping a broad perspective. Song birds aren't just pretty. They are also part of an economic chain (birdseed purchases) a lifecycle (seed dispersal) and part of the ecological environment ( insect control).

She felt bad because she saw the coyote all by itself

From Coyotes Create Dangers and Divisions in New York Suburbs by Lisa W. Foderaro.

“Ten years ago, it was rare to see coyotes, but they have really exploded on the scene here,” said Capt. Richard Conkin of the Stamford Police Department. He said that starting in March, the animals seemed to become more aggressive. One resident had to fight a “small, scrappy coyote” off with a snow shovel. Another watched as the same coyote chased her shepherd mix to her front door, which she slammed on the animal seconds after her dog made it safely into the house.

Particularly vulnerable are dogs and cats whose owners have installed invisible electric fences, designed to keep the animals from wandering. They trap the pets in while allowing predators unfettered access to the yard.

[snip]

Coyotes, which as long as 75 years ago moved into the eastern United States from the West, are viewed by naturalists as a beneficial part of the ecosystem, because they keep rodents in check. They have been sighted in all 21 counties of New Jersey and every town in Connecticut.

They are now so well established — New York State has an estimated 14,500 breeding pairs — that any effort to reduce the population would be fruitless, officials say.

“They are an intelligent animal and quickly learn how to survive in their environment, whether that’s the Bronx or Clinton County,” said Gordon R. Batcheller, the chief wildlife biologist for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “They are a permanent presence in New York.”

Throughout the region, animal control officers and private trappers work with homeowners and state wildlife officials to capture and euthanize problem or nuisance coyotes. That includes a coyote seen lurking around an elementary school, for example, or one that has preyed on pets in a particular neighborhood.

State officials generally do not allow such coyotes to be relocated because that would merely transfer the problem to another area.

Mostly, the message from wildlife officials is that residents in coyote country need to adapt. “Just like you keep an eye on your kid in the backyard, you keep an eye on your dog,” said Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “It’s not modifying your lifestyle; it’s just common sense.”

Tips for peaceful coexistence with coyotes include keeping dogs on leashes, feeding pets only indoors, hazing coyotes (shouting, waving one’s harms) to prevent their comfort with humans and reporting any bold or aggressive behavior.

Regrettably, common sense is not always in plentiful supply.

And coyotes themselves are not always the root of the problem. Two years ago, Mr. Horton offered his services pro bono when one was loitering outside his children’s elementary school in Hawthorne, N.Y. It turned out a neighborhood woman was feeding it.

“We found pork chops on the snow,” he recalled. “This lady lived right across from the school field, and she was feeding the coyote. Her response was that she felt bad because she saw the coyote all by itself.”

Welcome to the relaunch of the Protect Morningside Greenspaces Site

The original PMG website was established in 2012 to capture information generated from the Park Pride Visioning Process regarding South Fork Conservancy's proposal to build recreational connected trails through Morningside Lenox Park. There was overwhelming opposition from the members of the Morningside Lenox Park neighborhood. Much research was conducted and collected which addressed a variety of claims advanced by South Fork Conservancy and it was felt important to make that information available to the wider community.

Once the Park Pride Visioning Process was completed, the site fell into abeyance and was shut down in early 2015, though with the content archived for later use.

Just three months after the site was closed down, new requests started emerging from members of the Morningside Lenox Park community, in part based on renewed efforts by South Fork Conservancy to push the connected trails through the existing nature preserves, despite a commitment on their part in 2012 to the Morningside Lenox Park Association (MLPA) not to do so.

Based on this renewed activity, the Protect Morningside Greenspaces (PMG) is being resurrected and new content will be added in the coming months.

Much has occurred in the past three years. One of the most important has been the continuing and expanded leadership on the part of the Morningside Lenox Park Association Parks Committee to craft a clear plan for the neighborhood which bridges the conservation concerns of the neighborhood with other important goals such as safety and security, quality-of-life, traffic concerns, etc. as well as City of Atlanta objectives to drive more traffic through the existing greenspaces. This emerging plan, The Parks Portfolio Plan, incorporates an urban wildlife focus and provides guidance for a general approach that optimizes all the important goals as well as provides a methodology for making effective, evidenced-based decisions related to our scarce urban greenspaces. More to follow.

Frequently Asked Questions

Below are some Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) that arose during the Park Pride Visioning sessions and from neighbors regarding the South Conservancy proposal to create a system of recreational connected trails through Morningside. The data is contemporaneous with the completion of the 2012 Visioning process. Scroll down to find detailed answers to each question.

What is this all about?
What is the status of the South Fork Conservancy proposal?
What happens next?
Who is South Fork Conservancy?
What appear to be their goals?
How will they know when they are successful?
What is their plan (details)?
Is there support for SFC’s theory of building lengthy connected trails?
Has this type of plan worked anywhere else?
What is the level of neighborhood support for the South Fork Conservancy proposal?
How do the surveys of neighborhood opinion compare?
Does South Fork Conservancy have a track record for successfully delivering major projects?
What are the normal elements one would expect of a well-managed project?
Does South Fork Conservancy have funding for the plan?
Will tax dollars be used to fund the plan?
How would this plan affect conservation of neighborhood greenspaces?
How would this plan affect traffic and parking issues in the neighborhoods?
How would this plan affect personal and property safety and security?
How would this plan affect quality of life issues in the neighborhoods?
How would this plan affect property values?
How would this plan affect private property, boundaries and privacy?
What issues have neighbors identified as being most important to address?
Who would police the new trail system?
Who would maintain the new trail system?
How would neighborhood usage of existing greenspaces be affected?
Does this plan deal with the off-leash dog problem?
How would wildlife be affected?
What was the Park Pride Visioning process?
What does Protect Morningside’s Greenspaces want?
What’s the big deal? If the overwhelming majority of the neighborhood opposes the plan it goes away, right?
But what about local government, surely they will put an end to an overwhelmingly opposed proposal?
Because of sewer easements, private property, regulations protecting public preserves, and regulations governing public land use in Atlanta’s Greenway Acquisition Plan, there’s no way this plan could proceed is there?
We have too few preserves as it is, why can’t we keep those that we have without turning them into recreational parks?
Is South Fork Conservancy aware of neighborhood opposition to their plan and the reasons for that opposition?
If they are aware of the neighborhood concerns and arguments, why hasn’t South Fork Conservancy sought to respond to those arguments?
If they have been advocating for a recreational connected trail for three years, why hasn’t South Fork Conservancy produced a detailed plan?
Is there a simple summary of the key issues behind South Fork Conservancy’s argument as to why their proposal is a good idea?


What is this all about?

South Fork Conservancy (SFC), a ten person recreational connected trail advocacy group, has proposed that new entrances and new trails be built in order to create a single four mile trail originating in the Cheshire Bridge Road and I-85 area and running next to the South Fork Creek through the northwestern and northern areas of Morningside Lenox Park. They propose a soft surface trail approximately four feet wide. The trail runs through City of Atlanta, unincorporated Fulton, and unincorporated DeKalb. SFC intends ultimately to connect trails along the entire 32-mile length of South Fork Creek from Atlanta to Tucker. On their website, (http://www.southforkconservancy.org/) they call the first section of the 32 mile proposed trail through Morningside Lenox Park the “ Muscogee Trail Plan”.

From Morningside Nature Preserve to Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve, SFC would blaze a largely new trail running between the creek and neighbor’s backyards. In addition to new entrances, widened trails, and new trails, SFC would construct a number of new bridges necessary to span the creek at different places. Many details remain up in the air, for example, placement of bridges, location of new trail entrances in the neighborhoods, parking, the path the trail will follow, long term policing and maintenance, and additional amenities such as dog parks.

South Fork Conservancy retained Park Pride to run a series of four public meetings to present the idea of connected trails as well as elicit neighborhood feedback. The Visioning process has been a near year-long process. Park Pride should be issuing their final report in late August or early September. You will find commentary on the visioning process, the manner in which public input has been handled, and the Park Pride report in this blog.

The South Fork Creek Corridor:
Neighborhood context: 800 homes, 2,400 people, $280m property value, all within walking distance of existing parks
Park context: Mixed jurisdictions, constrained topography, short lines of sight, stable, developed neighborhoods
Current use: Recreational, Preserve, Fallow

Return to FAQ

What is the status of the South Fork Conservancy proposal?

Since their incorporation in 2009, South Fork Conservancy has been involved in creating a couple of trails in the area of Zonolite and near freeway overpasses along Lindberg Drive. Other than that, their primary activity has been to conduct the Park Pride Visioning process.

The Visioning process began under the auspices of Park Pride in October 2011. Park Pride constituted a Visioning Steering Committee consisting of trail advocates, members of the broader Atlanta community and members of the Morningside Lenox Park neighborhood. Some research was performed, some details of the plan were clarified and an informal survey of the broad community (Virginia Highlands, Morningside Lenox Park, Lindridge Martin Manor, etc.) was conducted. Park Pride held four public meetings between April and July to solicit input from those communities most directly affected by the proposed recreational connected trails. They are preparing a final report summarizing the output of the Visioning process and should publish the report in late August or early September, 2012.

In the view of many neighbors who attended the public meetings or Steering Committee meetings, SFC has approached their project with a preconceived notion of what is best for us, without any serious commitment to dealing with neighborhood input. In response to the failure of the Steering Committee to acknowledge and appropriately address neighborhood concerns raised in the process, we formed a group of concerned neighbors to promote a clear and transparent process that takes into account neighborhood issues and concerns, and relies on fact-based decision-making.

Those neighbors have met with Atlanta City Councilman Wan, and with DeKalb Commissioners Katherine Gannon and Jeff Rader. Assurances have been made by all three that there is no proposal currently in front of any of those governments and that nothing will be done without consultation with the neighborhood communities.

Return to FAQ

What happens next?

Park Pride will issue their final report in late August or early September. Early comments by Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy suggested the report would not reflect the majority opposition of the neighborhood (70% opposing the plans as they have been presented). A formal complaint has been made to Park Pride seeking to ensure that the report does actually reflect neighborhood opinion of the proposal.

When the report is released, it should be available for comment from the public at Park Pride’s site. Copies will be distributed to various politicians and agencies in the respective areas (City of Atlanta and DeKalb County).

What happens then depends in part on the contents of the Park Pride report and in part on what South Fork Conservancy elects to do.

Return to FAQ

Who is South Fork Conservancy?

South Fork Conservancy is a ten person 501(c)3 corporation formed three years ago for the purpose of advocating for connected trails, specifically along South Fork Creek. Their board is constituted of people with backgrounds in commerce (real estate law, entrepreneur, construction, retail, Chamber of Commerce), in parks advocacy, and parks services (environmental consulting, landscaping). Some individuals on the board have experience in parks management and park restoration. None of them have experience in creating trail connectivity through established neighborhoods such as is being proposed. This is South Fork Conservancy’s first project. None of the individuals reside in the neighborhoods affected by their plan.

To many, the face of SFC has been Sally Sears, their paid field agent. Ms. Sears has been responsible for most of the community outreach and has been accompanied by Mr. Kerr during the public meetings.

According to the chairman of South Fork Conservancy, Bob Kerr, their original intent was to create a membership based organization but they have not been successful in doing so.

From the IRS Form 990, it is unclear where the funding for South Fork Conservancy’s activities originates. It is known that one institutional backer is MillionMile Greenway which issued South Fork Conservancy a grant in 2011 or 2012. It is unclear whether South Fork Conservancy has raised any money from the Morningside Lenox Park community.

South Fork Conservancy has raised and spent close to $78,000 to date, the bulk of that being compensation to two individuals including their field agent, Sally Sears. 5% of their expenditures have been on trail construction. 0% of their expenditures, as far as can be determined from their IRS Form 990, have been spent on conservation.

Return to FAQ

What appear to be their goals?

South Fork Conservancy’s publicly stated goal is to create a recreational connected trail. Their website, not nearly so specific, lists a number of broadly-stated, high-minded goals which are to

• Identify and protect important historic sites
• Restore the creek’s tree canopy
• Promote access via safe, low-impact trails
• Connect communities and green spaces
• Enhance the values of homes and businesses

And that they seek to accomplish these goals by

• Removing non-native invasive plants • Bringing awareness through access, education & advocacy
• Responding to environmental threats through more eyes on the creek
• Expanding public green spaces

However, in the Visioning process, SFC has focused almost exclusively on creating a recreational connected trail. When asked whether South Fork Conservancy would support conservation projects but without requiring a recreational connected trail, they have indicated that that is not their mission, that their mission is to create a recreational connected trail. This is consistent with the goals of one of the foundations providing financial support to their activities, MillionMile Greenway. The objectives of MillionMile Greenway are “to encourage people to find opportunities for conserving greenspace in their communities. But our ultimate goal is to connect those greenways to create a network throughout Georgia and beyond.”

Contested Claims of Benefits of Connected Trails
From the four public meetings of the Visioning process, it appears that South Fork Conservancy has a single goal which is to build a recreational connected trail along the length of South Fork Creek. They believe (an assumption hotly contested by neighbors based on research they have performed) that there will likely be six potential areas of benefit.

• Conservation will be improved
• Neighborhood security will be improved
• Quality of Life will be improved
• Home values will be unaffected or improved
• Transportation congestion will be improved
• Community health will be improved

South Fork Conservancy contends that these improvements will fall into place when more people use the Morningside greenspaces more intensively via increased trail access and additional trails.

Return to FAQ

How will they know when they are successful?

South Fork Conservancy has not advanced any performance measures associated with their proposal. Apparently they would simply assume that success for all their goals will result from inducing more people to spend more hours on trails. This is a theory of “more eyes on the creek.”

However, that is just speculation. South Fork Conservancy has declined to provide either performance measures or estimates of outcomes. No one knows if park usage would increase ten-fold or a hundred-fold. SFC cannot demonstrate that any goal categories (quality of life, security, property value, etc.) would improve or deteriorate, or by how much.

For a project affecting 800 families, there are no performance measures and no forecasts of likely improvement.

Return to FAQ

What is their plan (details)?

The various permutations of the likely path of the trail, entrances, parking, land acquisition, bridge locations, etc. can be seen (but not necessarily understood) at the Park Pride Visioning site. There is no fixed plan at this point in time and it is unclear if and when a detailed plan with firm details will be prepared by South Fork Conservancy. All that currently exists are a general indication of roughly where the path might be located, where new entrances might be added, etc.

It is possible, but unknown, that South Fork Conservancy may prepare a detailed master plan subsequent to the issuance of the Park Pride report. However, it is possible that there may not ever be a master detailed plan. South Fork Conservancy has emphasized that their preferred project management approach is one of “adaptive management”; dealing with issues as they arise rather than working against a fixed plan with measured outcomes.

Essentially, SFC seeks complete discretionary power to decide what is best for the affected neighbors, unencumbered by neighborhood desires and without any accountability for outcomes.

Return to FAQ

Is there support for SFC’s theory of building lengthy connected trails?

This is difficult to answer absent a clear argument, clear goals, and clear performance measures from South Fork Conservancy. Two literature surveys have been done that look at elements of the South Fork Conservancy proposal (security and conservation impact) and one study has been done attempting to look at the whole argument being made South Fork Conservancy to support their proposal.

Park Pride has produced a report The Correlation of Nature Trails and Crime which was unable to answer the question whether connected trails through established neighborhoods would likely increase or decrease crime.

Resident neighbor Jeff Young has researched the impact of trails on wildlife in the neighborhood and has published Recreational Trail Development Impact on Wildlife. His research indicates substantial and pervasive impact on wildlife from the introduction of trails, particularly those in constrained environments such as in cities.

Resident neighbor Charles Bayless has researched the available facts behind the statements in SFC’s argument and has published The Pros and Cons of the South Fork Conservancy Proposal. His research indicates that for this type of park conversion (converting established parks and nature preserves into recreational hiking trails in close urban environments and established neighborhoods), five of SFC’s nine arguments are wrong based on the available data and four of them are either a matter of opinion or are unsupported by the data (data isn’t available, data is mixed or data is unclear).

Return to FAQ

Has this type of plan worked anywhere else?

South Fork Conservancy has claimed that connected trails have been a major urban planning and park management movement for the past decade in the USA. However, despite repeated requests, they have been unable to provide any examples of a comparable project (conversion of parks and preserves to recreational connected trails through four miles of existing prosperous settled neighborhoods in tightly bounded geography with closed topography, heavy vegetation, short lines of sight, etc.).

It is unknown whether this has simply not been done before at all or whether it has been done and has failed to deliver the anticipated benefits.

A site frequently referenced for support of trails in general is The American Trails Association. While this site has good information, and many dozens of studies/reports about Rails-to-Trails projects, parks as part of urban renewal, trail restoration projects, etc., there is a dearth of factual empirical studies (as opposed to samplings of opinion) and no studies of projects such as is being proposed by SFC – the conversion of nature preserves to recreational connected trails in stable prosperous neighborhoods involving land that is geographically bounded, topographically closed, with fragile ecosystems, short lines of sight, heavy vegetation and prone to flash flooding.

Return to FAQ

What is the level of neighborhood support for the South Fork Conservancy proposal?

There is minimal neighborhood support for the current South Fork Conservancy proposal. The neighborhood opposition at the four public meetings run by Park Pride as part of their Visioning process indicated an opposition level of 60-80%.

In the final meeting, 90% of recorded comments opposed the South Fork Conservancy proposal.

Protect Morningside’s Greenspaces conducted an auditable, neutral survey of the three hundred homes most directly affected by the South Fork Conservancy proposal. With a 29% responses rate, they found that 70% of neighbors opposed the proposal, 20% supported the proposal and 10% required more information or were undecided.

Return to FAQ

How do the surveys of neighborhood opinion compare?

All the evidence generated directly or indirectly through the Park Pride Visioning process indicates that there is a large majority of the residents in the affected communities opposed to the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trail proposal.

In addition to the above data, Park Pride conducted a survey of the Virginia Highland, Morningside Lenox Park and the Lindridge Martin Manor communities. They achieved a 1% response rate and among that 1%, only 17% indicated that they were dissatisfied with the current parks and greenspaces; entirely consistent with the low support level (20%) indicated by the neighborhood auditable survey.

Click to enlarge

Return to FAQ

Does South Fork Conservancy have a track record for successfully delivering major projects?
No. In the three years since it was incorporated, South Fork Conservancy has undertaken no major projects. While there are some members of their board who have worked on parks projects in the past (though none have worked on a nature preserve to recreational connected trails conversion project as they are proposing), South Fork Conservancy as a group have undertaken no significant projects on which to assess their competency.

Return to FAQ

What are the normal elements one would expect of a well-managed project?

Auditors typically look for five elements of good project management – 1) Clarity of scope and objectives, 2) Specificity regarding time and schedule, 3) Accurate estimates of costs and individual accountability, 4) Quality and 5) Risk management.

None of the five elements of are addressed in the current South Fork Conservancy proposal. It is not apparent that South Fork Conservancy has anybody with experience in rigorous project management who can be relied upon to deliver the outcomes to which they might commit.

Return to FAQ

Does South Fork Conservancy have funding for the plan?

No. It does not appear that South Fork Conservancy has any resources banked for the project. Rather, they have expressed the intention of raising funds from foundations as they proceed. Their sources of funding for current activities and their plans for future funding are not transparent.

Return to FAQ

Will tax dollars be used to fund the plan?

Yes, SFC has already received County and Federal grants and taxpayers should assume that SFC will continue to seek government funding for parts of the project. Land acquisition and bridge construction costs, for example, would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. South Fork Conservancy intends to raise the money for such acquisition and construction from foundations. However, under somewhat similar circumstances when the PATH Foundation supported the construction of a bridge in Morningside Nature Preserve, the City of Atlanta ended up footing a portion of the $200,000+ cost of the. Whether SFC is successful in fundraising or to what extent they would lobby for local tax payers to step in and cover costs is not knowable. It is known that they currently intend to build at least three major bridges along the proposed pathway.

Regardless of who pays for the construction cost, it seems reasonably clear that there will need to be tax dollars expended on both trail maintenance and trail policing. South Fork Conservancy has indicated both issues are beyond the scope of their remit and that those costs will have to be borne by the local community in some fashion.

Neighbors should also consider the likelihood of an assessment for upkeep. (See below).

Return to FAQ

How would this plan affect conservation of neighborhood greenspaces?

By constructing trails in greenspaces that are currently fallow and or untrammeled, the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trails plan will necessarily disrupt and reduce existing conservation of wildlife (plants, birds and animals). The only question is how extensive will be the disruption and decline. In addition, there are long stretches of the proposed pathway where the path will have to be constructed in flood plain and on already fragile and unstable stream banks, further negatively affecting conservation. Massive bridges able to withstand recurrent flashfloods would be required, spanning important sewer lines on both sides of the creek.

Resident neighbor Jeff Young has done some initial research (Recreational Trail Development Impact on Wildlife) indicating that the impact, particularly in topographically constrained areas as is characteristic of South Fork Creek, is large. This study reports scientific studies conducted by universities.

The South Fork corridor includes many stretches of wildlife habitat. SFC assumes without proof that providing recreational trails through these protected pockets of urban forest would provide benefits outweighing the negative impact on these wildlife ecosystems. We disagree. Developers of new residential construction, no doubt, see connected trails as a nice amenity when selling units. However, existing and future neighbors, as well as the city at large, benefit from the diversity of birds and other animals sustained by the current preserve system and which would be displaced under the SFC plan.

South Fork Conservancy suggests that the more people use the parks, preserves and greenspaces, the greater will be the community support for conservation. However, neighborhood support for conservation is already high. When asked by Park Pride to list important neighborhood priorities, conservation is already the single largest issue identified by neighbors in Morningside. It is unclear how more people using the trails will translate into greater support for conservation which would then lead to greater achieved conservation.

South Fork Conservancy has been asked to provide an example of a similar case where habitat has been destroyed in order to increase recreational use and which then later led to improved conservation outcomes. They have not been able to provide an example.

Return to FAQ

How would this plan affect traffic and parking issues in the neighborhoods?

Virtually the entire proposed trail is bounded by residential neighborhoods from Morningside Nature Preserve to Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve. To increase access to the proposed trails necessarily requires additional trailheads and entrances within the neighborhoods leading to increased volume of vehicular traffic and parking issues at any of the proposed trailheads and entrances.

In 2005, a bridge was constructed in Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve to improve access for neighbors to the preserve. This had the unintended consequence of increasing the volume of people using the nature preserve by 300% with most of that increase arising from people driving in (rather than neighbors increasing their usage) in order to use the preserve as a dog park. This has created both traffic issues on the access streets as well as parking congestion issues at the trailhead.

As a specific example, the proposed trailhead at Robin Lane raises parking, traffic, and pedestrian safety issues. A pedestrian crossing would be in the middle of a dangerous curve on Lenox Road through which cars travel at high speed. Parking along Robin Lane (a short, dead-end street) and the congestion of cars entering, turning or driving around the cul-de-sac would significantly change the character of the neighborhood.

Return to FAQ

How would this plan affect personal and property safety and security?

It is unclear. Park Pride commissioned a research report (The Correlation of Nature Trails and Crime) which was ultimately unable to provide a definitive answer as to whether increased usage of topographically closed trails with short lines of sight and high vegetation would increase or decrease assaults or property crimes (theft).

South Fork Conservancy has claimed that the experience of converting abandoned land to parks (urban renewal) projects or park restoration projects, involving large open-space parks, would be transferable. In those instances (urban renewal and existing open-space park restoration), it is common, but not consistently the case, that personal and property crime rates decline from high pre-existing rates. However, there is no reason to believe that experiences from such dramatically dissimilar parks transfer to those along South Fork Creek (where crime is presently low). South Fork Conservancy has not been able to provide any examples of instances where converting nature preserves in prosperous neighborhoods with similar topographies to those in Morningside have actually led to a reduction in property or personal crime rates.

In addition, as has been lately illustrated by repeated car and home burglaries in Johnson Estates, the police are highly dependent upon neighbors alerting them to suspicious persons in the neighborhood. Currently most streets support traffic primarily from residents as they typically are not through roads between major arteries. Additional trail entrances embedded in the neighborhoods will attract destination traffic (as has occurred at Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve), making it that much more difficult to identify suspicious persons.

Finally, the additional traffic poses hazards to neighborhoods which are heavily populated with young children.

Return to FAQ

How would will this plan affect Quality-of-Life issues in the neighborhoods?

Quality-of-life issues cover all those infractions of city ordinances which fall short of a major crime. These include off-leash aggressive dogs, alcohol use, drug use, bonfires, after curfew park usage, noise, littering, off-path activities (cross country bicycling, paint-balling, etc.) and other such activities. While most of these represent nuisance issues, they also can result in substantial injury or loss of life (bonfires and 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. 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.

Currently no parties to the South Fork Conservancy proposal discussions have been able to identify how to avoid increasing Quality-of-Life issues for the neighborhoods.

Return to FAQ

How would this plan affect property values?

Unclear. When Park Pride commissioned a study of recreational connected trail impacts on crime, (The Correlation of Nature Trails and Crime) they ended up examining the impact on property values as well. What they found was that there were virtually no studies that examined the impact of trails on property values on an objective measured basis and there were none that examined property values in the context of preserve conversion to recreational trails in prosperous neighborhoods. The single study that used objective data (rather than opinions), found that neighbors living within two blocks of a park with a new connected trail suffered property value declines of 7% but that those beyond two blocks might have experienced a property value benefit.

Return to FAQ

How will this plan affect private property, boundaries and privacy?

Long stretches of the creek provide only a very narrow corridor and no real latitude for the trails. In those areas, the proposed trails directly abut private property. South Fork Conservancy and Park Pride are both suggesting that owners erect fences or other barriers. In some places these are less than feasible and there is concern about intrusions into private property either by walkers taking short cuts, off-leash dogs, by walkers picking flowers and fruit, etc. This is an already existing problem along some sections of the creek and the proposal will make the issue much more common. It can be expected that numerous property owners will experience a loss of privacy and or have to incur the expense of fencing their property to shield it from accidental or inconsiderate intruders. But where property lines run down the center of the creek, fencing is impossible.

Return to FAQ

What issues have neighbors identified as being most important to address?

In the first public meeting to present the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trails proposal, Park Pride conducted what was described as a SWOT analysis. As part of that exercise, neighbors identified Conservation and Quality-of-Life (rule enforcement in the parks and preserves) as the two primary concerns with all other issues being distant priorities. Increased park access was scarcely mentioned at all.

Return to FAQ

Who would police the new trail system?

Currently there is nothing in the proposal addressing security or rule enforcement. Both Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy have confirmed that it is their expectation that Atlanta Police Department will not be able to provide services to address any increase in security issues in the parks and trails.

Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy have suggested that neighbors might need to form neighborhood security patrols or that neighborhood groups might wish to raise funds to pay for off-duty police patrols.

Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy appear to have ignored the requirement of Atlanta’s Greenway Acquisition Plan (Approved in an Agreement with both the EPA and the EPD) that “The provision of appropriate and adequate safety and security measures will be the responsibility of the entity that develops the public access facility(s).” Section 11.7.4 (page 11-20). SFC has shared no plans for continued safety and security of the trails.

We therefore perceive SFC’s focus to be on fundraising and construction, without much concern over the long term success of the project.

Return to FAQ

Who would maintain the new trail system?

Currently there is nothing in the proposal addressing maintenance. Both Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy have confirmed that it is their expectation that there will be limited capacity on the part of the City to provide any sort of routine maintenance of the parks, bridges and trails.

Park Pride and South Fork Conservancy have suggested that neighbors might wish to raise funds to pay for routine maintenance. This was the solution to the Olmsted Park restoration project, a project in which a couple of South Fork Conservancy board members were involved. Neighbors around Olmsted now voluntarily pay an annual fee for upkeep of the restored park.

The SFC plan is for neighbors to determine how to provide maintenance for the new trails.

Return to FAQ

How would neighborhood usage of existing greenspaces be affected?

Unclear. A study in Michigan indicated that 35% of recreational connected trails projects resulted in reduced trail usage. It is unclear from the study why there was reduced trail usage but it probably relates to the second frequent outcome from recreational connected trail conversions – user homogenization.

It is common, though statistics are not available to fully quantify it, for recreational connected trail projects to result in displacement of diverse users and replacement by mono-usage. Specifically, diverse local users are displaced and are replaced by one of three categories of users predominating – dog walkers, bicyclers or hikers. This is consistent with the experience of Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve where younger and older neighborhood users were displaced by more remote (out of neighborhood) users using the Preserve as a dog park for off-leash aggressive dogs.

So a connected trail plan in Morningside might lead to an increase in park usage, but the chance is significant that it would lead to a decrease in park usage or to a change in the nature of the usage of the parks effectively making the user base less diverse.

Return to FAQ

Does this plan deal with the off-leash dog problem?

No. It is known that increased park usage will likely exacerbate the off-leash aggressive dog problem but SFC has no plan to address the problem and no known means for doing so.

It can be reasonably anticipated based on past experience in Atlanta, that the recreational connected trail will make this problem worse and the lack of any known solution (other than law enforcement which all parties acknowledge is extremely unlikely) is one reason the plan should be rejected. The only currently viable solution to the off-leash aggressive dog problem is to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Return to FAQ

How would wildlife be affected?

The evidence from Jeff Young’s research (Recreational Trail Development Impact on Wildlife) predicts a likely reduction in some species and displacement of others. Currently the greenspaces, both Preserves and fallow land, are physically connected from a wildlife perspective and serve as a large reservoir of wildlife in the center of Atlanta. Species present include deer, coyote, hawks, Blue Herons, turtles, pileated woodpeckers, etc. The greenspaces are also host to innumerable migratory birds.

Intrusion by path users will entail both a reduction in existing habitat (for trail construction) as well as disruption of wildlife usage, particularly if dogs are involved. While wildlife is very adaptive, there is no positive outcome to increased usage and disruption arising from recreational connected trails.

We are already beginning to see some animal displacement. SFC activities building trails in Zonolite are beginning to displace deer in that area with two have been struck and killed by cars in the past year. There are increased sightings of fox and coyote in the neighborhood in parallel with SFC trail building activities.

Another study, by the University of New South Wales, found that wildlife is displaced even by the scents left by dogs on leash. A recreational connected trails concept with increased dog usage means that the entire riparian ecological and wildlife corridor would be adversely affected. Surely some stretches of an urban creek corridor can be left alone.

Return to FAQ

What was the Park Pride Visioning process?

Park Pride offers a service, the Visioning process, to help communities to work collectively to arrive at decisions regarding park and greenspace usage. The process consists of a Visioning Steering Committee constituted by Park Pride and consisting of interested members of the local community providing advice and guidance to the process. The process itself entails research and surveying along with a series of four public meetings during which members of the community are meant to participate in the creation of a plan. Park Pride has three basic rules for its own role and performance – 1) the process has to be driven by the community, 2) Park Pride must function as a neutral facilitator and 3) Park Pride must serve as an unbiased sounding board.

In this particular exercise, Park Pride abrogated all three of its own rules. The process has been driven by an outside advocacy group rather than the community; Park Pride has been an advocate for the South Fork Conservancy proposal rather than a neutral facilitator, and Park Pride has failed to serve as an unbiased sounding board. It is this failure to follow its own operating protocols, combined with statements to the effect that neighborhood participation in the public meetings was unrepresentative that has led to the concerns regarding the Park Pride report.

The Visioning process is now in the final stages. The public meetings are finished and the last Steering Committee meeting has been held. All that remains is for Park Pride to issue the final report. There will be opportunities to comment on the report on the Park Pride website after it has been published.

Return to FAQ

What does Protect Morningside’s Greenspaces want?

Concerned neighbors in the Morningside community are seeking, specific, concrete, reliable answers to key questions which would allow the community to make a well informed, fact-based decision about the merits and drawbacks of the South Fork Conservancy recreational connected trails proposal. The following are basic questions that have been asked of South Fork Conservancy during the nearly year-long Park Pride visioning effort and to which there have been no answers or to which answers have varied over time or by audience.

• What problem are you solving?
• How will you know when it is solved (specific measurement)?
• What are the specific details of the plan (path, bridges, entrances, parking, security, maintenance, etc.)
• What are the mechanisms by which your solution (connected recreational trails) will solve the stated problem?
• Why is a recreational connected trail the best answer to solving this problem versus any number of other approaches (which appear to be better grounded in logic and evidence)?
• 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?
• Are there any empirical examples where this has worked under similar circumstances?
• Is there any well grounded research and empirical evidence supporting your proposition?

Return to FAQ

What’s the big deal? If the overwhelming majority of the neighborhood opposes the plan it goes away, right?

Regrettably, no. Whoever the individuals, groups or foundations are who have been funding South Fork Conservancy for the past three years and to the tune of $80,000, they are persistent. South Fork Conservancy, through their field agent, Sally Sears, has been advocating in the neighborhoods, lobbying government agencies, presenting to local politicians, and placing articles in local papers for the past three years. South Fork Conservancy has said that they will proceed with their recreational connected trail plan regardless of the level of neighborhood opposition and they will stick with their plan for as long as it takes. They have indicated that their intention is to proceed in increments, hoping that opposition will fade over time as people with busy lives (family obligations, work, charities, etc.) take their eye off of the South Fork Conservancy ball.

The fact that South Fork Conservancy is not a local, grass-roots group is a major impediment to neighbors attempting to work with SFC. For whatever reason, creating a recreational connected trail is important to SFC and their backers and they suffer no consequences from ignoring neighborhood opposition.

Return to FAQ

But what about local government, surely they will put an end to an overwhelmingly opposed proposal?

That remains to be seen. South Fork Conservancy has spent at least three years lobbying local governmental agencies and politicians, presenting their proposal as a great idea, as one originating from the community, and as a proposal with popular support. South Fork Conservancy has been so successful with their lobbying that two neighbors, when they initially contacted a County Commissioner’s office to seek a meeting to discuss the proposal, were instead directed to speak with South Fork Conservancy because South Fork Conservancy was the group the Commissioner’s office relied on for policy suggestions.

South Fork Conservancy appears to be relying on two prevalent issues in local democracy, rent seeking (those seeking to gain particular benefit for one small group of people at the expense of increasing costs to be spread over a much larger group of people) and regulatory capture (seeking to manipulate the power of the political process to obtain advantage for one specialized set of interests). South Fork Conservancy is a small advocacy group that is well funded and with a well supported infrastructure for lobbying to achieve a very specific and non-negotiable outcome – a connected trail between Cheshirebridge Road and Emory University. Their plan is overwhelmingly opposed by several hundred neighbors but who have innumerable other obligations, no institutional backing and face a protracted lobbying campaign.

As an example of regulatory capture, South Fork Conservancy will have to obtain permissions from City of Atlanta Parks department as well as the corresponding agencies in DeKalb County. George Dusenbury is the Director of City of Atlanta Parks. One of his departments reporting to him is Watershed Management headed by Susan Rutherford. Dusenbury is the original founder of Park Pride and remains ex-officio on their board. Susan Rutherford sits on the board of MillionMile Greenway. South Fork Conservancy obtains funding from MillionMile Greenway to pursue a plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of neighbors. To further their goal, South Fork Conservancy retains Park Pride to perform a Visioning exercise hoping to elicit neighborhood support. Park Pride suspends its three operating principles in order to conduct the study. Park Pride determines that there is neighborhood support for the South Fork proposal despite four objective measures (three prepared by Park Pride) indicating majority opposition and no objective measures indicating support. South Fork will next have to seek permissions from Rutherford (on the board of MillionMile Greenway which funded South Fork Conservancy) and from Dusenbury (ex-officio member of Park Pride which sought to support South Fork Conservancy’s proposal).

Nobody in local government has yet committed that they will prevent any South Fork Conservancy proposal from proceeding against the wishes of the majority of the neighbors affected by, and the putative beneficiaries of, the South Fork Conservancy proposal

Return to FAQ

Because of sewer easements, private property, regulations protecting public preserves, and regulations governing public land use in Atlanta’s Greenway Acquisition Plan, there’s no way this plan could proceed is there?

There are many places where the South Fork Conservancy proposed trail requires passage across a sewer easement. South Fork Conservancy has continued to insist, despite the opinions of lawyers, city councilmen, county commissioners, park planners, etc. that they are entitled to build trails along sewer easements. The law states otherwise. South Fork Conservancy has committed to purchasing any private land that stands in their way which comes available on the market. There is no iron-clad wording around the status of any of the existing Nature Preserves which prevents Parks Department from converting their usage to recreational parks. Despite the clear intent of the Atlanta Greenway Acquisition Plan to use acquired land as preserves and not for general recreational use, there is great latitude for local interpretation.

Regrettably, there are no fixed barriers that can be reasonably anticipated to forestall South Fork Conservancy’s proposal other than significant and sustained neighborhood opposition and even that may not be sufficient. Whatever the interest is in creating a recreational connected trail between Cheshirebridge and Emory University, it is a strong interest.

Return to FAQ

We have too few preserves as it is, why can’t we keep those that we have without turning them into recreational parks?

There are competing visions for how to use parks (conservation versus recreation) and, as discussed above, there are natural circumstances which advantage focused, well funded efforts pursuing their own interests over distributed, unfunded neighborhood desires.

For whatever reason, South Fork Conservancy values recreational use in the form of recreational connected trails above land and wildlife conservation. The neighborhood values land and wildlife conservation greater than increased exploitation of scarce greenspaces.

Rock Creek Watershed Alliance (a neighborhood group) has fought developer encroachment on Johnson Taylor Nature Preserve for more than twenty years. Sometimes it is the exploitation of unclear boundaries (lost five acres to that issue), sometimes it is Trojan Horse offers from developers (tennis courts, dog parks, additional bridges, etc.) intending to enhance specific property development opportunities adjacent to the park. It is just the nature of the beast that individuals or groups will attempt to advance their own interests at the expense of others. The more beautiful and attractive conserved greenspaces make a neighborhood, the more there will be individuals and groups, such as South Fork Conservancy, seeking to exploit the benefits of that conservation for their own ends.

Return to FAQ

Is South Fork Conservancy aware of neighborhood opposition to their plan and the reasons for that opposition?

Yes. While they have been extremely reluctant to acknowledge the opposition and the arguments behind that opposition, they have been presented with all that information via the Park Pride Visioning process. They are aware of the four measures of public opposition. They are aware of the research and arguments supporting that opposition. While South Fork Conservancy has chosen to characterize neighborhood opposition as being simply uninformed, or ignorant (constant appeals to authority by SFC rather than to facts), or selfish (Not in My Backyard); SFC is in fact aware that the opposition is based on sound principles (a preference for conservation over recreation) and fact-based arguments.

Return to FAQ

If they are aware of the neighborhood concerns and arguments, why hasn’t South Fork Conservancy sought to respond to those arguments?

Only South Fork Conservancy can answer that question. Logic would dictate that there are two scenarios. 1) SFC knows the opposing arguments and believes them to be incorrect but doesn’t have the evidence to refute them. 2) SFC knows the arguments and knows they are correct but believe them to be irrelevant to their goal of building a recreational connected trail. It would seem unlikely that SFC knows the arguments and has information to refute them but is choosing not to do so.

The charitable interpretation is that SFC knows the arguments but is simply unable to refute them. That said, it is equally possible that the reason that they have not engaged with the neighbors’ argument is that SFC does not view neighbor opinion as important to their plan. That would be consistent with their stated intention that they will proceed regardless of neighborhood opposition.

Return to FAQ

If they have been advocating for a recreational connected trail for three years, why hasn’t South Fork Conservancy produced a detailed plan?

 Only South Fork Conservancy can answer that question. It is a rhetorical truism that it is generally much easier to make a case for something that is abstract and idealized and much more difficult to defend something that is specific and concrete. Given that South Fork Conservancy is well funded and well staffed, and that a detailed and specific proposal ought to be well within their capacity, it would seem most likely that South Fork Conservancy has not produced a detailed plan in three years because they do not want to have to defend a specific plan, particularly avoiding having to deal with facts, figures and trade-off decisions (such as whether it is worth increasing park utilization if it comes at the expense of reduced conservation).

Return to FAQ

Is there a simple summary of the key issues behind South Fork Conservancy’s argument as to why their proposal is a good idea?

Yes. Because South Fork Conservancy has elected to propose a concept rather than a specific plan, you have to infer much of the argument they are making as well make assumptions about their specific goals and the outcomes they seek to achieve. Based on those assumptions, the following is a summary of the key issues. Click to enlarge.

South Fork Claim Evidence Summary

Return to FAQ