This article makes it sound like this is a group of concerned neighbors and South Fork Conservancy is some kind of "outside" interest group. This couldn't be further from the truth. I am a neighbor along the trail corridor and I'm thrilled and excited about the trail network. I also enthusiastically support South Fork Conservancy. They are leading the charge to turn blighted areas near my house into protected greenspace. And I'm all for that!

Thanks, Catherine. Sad that a member of the steering committee for the Park Pride success in engaging neighbors engages in name calling. Others who live along the creek spend their time helping remove invasive privet. Turns out the real "outside interest group" turns out to be invasive non-native plants. Let's work together to restore the creek instead of slamming each other. Sally Sears, South Fork Conservancy, neighborhood resident.

I can't wait for these trails. I think they will be an excellent addition to our neighborhood and will help with the connectivity that is so sorely lacking.

Sally, with due respect, there is no name calling and no slamming. SFC is a ten board member group none of whom, as far as we are aware, including yourself, live in Morningside. For some unknown reason, SFC has a special interest in developing trails through our neighborhood. Hence SFC is an outside special interest group.

The Park Pride Visioning process made plain that the SFC recreational connected trails proposal was contentious and not well aligned with the interests and desires of the neighborhood resident participants. A fact which Park Pride acknowledged in the final report when it recommends that SFC actions should take into account those communities that elected to opt out of the connected trails plan, i.e. most of northern Morningside.

PMG is not claiming that there is no local support. What we are saying is that that support is in a minority. Based on the Park Pride Visioning meetings and the surveys conducted it appears that there are perhaps a couple of dozen local resident supporters of the concept of connected trails. That is counterbalanced by the hundred or so local residents who are on record as opposing the trails.

Many PMG members are also involved in various local conservation activities and are very supportive of conservation. In fact, our commitment to conservation was one of the chief sticking points in the Park Pride visioning process. We asked SFC and Bob Kerr in particular whether SFC would be interested in helping the neighborhood to continue and expand conservation activities without building a connected trail and the answer was that SFC would not do conservation work unless it was in the context of building a trail.

There are real issues of wildlife conservation, ecological preservation, community security, and neighborhood quality of life which need to be addressed. Many members of the community believe that a recreational connected trail does not address those issues and in fact there is much empirical evidence from similar projects elsewhere to suggest that the plan will make those issues worse. What we are seeking is a formal, open, impartial, fact-based, community review of a detailed connected trail proposal and that no actions be taken until there is a consensus or majority support for that proposal. That would seem a simple and reasonable request. What we have right now is a nebulous plan that will cost a lot of taxpayer money, and which all the documentary evidence indicates will inescapably reduce local wildlife, damage the local ecology, worsen neighborhood safety and security and worsen several already existing neighborhood quality-of-life issues.

If SFC is willing to focus only on helping the community improve conservation without connecting trails or if SFC is willing to support a formal public review of a detailed recreational connected trails proposal, we can easily make good progress.

I see that Georgia Hawk everywhere. That's the same kat that rules over Piedmont Park.

Thanks for the lack of vision, Protect Morningside Greenspaces (PMG). Just the sort of narrow minded thinking that's helping make Atlanta a second rate city.

The PMG website is lovely, and it is bullshit. This is the same kind of thinking that kept MARTA out of Cobb County.

An important point: A segment of the trail proposed by the South Fork Conservancy throughout the "Visioning Process" is on private property.

If believing that development ought not to occur along a precious natural resource in our neighborhood without a thoughtful open discussion and consensus of the impacted neighbors and that the development should not be a waste of public funds and should not be dangerous nor damage the wetland and wildlife in our neighborhood ; then I am proudly narrow minded. Atlanta has been a beautiful, green tree lined city, but it won't be if development is unrestrained. Every idea is not necessarily a good idea and I believe that connected trails along the South Fork of Peachtree Creek is a particularly bad idea.

As a hands-on steward of Morningside's Johnson-Taylor Nature Preserve for 20 years, past President of the Rock Creek Watershed Alliance, and member of the South Fork Conservancy steering committee participating in the Park Pride Visioning process for the trail proposal, I must question PMG's statements regarding
neighborhood opinion.

As with most issues of this type, the opposition tends to be relatively small and localized, but very passionate and vocal. Supporters and those who don't care either way tend to be more silent and invisible.

Most of the people who showed up at the public meetings on this matter last year were a small segment of the neighborhood, perhaps several dozen people, who live directly adjacent to the creek and oppose a trail near their property. The vast majority of the rest of the neighborhood did not show up. Had they been opposed, they most likely would have been there, but they weren't because they either support the idea or don't care.

So while 90% of participants at the final meeting may have been opposed, they were perhaps only about 5% of the neighborhood. And while 68% of survey respondents may have been opposed, the response rate for the survey was only 29%, and the survey did not cover the entire neighborhood. Please note I've not verified these numbers cited by PMG, but the point is that these statistics are misleading. There is some opposition, but it is far from "overwhelming."

When I encounter people around the 'hood, almost all say they like the idea of a trail (even some people who live adjacent to it). So my experience and gut instinct tell me there is more support than opposition.

While I do have concerns, I like the idea of a natural-surface connecting footpath. I do not want a 12-ft-wide paved path in a 30-ft wide clear-cut strip like the PATH Foundation builds; that's overkill. I am given pause by the situation in Dunwoody where one type of trail was approved by the people, then modified by the govt. to something larger once approval was given. That ain't fair, folks. But I see no harm in proceeding with trail improvements in some of the downstream segments near Cheshire Bridge and the highway overpass where they already have neighborhood support. We can watch, learn from their experience, and modify as needed. Proceed with caution.

Since our announcement unveiling the PMG web site, I have been waiting to see if anyone from SFC would substantively address the thoroughly reasoned positions and impressive factual sources you will find if you visit the PMG web site. But no, and at first you might think that it’s the few pro-SFC commenters who are the small, but loud minority.
However, SFC all along has chosen to work behind the scenes, as though they were trained in Washington politics. They don’t want to face up to neighbor concerns, or new academic research on trails, or even have to provide half-detailed specifications to justify the cost and impact of their grandiose scheme. Could it be they know how to obtain funding and approvals the political way, without the bothersome public? Could it be they know what is good for the rest of us and just need us to shut up? What country is this?
Here is an example. SFC managed to get DeKalb County to file a grant application with the State without any public hearing, telling the County Commission that the community supports the SFC connected trail plan, and seeking funds for connecting Zonolite park to their other proposed trails. This contradicted what SFC told MLPA, that connecting trails were not part of the Zonolite work. And, SFC did not tell the Commission or the State about the negative feedback acknowledged in the Park Pride Report. (continued)

At that MLPA meeting, PMG’s position was that we would not oppose work confined to Zonolite that was not for connecting to the larger SFC trail plan, if that was the result of an open process involving the impacted neighbors and businesses. Did we feel snookered by the DeKalb grant application? You bet.

So what I say to SFC is: let’s debate this out in the open and have the same sort of dialog we all now expect when the use of property is taken up a notch, whether it’s a for condo, or a road widening, or a re-zoning, or a trail. PMG will keep on sharing facts with decision makers and impacted neighbors until that happens.