Dear Commissioners, Judge Adams and Chief Executive Officer Jones,
I'm writing to you in support of the South Peach Tree Creek (SPTC) Trail located in my neighborhood, Clairmont Heights. While I understand the recent court ruling concerning land disturbance permits and the contract funding process discrepancies I still firmly support the trail's location and its construction. It is my wish that the SPTC be finished and opened as soon as possible.
I urge each of you to work toward finding an acceptable solution so that the SPTC trail can move forward to completion and be opened to the enjoyment of the residents tax payers. Simultaneously, I urge each of you to not consider removing the trail as desired by the 3 active members of Three Forks Heritage Alliance. This would be wasteful, environmentally damaging, and incongruent with the needs and desires of the communities served by the trail.
This trail has a documented history of community support and input that can be found on the Clairmont Height Civic Association (CHCA) website at www.clairmontheights.org <file:///\\www.clairmontheights.org> . I knew about the trail plans as early as 2005 before moving to the area - the plans, maps and the input process were described on the County's official website and reported on an earlier version of the CHCA website.
The Three Forks Alliance has made many false claims and repeatedly threatened and attempted to intimidate those of us who do support the trail. Copies of such emails sent to trail supports by 3 Forks Officers can be sent to you at your request. Three Forks members have went so far as to contact my employer to make false claims about me when I insisted that they remove the 52 unpermitted signs they posted along the neighborhood's entry and on utility poles near my yard.
Our community should not be held hostage by the Three Forks Organization. The trail is needed and wanted by the vast majority of persons living in the communities it borders. It is a masterpiece of engineering of which the PATH organization and the County should be proud.
Please take an active role in solving the legal and contract process issues related to the SPTC trail so that the trail can be finished and opened for the public to enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AHA! I had a sneaking suspicion that the 3 Forks were, in fact, 3 dorks, and not an actual group. I'm so sorry, John, that you have been personally targeted and prejudiced by their NIMBY efforts.
ReplyDeleteYes, when I moved to Clairmont Heights in the summer of 2004, one of the attractive selling points for our house was our realtor's mention of the future PATH trail connecting Medlock and Mason Mill. So this should not have been a surprise plan to anyone if I found out about it in Albuquerque, NM before even moving here!!!
Now that it is almost done, it is fantastic and removing it would be just unconscionable. Our family loves the trail, because it not only gives us access to the parks, but it also affords us a great opportunity to meet other neighbors and build a sense of community.
My husband and I are writing to indicate our support for completion of the PATH project connecting Medlock and Mason Mill Parks. We walk on this PATH daily with our dogs and see MANY people already using the PATH including several elderly women, kids playing "Fort", families out walking with children of all ages, joggers, and many others walking their dogs. We are disappointed that a few people whose houses are near the PATH are able to prevent so many others from enjoying this space. Originally, we attended the 3 Forks Heritage meetings because we were concerned about unnecessary cutting of trees in the woods. This was how 3 Forks Heritage represented themselves to the members of our neighborhood. However, it has recently become obvious that this was a major misrepresentation and that these people lied to the neighborhood in order to promote their own selfish interest of not having the PATH near their homes. With less than 100 feet left to complete the PATH project, these folks at 3 Forks Alliance want taxpayer money to be used to dismantle the entire project. These people apparently think that this park should be only for their personal use and that other members of the neighborhood should not be allowed access. How can such a few people ruin it for so many?
ReplyDeleteSonha Payne
Vincent Conticello
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTo the previous anonymous individual and disgruntled forest walker:
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more that PATH and the county have not been above board with much of their dealings and they need to get their stuff straight. If this means the county needs to find a new partner for building their trails, then so be it.
And like you said, this woodland belongs to everyone, not just a privileged few. But as I see it, this trail has granted a very large number of neighborhood residents access to a park they previously were forced to drive to. (and no, most people could not find the access point on Willivee place because residents on that street kept taking the signs down and blocking the entrance) Thus I feel this trail is giving the park BACK to the people, not just those whose property backs up to it or who know the secret entrance.
You also comment that "you guys could not see the value of that little remaining woodland before the Path", but unfortunately, as I stated above, most people did not have access to it! But despite that, I feel PATH has done a very nice job to integrate the trail into the surroundings, especially the boardwalk. Have you actually used it or are you just making a blanket statement?
You say there were plenty of Clairmont Heights residents who were against this from the beginning. That's funny, because I've spoken to about half the residents on my street (around 35) and only 2 were in the least bit lukewarm about it. Where ARE all these dissenters? Do they, like you, also not live in our neighborhood?
To rap that part up disgruntled forest walker, I'm sorry you can not see past your own selfish nose.
Now to...anonymous...
Regarding the grade being too steep: would you had rather PATH filled in the park to make it flat and then paved it? But seriously, what you're saying is hogwash, I've seen tons of kids on bikes and moms with babies in strollers on the trail. However, it has mostly been on the boardwalk section because 3forks has stopped the work that will connect the two sections.
And you are waaaaaay off the mark to claim Emory and CSX has denied access to this trail. Try doing some actual research of your own because someone is feeding you BS and you should find a new source of info.
And no, PATH is not doing this for profit because it is a 501(c)3 organization (that means non-profit). Sure, everyone who works there gets paid, they are not volunteers, but that doesn't mean that PATH is doing this for profit. Once again, either use the correct terminology or get a new source for your info.
But as I started this post, I agree with you that PATH and the county need to get their acts together or this type of funny financing will continue.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am not a legal expert, but if the Three Forks Heritage Alliance wants to use the courts then maybe someone in the legal system should verify what Sonha and Vicent said in a previous post. Are they soliciting for funds under false pretenses? Should those who contributed to the 3FHA, thinking they were an environmental group, have them investigated for fraud?
ReplyDeleteJust a thought...
The Importance of Community Amenities
ReplyDeleteIn April, 2002 a survey of 2,000 recent home buyers was co-sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors. The survey asked about the "importance of community amenities," and trails came in second only to highway access.
A Power Point slide show of the complete survey conducted by the NAHB, can be found on realtor.org. Here’s a link to the page: (http://www.realtor.org/smart_growth.nsf/Pages/pollingresults?OpenDocument) Scroll down to "Other NAR Surveys and Polls."
bab,
ReplyDeleteGreat work. What a great source of information about what home buyers want. I would love to see lots of multi-use trails around our city. But, the answer was actually
"Walking/jogging/bike trails"
This is what the Mason Mill Park was full of before this 1.6 million dollar addition (mountain bikes only). I agree that the park needed better access. I do not agree that the park needed this ridiculous wooden/concrete road that is called a trail.
The following is also taken from your the same source material mentioned in the previous post.
Please rate the importance of the following open spaces on a scale of 1-5.
3.95 Natural/undeveloped lands
3.62 Park/recreational area
3.60 Farmland
3.39 Open spaces set aside by builder
3.20 Playgrounds
Natural/undeveloped lands. Sound familiar. Wow, we used to have one of those right in the neighborhood. I think that one can be all for multi-use paths, but prefer that not go through undeveloped lands.
Lots of undeveloped land/forests still exists in Mason Mills. We continue to hike around in the forest. Some of it is difficult terrain that lots of people are not willing/able to navigate. Now there's an alternative. Something for everyone. Imagine that.
ReplyDeleteAnd responding to one more thing from i love bike paths . . .
ReplyDeleteWhy do you call this trail "mountain bikes only?" The trail is quite usable by all sorts of bikes. And yes, I have ridden the boardwalk on skinny road bike tires. It's fine.