Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thanks for starting this
Thanks all for providing this forum for trail supporters. I see tons of people on it, all ages. For me, the greatest benefit is having a connection to Mason Mill from the east side. Mason Mill was really only convenient to adjoining landowners. The trail has opened it up to the entire neighborhood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ditto. It's a great way to meet your neighbors as well.
ReplyDeleteThis trail is a great addition to our neighborhood. All my neighbors support it. And their kids love it. The 3FHA definately has a hidden agenda and you can be assured it has nothing to do with helping our neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be the extremists who live for a cause to fight. I hope that ultimately they will not be able to deny us this nice trail. The unfinished gap is only a mere 50 yards or so. It is almost laughable. The finished trail would add value to the neighborhood.
ReplyDelete“Friends of Mason Mill Park”do not all agree among themselves as to what they want of the park. There are many messages about the 'ugly cement' and the damage done in pouring it. The wooden path you would think would be welcome however message #408 “The wood path is such a big, ugly, high structure with high rails until the concrete path is less intrusive.” They are also trying to state that the wood trail was not built using treated lumber which I believe is untrue.
This trail is a great asset to a great neighborhood, lets finish it for the benefit of all.
ReplyDeleteWithout getting in to the merits of the trail, I want to respond to those who say that it is something recently “sprung” on the neighborhood, and also to comment on the history of this land and the neighborhood's relationship to it.
ReplyDeleteUntil relatively recently (in historical terms), the land was a developed park and water-works facility. The county closed the last of the waterworks operations in the 50's and stopped maintaining the park in the 60's. Remnants of the waterworks and park structures, such as benches and gazebo foundations, are scattered around the land.
The trail may be a good idea or not, but it is not disturbing a virgin forest. In a way, the trail is returning the land to its prior status as a more-developed park. In fact, the trail follows the route of the former park's road for much of its length.
The present trail had a long and public gestation. It should be a surprise to no one. We moved out of the Medlock area several years ago, but as far back as the mid-90’s there were neighborhood meetings with PATH about this project. I remember one meeting that I attended at the Mason Mill library in about 1997 at which Ed McBreyer, PATH president, did a presentation on the trail. I believe there were other meetings elsewhere in the neighborhood.
There seems to be an assumption that the only alternatives for the land are to keep it "wild" or to have it as a more-developed park. History suggests a third alternative. This property has been threatened with development in the past. Some of the land was developed in the 80s, and in about 91-92, there was talk that the remainder of the land would be declared “surplus” by the County and sold. As I recall, that triggered the initial push by some Medlock and Mason Mill neighborhood residents to have the land “reactivated” as a County-maintained park, with park amenities, as a way to ensure that the land would not be developed. I believe that it was this push that eventually led to some neighborhood residents asking PATH to get involved in the mid 90’s.
Although people who currently oppose the PATH say that the Medlock and Mason Mill neighborhoods have long cherished the land in its wild state, that is not entirely correct. The area in the 90’s periodically had encampments of homeless people. I hesitate to speak for the entire area, but at the time I believe that many of my Medlock neighbors thought the land was a source of crime and a liability to the neighborhood, not an asset.
And a final point: I am puzzled by the Medlock residents who are up in arms about the trail and mourning the lost of “their” woodland. Except for the few people whose houses backed up to the land, access from the Medlock neighborhood was quite difficult. The only obvious ways to the land either involved cutting through several people’s back yards along the creek, or hiking in on a power line right-of-way and squeezing through a fence. (I have subseqently learned that there is a county-owned easement between two houses that accesses the land. At the time I lived in the area it was overgrown and appeared to be part of the adjacent house's yard.)
Accessing the land without trespassing involved driving all the way around to Mason Mill Road — about 1 1/2 miles from Medlock, and mostly along 4-lane Clairmont road which at the time did not have sidewalks.
My observation was that Medlock residents did not use the land much at all. I was one of the few. Many of my neighbors actively avoided the land because of the perceived threat from the “hobos.”
If nothing else, the trail is going to make the land accessible to all the surrounding neighborhoods, including Medlock.
I took a really nice walk on this path yesterday afternoon. It's ALMOST complete and provides a comfortable way to experience an urban woodland. I'd prefer a simpler, narrower path, but this provides a route for all ages and abilities of people to enjoy the woods. I grew up next to a woods where I could play. The kids in our neighborhoods need somewhere to get away from the streets and sidewalks and to see what happens in the woods as the seasons change. We need to combat "Nature Deficit Disorder". We need to help people enjoy their urban forests, not treat these areas as wilderness. This area was accessible before only by those "in the know"--and the area was a mess of poorly-designed and non-maintained pathways. The courts will have to decide if there were irregularities involved in its construction, but whatever the outcome, it would be a travesty to destroy what is already constructed. The trees that were cut will not spring back. Any environmental impact would only be exacerbated by removal of the pathway that currently exists. The focus now should be on improving the connections from other neighborhoods (like Clairmont Heights via Ira Melton Park) with more primitive pathways.
ReplyDeleteQuoting "It's ALMOST complete and provides a comfortable way to experience an urban woodland.:
ReplyDeleteJust put a real road through there and I could drive through in my car with A/C running. Now that would be quite comfortable.
BTW, there was serious opposition to the PATH in 1998 and Ed McBrayer decided that that was reason enough not to put the in the PATH. I am sure someone know why he changed his mind.
Thanks for the Park history. That was very informative, but not quite correct. The section that is now paved used to be a logging road and that is it. There was a true road that entered the water works from Mason Mill Rd. The logging road was not the entrance to the park, the water works road was.
We love the new PATH and are heartbroken to see it stalled at this late point. We know many people who feel the same way. I hope Judge Adams, or whichever court its drug through next, will realize the harm done to the neighborhood while the project is in limbo, not to mention what a terrible travesty it would be to order its destruction.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, PATH didn't proceed in 1998 because the opposition started threatening their benefactors. I don't think that tactic will work on the county...
ReplyDeleteRe: the park road: You are correct that the waterworks road entered from Mason Mill. Aerial photos of the area from the 40's show some sort of well-developed road or broad trail that continued across the stone bridge and into the interior of the park. I suspect it was built for vehicles to be able to access the dams and other water works facilities that were back in that part of the land. It appears that subsequent sewer construction wiped out the further end of this road/trail/whatever.
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to suggest that the old roadbed continued into Medlock. It seems originally to have ended about where the sewer gulch is now.
Anyway, that old roadbed is what the concrete portion of the new trail follows.
A couple of quick observations:
ReplyDeleteAs the original author of the untreated wood "rumor", I'd like to say that this has become one of those stories that gets twisted in the re-telling. I've never said that the boardwalk is built out of untreated lumber. What I DID say is that the 45' long glulam beams that were going to be used for the sewer gully bridge construction were not pressure treated. This fact was confirmed by the company that sold them AND the company that made them. They were not intended for outdoor use.
And as for the 3FHA website (www.3forksalliance.org) I challenge anyone to find ANYTHING on that site that it is not true. If you do, please let me know. Judge for yourselves, not by what trail supporters tell you you're supposed to think.
Strident tone? Show me an example. If you can't show me an example of the things you claim are wrong with our website then don't criticize it!
3fha. Why not put a link to this blog on your website?
ReplyDelete3fha - For awhile there was a fence around the playground in Medlock Park while it was under repair and your website had a picture of it up with a caption something like "the county doesn't have enough money to keep up playground equipment, but its spending funds on the trail." That seemed wrong and strident to me (inflammatory, off base, off topic, etc). Of course, shortly after the fencing came down, so did the picture on your website. I sent you several e-mails early on asking questions about things I found wrong or misleading on your site or with your communications and its funny that none of them were ever included in the e-mails you posted on the website.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous
ReplyDeleteI will link to this blog if the people who manage it will agree to not remove anti-trail opinions.
To Babs
We were told when the play structure was closed that the county had no money available to fix it. This was at the same time that the county was spending over a million dollars (on an illegal, unbid, and upapproved contract) for the SPCT. We also pointed out at many times that this million dollars was being spent at the same exact time that the county was saying that it couldn't afford pay raises for police and fireman and at the same time that Vernon was crying about not having money to fill up the county's swimming pools for the summer. Was this strident, inflammatory, off base? I think it was dead on - and still do.
The SPCT could have been done legally, and in an environmentally appropriate and much less expensive way. It was a piece of pure political pork and as such the people behind it were never interested in negotiating. The whole object of the SPCT was to get money to PATH. So far they have been successful to the tune of $550,000.
"Vernon was crying about not having money to fill up the county's swimming pools for the summer"
ReplyDeleteReally? And I thought that was lack of water. So PATH and the county caused the drought too.....
I'd think if the county had enough money to fill swimming pools, they should be able to pay for the trail themselves. I mean, it takes a lot of money to fill up a pool, let alone a lot of them.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, filling the pools with money might be dangerous for the high divers. That cash stuff doesn't have much give when you hit it :)
sage & anon - tee hee. Thanks for the laugh!
ReplyDeleteOops - more bad news for the trail.
ReplyDeleteJudge Adams has signed a preliminary injunction which freezes all development on the SPCT until either permits are obtained and the trail moved out of the stream buffer or until the Supreme Court reverses his decision - which is not likely.
This also means that the county can no longer spend Three Forks' money by forcing us to get a new TRO every 30 days.
Well, I think it's time our neighborhood contacts a lawyer to file a class action lawsuit against the 3FHA for lost property values because of their action in blocking this trail.
ReplyDeleteYour narcissistic lawsuits have cost the taxpayers of DeKalb Co dearly. I think it's time we use your tactics against you...
I'm sad to say we've had the same thought as sage. I'd rather participate in neighborhood PATH safety watch groups or weekly PATH maintenance volunteer crews or donate to a playground update fund, things that would be positive and community building. But, we can't get to all that. Its such an incredible waste. And while I might agree that PATH and the county should change a few things about the way they do business, I completely disagree with the tactics of 3fha. They've caused way, way, way more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteA lawsuit, really? I also dislike the NIMBY attitude of some of the anti-trail folks, but the people who backed up to the park and paid dearly for that opportunity have incurred much more property loss than someone whose property might have risen due to trail construction. Let's not forget Kent Moore who had part of his property condemned by Dekalb County. He actually used to own part of the land the boardwalk now sits upon. I believe, and may be incorrect, that that case is still pending in the State Court of Appeals.
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression the property owners were paid a very large sum for that little bit of land. And I am sorry they needed Kent's land, but he just moved there and should have known what they were doing before he moved in.
ReplyDeleteAll of these lawsuits might be really a waste of money for everyone. Apparently, the county is planning on finishing Mason Mill Park and the original plans included the walkway between Mason Mill and Medlock park.
The 3FHA thought they beat the county. They only made them mad....
Sage
ReplyDeleteYou made a true statement above! The 1988 Master Plan does show a walkway between the parks. It DOESN'T show a multi-use trail. All of the trails shown on that plan are called PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS.
There would have been very little opposition to a pedestrian walkway between the patks. There would have been very little cost (comparatively speaking) to a pedestrian walkway. There would have been almost no loss of trees to a pedestrian walkway.
So why didn't we get a pedestrian walkway? Because the project couldn't be funded as a pedestrian walkway. It had to be a multi-use trail to get funded and it was called a "road" in an attempt to ram it through without permits.
So who in the county is mad? I'm really sorry if our attempts to make them follow the law upset someone.
3fha your statement doesn't ring true to me. From what I've seen you would have objected equally to a "pedestrian walkway" unless it conformed exactly to your personal requires of, say, a wood chip path so you couldn't see it from your house and not many more people would really care to use it. The current path is better because it is a multi-use trail.
ReplyDelete3fha,
ReplyDeleteSo you don't object to a pedestrian path being there. Well, the only way to get that was by getting funding for a multi-use path that was ADA compliant. You seem to forget that ADA part. And both the route and the boardwalk were chosen by members of our neighborhood communites so as to do the least amount of damage to the environment. Contrary to what we want ( and what 3FHA initially said it wanted) the injunction wants them to move the trail another 50 ft into the backyards of several people and destroy hundreds of trees in the process, all, as you say, because the county called it a road and not a trail.
The fact is THE BOARDWALK DOES NOT ENDANGER THE STREAM. But, making your pedestrain path ADA compliant (e.g. paved) would have.
Clearly, the biggest threat to the environment in those woods are the self-centered hypocritical members of the Three Forks Heritage Alliance who backed this lawsuit...
I first heard about this trail maybe 17 years ago and was surprised to hear there was neighborhood opposition cropping up just as it was getting built.
ReplyDeleteI rode by on my bike recently and I'm impressed. I ride a number of PATH trails around the city and can hardly believe that one of the nicest is also one of the closest.
I'm very glad there is a local group that understands both the value and the utility of a trail such as this. Thanks for putting together this forum.
I can't speak for the entire cycling community, but I'm certain they share my heart-felt appreciation of your support for the PATH Foundation and this trail in particular.
I'll be coming back to see if I can help with any plans to get this trail finished.
3fha, you asked for an example of something that is not true on your website. It didn't take but a moment to find this statement: "Dekalb County is spending close to 2 million dollars of your money".
ReplyDeleteWe could argue that 1.1 million is close to 2 million, but I don't think the argument would last very long.
Never use absolutes ;-).