Making Connections: Where Else Could Decatur Build Trails?
Decatur Metro | July 7, 2014 | 12:06 pmOn the agenda for tonight’s Decatur City Commission meeting, approving construction of a trail from Olympic Place to Mead Road in Oakhurst. The trail was spurred by the Paty family providing an easement for the trail a year ago. The proposed budget for the trail is currently $70,000, which will pay for “a new slate chip trail, new privacy fences, a stone wall and new plantings.”
Where else around Decatur could the city and its residents install walking trails to increase connectivity?
A path stretching following Peavine Creek from Westchester Elementary to Trinity Place (behind the Marlay and Post Office) is an idea that has been thrown around here before – despite the acknowledged difficulty/feasibility of such a long, impactful trail. What else ya got?
Related Posts:
-
April 28, 2015 DeKalb, PATH and CSX Negotiating to Close Stone Mountain Trail Gap Over I-285 (3)
-
April 22, 2015 MM: Oakhurst Construction, Stone Mountain Train Depot and Regulating the Smell of BBQ (6)
-
April 21, 2015 City Commission and School Board To Hold Work Session Next Monday To Discuss $75M Bond (0)
Georgia Trail Summit would be interested in sharing the news of the proposed trail solutions. We are working statewide on connectivity and collaboration to extend the network of trails and increase livability through biking/walking options in the communities across Georgia. (Tracie)
If it helps the Peavine Creek path, I donate any part of our property that would help. Especially if it’s currently something we have to mow.
If you are either of the houses on the south side of Lamont that the creek runs next to, then that path could possibly be built! (Well, from Garden to downtown at least – not holding my breath for a bridge or tunnel crossing Scott). When I tried to stake it out after it was first brought up, the crossing at Lamont seemed to be the only big obstacle.
Oh dear. Lamont is quite the obstacle as you know from the sidewalk opposition…. BTW, I’m all for the bridge/tunnel, let’s dream big. I think GA DOT, intractable as it is, is easier to work with than the Railroad.
Speaking of The Railroad, I was on College today near Revolution and noticed a woman and child picking berries that were growing — presumably wild — along the tracks. Got me thinking. That’s the part of the railroad along Howard/Dekalb where the greenway is really wide. I wonder if it would be possible at some point, maybe as you get down towards the East Lake Marta station, to do an Edible Forest. I know it’s likely the railroad’s easement, but there hasn’t been any opposition to Trees Atlanta doing tree plantings along there. Plus, we’re the ones who maintain it.
Maybe something along the lines of what’s happening in Seattle:
www[dot]npr[dot]org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/29/147668557/seattles-first-urban-food-forest-will-be-free-to-forage
Ooooo. Berry picking! Reminds me of all the random free berry picking to be had during summer in Oregon. My only concern would be what kind of contaminants tend to settle on produce grown between passing trains and passing cars/trucks. Would have to wash/soak really well.
Scott, very cool idea. I’m not familiar with any attempts at this in the area. Could make for a great collaboration between the railroad, city, Trees Atlanta and Concrete Jungle (http://www.concrete-jungle.org/).
That would be a great coalition, and I’d imagine Trees Atlanta already knows the best way to go about planting along the tracks (in terms of how to get permission or if it’s just better to go ahead and do it without asking).
Doing a quick check on Google Satellite, it looks like you could carve out 1-2 acres where Landsdowne terminates at Howard/DeKalb. That could be some good eatin’.
The trail tonight is in the alleyway behind the Imperial. The easement from the Paty’s connects the dead end of Olympic with Ansley. Two different trails but both, I think, being integrated with Safe Routes to School.
Not holding my breath, but isn’t a recreational trail along S. Columbia part of CoD’s eventual plan? Would love to have better access to all the new businesses popping up along College Ave and New Street on the east side.
I think the trail you’re referring to is a private, nonprofit effort rather than a city effort (though the city supports it). Go to “EastDecaturGreenway” on Facebook to see more.
Also perhaps of interest, in nearby Decatur, are the plans for the Medline area where the ARC just completed a study, and offered solutions filled with greenways and bike/ped access. http://www.medlockpark.org/search/label/Medline%20LCI
We have been already working with the city to develop a trail that will connect Dearborn Park to Winnona Park Elementary School. The path would follow the existing creek and would run across the rear sections of Agnes Scott College. Most of the land needed for this falls in city or College control. There is a pinch point of several private property holders that have been in discussions. The city has acted only as a consultant and have been a great support. If we are able to get this coordinated the funds are not in place and we would then need to seek approval much like the Olympic Place trail has done. That would make a great connection all the way through much of Winnona Park and extend to the trail that Decatur has already created that runs from Dearborn Park down to Chevelle Lane.
That’s very exciting, but I’m confused about how a trail connecting WPE to Dearborn Park would involve Agnes Scott.
Maybe he/she means Columbia Seminary?
Yep, part of the trail would run along soccer park at the Seminary. Or near there.
Yes sorry it runs along the Seminary (not Agnes Scott)
Would be nice if there was a way to connect the trail that starts in the valley next to the cemetery and links to the pedestrian trail in Glennlake Park to the trails in the Glenn Creek Nature Preserve. The gap is not huge, but gaining easements would likely be a challenge. I know from personal experience that some of the neighbors of the preserve are sensitive about the somewhat indistinct border between it and their property.
I think this would be a great path and a great way to connect green spaces and neighborhoods. Currently, there’s no parks for kids within walking distance of Decatur Heights and Sycamore Ridge. Isn’t there already an easement along the creek? If so, I can imagine a boardwalk trail over the easement like the one connecting Medlock Park to Mason Mill.
Not sure. I tried to bushwhack it once and ended up having the cops called on me for trespassing. They let me go, but said there is no public access through the creek bed.
If you look at the zoning map for that area, it looks like the creek serves as the property line along that stretch. So the only question would be whether the line falls down the center or if the lot on one side gets the whole creek while the lot on the other ends at the edge.
Either way, no sign of any easement.
Boundary lines typically run to the centerline of creeks. As the creek’s path naturally changes over time, so does the property line.
Agree with this – my daughter and I tried to find a good biking loop that used minimal “big roads” (mainly PdL, College, Commerce, Church.)
I couldn’t believe there was no way to get from Sycamore Drive to either Glenwood Park or the cemetery, even if we had to walk our bikes for a bit through the reserve.
That seems a no-brainer for the people who live there. Why wouldn’t you want a way to get the Park, and downtown without using PdL or Forkner/Church?
Also, agree with the above about somehow connecting Garden, Lamont with Oakland/Northern would be great.
Arriba,
I bike that area daily and would love trail connectivity too, in the meantime…I ride Sycamore to Forkner, to Glendale and into Glenlake Park and cemetery. So that is very light traffic and a friendly route if you want to think about that as a connection. Tracie
I’ve always thought the old alleys in the more historic neighborhoods should be used for walking paths. Decatur could publish a trail map stringing as many together as possible to make a nice walking loop with views of otherwise hidden backyards and gardens, maybe a “secret garden trail”. Some are still used for cars (could still be used for trails), but many are just overgrown with bushes.
I love this idea. Kinda like in Seaside, FL.
Yes, because what people with secluded backyards and gardens long for is hordes of strangers traipsing by. Just saying.
yeah, a lot of people have taken over the alleys as their own to make their yard larger, and some on the ends of the alleys have taken them as their personal driveway, preventing everyone else from using them any more. This is the case for the one behind my property. I can see how those people might object. But, the alleys were once a community resource. I wish more were still available for more of us to use, enjoy, or access the back of our lots, especially as people have more and more cars per house mostly parked on the streets.
I actually would favor reclaiming the alleys as public ROW and think the community as a whole could derive a variety of benefits. I just don’t think enabling people to gawk at otherwise secluded backyards would be a very persuasive rationale.
“I just don’t think enabling people to gawk at otherwise secluded backyards would be a very persuasive rationale.”
Especially if all the tress are gone. 😉
Well, as a long-time resident of a home along an alley, I have to point out that the city abandoned the use of the alleys a long time ago. For those that are no longer overgrown, they were cleaned-up and revived for use at our own cost. The upkeep, landscaping, and graveling is also done through personal cost. Trails are one thing, but alleys have a traditional use of allowing car access to the homes which reside along an alley. They don’t belong us, no, but they are fair use to the alley residents.
On a neighborly note, I have to point out that these alleys come right up along our homes, sometimes mere feet away from my windows. Anyone walking up the alley would be able to see right into my home, see my children, my belongings, and incite my dog into a wild protective frenzy. Would this be okay with anyone else in their homes?
I believe we should all have the freedom to live without heavy drapes on our windows; to let in light, and see the trees and wildlife between my and my neighbors home. I don’t want to look outside and see a plain old giant privacy fence. I would never in a million years make my neighbors feel uncomfortable in their homes. We pay enough to live in Decatur. I understand your sentiments here, but I thought you should hear the other side of it. Thanks.
This is a good summary of the complications associated with the alleys, which only get more complicated. That’s because the city, years ago as you indicated, established a “hands off” policy as it relates to the alleys but, from a legal standpoint, never transferred any rights or ownership. There was no quit-claim process by which the city relinquishes their hold on the right of way.
Thus, the alleys — like our streets — remain a public right of way and the public has every right to demand access. If someone has taken it over or adopted it as their own yard, that person can rightfully be challenged because they’ve taken on as their own something that belongs to all of us.
As you note, you’ve invested your own money in their upkeep and that can, from an emotional standpoint, further complicate the issue. I’m just pointing out that, from a legal standpoint, those factors are immaterial. The alleys belong to all of us and we should all be expected to exercise the same degree of consideration towards others’ property as we would if we were walking down the sidewalk. This may require a learning process, as a re-emergence of alley use would, for much of Decatur, be a new thing.
“That’s because the city, years ago as you indicated, established a “hands off” policy as it relates to the alleys but, from a legal standpoint, never transferred any rights or ownership. There was no quit-claim process by which the city relinquishes their hold on the right of way.”
That’s not quite true. It’s called adverse possession, and it likely applies to many of the alleyways in question.
You can’t acquire property from the government by adverse possession. The city would need to formally abandon the property and quitclaim its interest to the adjoining landowners. The landowners on the opposites of the alley would each receive to its centerline.
Hmmmm, this is a good one. Anyone else in the legal domain who can side with either J_T or DawgFan here?
You can’t take property through adverse possession from the government IF that land has a public use. I’m not sure that’s the case here. The alleyways were not intended to be walking trails but rather as private driveways, basically. So I’m not sure that the government would be able to come back this many years later (20, 30 in some cases?) and now say “yeah, we need this land back for a walking path.”
Of course, I could be wrong. Or I could be right, and C.O.D. might try to do it anyway. They’ve shown that they’ll basically do almost any questionably legal thing if someone just gets a few dozen signatures on a petition…
Then we might be talking about slightly different things. I wasn’t talking about path development so much as just access by going back to being functioning alleys. And I wouldn’t say they were intended originally to be private driveways because they used to be one of our primary means of trash collection, which is a municipal function. So “driveways,” maybe, but certainly not private.
Alleyways are public right-of-ways, not private driveways, and they qualify as public use. I recently dealt with a very similar issue recently when helping out a friend who was buying a house in Kirkwood. As a practical matter this is muddy water which will likely never get wholly resolved due to the little value of the land in question, people not wanting to fight with their neighbors, the fact that many have no idea that their rear boundary line isn’t set by the fence a former neighbor installed decades ago, etc. But, the public has the right to use these alleys until abandoned and conveyed. In my case, the title company refused to insure title to a portion of the alley, notwithstanding the fact that Atlanta formally abandoned most of its alleyways years ago, but failed to deed most of the property to adjoining homeowners. The title company’s position is that one can’t acquire title to an alley via adverse possession.
Well, I guess I’m just glad then that we don’t have an abandoned alleyway anywhere near our current property that the City could reclaim!
I am pretty sure that adverse possession does not apply to right of ways and alleys, but I am not a lawyer so maybe you know more than me on that J_T. Seems like alleys are community resources and should stay that way. I would be happy to help clean up and pay for upkeep on the one behind me, but my neighbors have intentionally planted trees, grass, bushes, etc in it and fenced it up to my property line. I could ask the city for a quit claim deed for my half, but I really don’t want it. I would like to access my back yard from it though. Would save my kids time walking to school and I could park a vehicle back there. Just doesn’t seem right that the guys on the ends can block it up for themselves.
Speaking of the city deeding land to the property owners adjacent to the alleys, now that I’m thinking about it, this might have actually happened in some cases. I rented a house on Kings Highway for a few years and there was an old alley behind the back of the property. I could swear that either the owner of the house we rented or one of the neighbors claimed that the city had done exactly that. Maybe I misunderstood, or maybe they were wrong, but I do seem to remember that coming up.
You’re right here. I don’t know about Kings Highway but in general, yes, in some cases adjoining property owners have petitioned the city and the city has deeded the property. This was the case in the path behind the Imperial. The deed was to a resident who doesn’t live here anymore. The current resident was amenable to the path, so they needed to work through the details.
I have a feeling the city will soon experience an uptick in petitions to abandon alleyways.
Interesting point about the impact on others when folks take the alleyways to be their own. To be fair, the original possession of the alleyways may have been from before the current owners moved in. When I moved in, as a new single first-time homeowner, an elderly neighbor told me that the fence in my backyard was put up by a past owner of the property in back of mine and it was a few inches into my property instead of right on the property line. I remember thinking well, what do I do now? Tear it down? Ask the current owner to move it? What would I do with those few inches anyway? Did I really want more vines to clear?
I definitely see the other side, the public side to it. But if the intended purpose for the public is to safely walk through the alley, then there are problems to that. A lot of the residents have parking pads on their properties, not on the alley. The alley allows access to them, and it’s the only access to them. Off-street parking is therefore a part of those residents’ property values. So, there is driving that will have to occur on those alleys, and no place for a person and car to pass safely by each other. And I would say when it comes to property values, and true public safety, then legal issues would definitely arise.
A sidewalk at least is a designated pedestrian path.
I’d like to see something between (somehow) Glenlake Park and the Glen Creek Nature Preserve. It seems like a natural connection.
Also, what about a trail along the creek that runs from behind the “round and round park” up to and beyond Garden Lane?
Yeah, I know- gobs of easement issues.
One thing that might be fun and perhaps a good project for Active Living, would be a connect-the-dots route that provides guidance via street-based direction from one trail to the next. Sort of like “safe routes to school”, but for pedestrians. For example, a route that goes from Glenlake Park thru the trail along the east side of the cemetery, connecting to the Path or thru an easement to the GCNP then to the Path. Or– from Glenlake via Waddell Park and Woodlands Garden to the trail behind Westchester, then on to Parkwood and maybe Deepdene.
Just dreaming.
Yes! I’ve often fantasized about a trail through the Preserve to Glenlake, and I think it would make neighbors more aware and supportive of the beautiful Preserve.
Yes, definitely the Glenn Creek Nature Preserve to Glennlake park. And one along Peavine Creek from Scott Blvd to the Post Office.
But what is the “round and round park”? The park with all the toys?
How about we work on making the streets/trails we have safe before making new ones. A neighborhood patrol seems to me to be a better investment in resources currently. Otherwise just creating more poorly lit areas for crime to occur. This shouldn’t even be a conversation right now.
A loop of trails can be done. See the link below for What Lexington MA has done. It only took 3 or 4 years to get this far. Some of the bits are on street.
http://www.lexingtonma.gov/Selectmen/committee/ACROSSLexington-RoutesA%26B11-8-13.pdf
I wonder if a look at plat maps would reveal streets that never were built–there’ s one from Hill Street to Agnes Scott that comes to mind–and if those could help spur trails?
How about from the Glenlake Park-Decatur Cemetery Trail, up to the back of Glenwood Elementary? They need a nice nature trail for outdoor education.
How about a trail from the end of Fairview Street through the Glenn Creek Nature preserve connecting to the East side of Glenlake Park where it intersects Glendale Ave.?
Active living offer: we walk weekly on Wed @ 10am from the rec center. Come join us and discover the connections we could make. We use the city’s current walking routes brochure and cover a lot of ground often doing things like visiting Glenlake park, Glen creek preserve, the cemetery, all on the same walk. Join us and/or task us with mapping some ideas.
One more: Avondale and The Path are getting more interesting, but Sam’s Crossing is a death-trap. It’s still Decatur there and needs real crossing lines & push-button pedestrian crossings on all four sides.
For clarification, the proposed trail in the original post mentions slate chip. Why slate chip? For everyone else’s suggestions, are you guys proposing slate chip or using concrete, like the convenient connector on Glendale to Glenlake Park? I mention this because concrete seems like the logical response: it’s very low maintenance (a real plus in this town), easily and cheaply installed, can be dyed during installation for attractiveness, has longevity, can be easily used by multiple modes (aka pedestrians, cyclists, etc), and is safer (creates a flat, even surface, helps maintaining footing when it’s wet, and won’t easily wash away along the proposed creek-side trails). Personally, I also like brick, but realize costs can total more than many like. As an aside, could the creek-side trails flood?
Also regarding safety (both accidental falls and crime), would you support the necessary adequate lighting along these trails? If not, are you willing to accept responsibility for any problems that arise?
Regarding the alleys, the city simply has to clean up and maintain its existing public ROW, which I support, too. Sadly, I’m reminded that that definitely isn’t a priority to them every time I walk.
Are there impermeable surface/run-off issues? All I know is that’s what sidewalk opponents cite when they want to prevent one from encroaching on “their” property.
“Why slate chip?”
In the case of the trail referenced in the initial post, I’m guessing the cost of installing concrete would exceed the budget for the entire project.