Is the city lying about the Big Branch Greenway?

Good afternoon.

At your November 18 session, you voted to move forward with the Big Branch Greenway Connector. Your discussion focused on Segment 1B—the streamside west route—which takes private property from nine Anderson  Forest homeowners.

Your vote breaches the City’s own long-standing contract with these homeowners by condemning a conservation easement the City accepted and agreed to uphold. And you voted to violate environmental regulations and the City’s own policies.

For 18 months, Parks and Rec has repeatedly presented false or misleading claims to steer the public and this Council toward a predetermined outcome.

In three minutes, I can list only a few.

First, Parks and Rec falsely claimed that it held a greenway construction easement in its first public engagement phase. It took eleven months for them to finally admit that no such easement exists.

Second, Parks and Rec claims this project has been a 50-year priority and was featured in the 1976 and 1989 Greenway Master Plans. That’s false. Those plans contain no reference to a Big Branch Greenway trail. And, if this  trail had been a priority, the City would never have accepted a 1986 scenic easement that explicitly prohibits greenway construction. 

Third, Parks and Rec claims public support for this route based on its second survey. That survey was extremely biased. Your Parks Board recognized the bias, which is in part why they voted 9–5 against the streamside route. Please listen to the October 16 Parks Board discussion.

Fourth, environmental impacts were downplayed. This segment runs parallel to Big Branch within the inner riparian buffer, where greenways are prohibited unless no practical alternative exists.

Finally, Mr. Bentley’s cost estimates conflict with estimates homeowners obtained just two months earlier. His slide implied the streamside route is the lowest-cost option and combined the Plantation and Belvin/Hines routes as one when they are two distinct routes. The estimates we received show the Plantation/Belvin route costs $2 million less than the streamside route. We have requested an explanation for these discrepancies and received  none.

When Parks and Rec returns to you at the 60 percent design phase, please – demand the facts, and reject this plan that breaks your contract, requires costly condemnation, and violates environmental protections.

Thank you.