E-mail
PrintCOLUMBIA — GetAbout Columbia’s plans to improve the city’s walking and biking infrastructure faced a neighborhood obstacle in late May when 32 homeowners and residents of the Vanderveen subdivision signed a letter opposing a plan to build a trail near their properties.
Last month, the Vanderveen Greenspace Protection Coalition, a group of neighbors from the subdivision, submitted a letter to Ted Curtis, GetAbout Columbia’s program director, that outlined concerns about the proposed trail.
“The homeowners bordering the proposed trail learned about the city’s plan in April of this year when GetAbout Columbia put door hangers on our front doors,” said coalition member Kate Basi. “These hangers told us little more than that they had to cross our property to access the city easement for a shared-use trail.”
The trail would stretch from North Providence Road to Blue Ridge Road, Curtis said. It would link to a trail system that goes from the Vanderveen neighborhood to Cosmopolitan Park, continue south over Interstate 70 and eventually connect via County House Branch Trail to the MKT Trail.
While the petitioners praised the idea of constructing a trail in north Columbia as a “great” one, they advised against carrying out the plan without regard for the neighbors that were directly involved. They also left open the opportunity to speak with members of GetAbout Columbia.
“Even though the trail has been on the city’s master plan since early last year, this was the first time the homeowners had heard about it,” Basi said.
Basi said a group from the coalition went door to door along the proposed trail route and invited residents to a meeting.
“We shared what we knew about the project at the meeting, and everyone voiced their concerns,” she said. “We put together the letter and petition based on those concerns. Then members of the (coalition) went door to door and collected signatures from people along the route as well as a few other neighbors we ran into along the way.”
Basi said the 32 signatures reflect the view of the whole neighborhood.
“Not everyone was home when we were collecting signatures, but neighbors talk to neighbors, so we know that this is the consensus,” she said. “People whose property is not adjacent to the Greenspace are more positive about the idea of a trail. But even they sympathize with our concerns, and several signed our petition.”
Curtis said he understands that the homeowners and residents could be blindsided by not knowing anything about the proposed plans.
“We intend to continue dialogue with residents during the feasibility engineering phase,” Curtis said. “Neighborhood concerns are normal for just about any trail planned for a residential area. However, past experience is that once a trail goes in, it is adopted by the neighborhood and there are very little problems.”
The letter raises concerns about the necessity of the trail in its proposed location, environmental issues, safety, liability and property values, history of communications between residents and relations between Public Works divisions and property owners and residents.
Petitioners acknowledged that the main purpose of the plan is to help people ride bicycles to Cosmo Park, but they held the view that the proposed trail was a longer route than the existing Bear Creek Trail. They also said they think the trail will only be used for recreational purposes and worry about encroachments on their privacy as a result.
Homeowners and residents said the use of concrete in an 8- to 12-feet-wide trail seemed excessive and that the proposed trail is situated in a flood plain. They are also concerned about littering on their properties.
The petitioners, some of whom are parents of small children and teenagers, also raised questions about the effect the trail would have on property values and safety and the risk of being liable should a trail user get hurt on their property.
Further, they said the trail could possibly pose an inconvenience to residents who may have to cut through the properties of others to access the trail.
Comments
I'm wondering how many properties Get About Columbia needs to cross to access the city easement for this trail. You say 32 people signed the protesting petition, but without knowing 32 out of how many the # of 32 is meaningless. Is it 32 out of 35 homeowners who's property will be crossed? Or is it 32 out of 100 property owners? And is it a really flood plain? Is there an alternate route the homeowners are proposing? I can't decide if these are cranky people or if they have valid complaints from the info in your article.
thanks
A few answers to questions/concerns voiced by neighbors...
1) Liability: State legislation provides liability protection to land owners who provide access easements for dedicated greenways or who own land adjacent to greenways, declaring that “immunity from civil liability [will be granted to] adjoining landowners” along dedicated greenway trails. (Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 258 Outdoor Recreation, Section 258.100 (August 28,2004.) http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299...)
2) Property values: Numerous studies have documented the high importance placed on access to parks and trails by
prospective home buyers. All else being equal, homes
located adjacent to parks and greenways are consistently
worth more than homes located farther away. (Benefits of Greenways. Roanoke Valley Greenways. November 30, 2005 <http://www.greenways.org/benefits.html>)
3) Concrete is practical because it does not wash away during hard rains and flood events. The high initial expense of concrete is offset by lower maintenance expenses of crushed limestone surfaces, which wash away and cause safety hazards.
4) Necessity: The trail link is intended to provide an alternative route to bicyclists and pedestrians who do not feel safe/comfortable sharing roadways with automobiles. Additionally, it is certainly a recreational amenity to nearby residential property owners (see property values, above).
5) Crime: Perhaps there is some concern about the trail attracting crime to the neighborhood. “A number of studies have now shown that urban greenway trails do not increase crime and, in fact, are commonly regarded as improvements by adjacent property owners. Comparisons of mugging, assault, rape, and murder make it quite clear that rail-trail crime rates are almost non-existent on a per capita comparison to other areas.” (Schneider, Tod. (2000). Bike Path Phobia: Selling Skeptics on Urban Greenway Bike Paths, Parks & Recreation. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1...)
Dear C Brown,
You are right in your view that there wasn’t a direct measure of commonality in the article. I wish to state that I was aware of this possibility, and that I had tried to gain an idea on whether the 32 signatures were indicative of the views of many. In Kate Basi’s own words, not everyone was home when she and fellow members of the Vanderveen Greenspace Protection Coalition went out to collect the signatures. She further stated her view that “this was the consensus.” “People whose property is not adjacent to the green space are more positive about the idea of a trail, but even they sympathize with our concerns, and several signed our petition,” Basi said on Friday. That part of message may have not come across as clearly as some would have hoped, for which I do apologize on my part. The petitioners in the letter stated their belief that they can propose an alternate route, although they did not provide further details at the time of press. I shall also endeavor to include more information on the flood plain issue in further reports. Meanwhile, in the coming weeks I am keen to follow up on this subject matter with input from the broader community, which will go beyond the views of the group that signed the letter. Thank you for your input on the matter.
Z F Maidy