ad

31 Comments

  1. 1

    I Just Wanna Slide

    Now how do we pay for it? I doubt we will see much change at that price.

  2. 2

    Tom Reilly

    The renovations look terrific. The National Wildlife Federation is very pleased to continue its active support of Brookhaven’s parks. But you only get what you pay for. Those PCID and ARC presentations that were also presented also look impressive.–until you factor in the increased density that both will inevitably produce. DEBT KILLS!! DENSITY KILLS!! Kills our quality of life. Kills our souls. Kills our finances. Kills our future. –Tom Reilly

  3. 3

    The Brookhaven Post

    So what do you think? Should the City try to pick off these individual parks one at a time, or do them all at once?

    These are some of the questions we have asked the City regarding the $28 million figure.

    • If the City doesn’t do all of the parks at once would each of the plans actually be more expensive to implement singularly?
    • From an upkeep standpoint, would it make more sense to have everything on the same aging cycle?
    • What are some of the options to fund these park improvements?
    • Is there a timeframe?

  4. 4

    Greg Trinkle

    If we just use the amount allotted from the General Fund, this could take decades to implement.

    This is our city and our parks are what they are. What I mean is some people may feel mislead about the capabilities of our city when they voted for it or by promises made by candidates. Here is where we are at, the question is for us to decide how we proceed forward.

    My preferred way for financing these needed improvements would be for a Bond Referendum.

    This plan gives us a way to know where the tax money is going to be used. On what parks and what specific projects. It is not giving elected officials an blank check. This would not be Redevelopment powers, the bond proceeds would be assigned to specific projects within this plan.

    Now my input on any bond referendum put up to vote is that I don’t want 50% plus 1 vote equals passage. While anyone that knows me knows I am a huge park fan. I am not naïve, our city passed 55% to 45% and I can see the divisiveness that exists still today. So I would want passage of any bond referendum to be 60% or even 70% voter approval requirement for passage.

    Yes as a tax paying citizen of Brookhaven, your property taxes will go up, but not as much as one might think. We have plenty of smart Finance People here who can chime in on details of GO Bonds.

    I think it is an exceptional plan and now we as citizens of Brookhaven have an opportunity to discuss the merits of it, including but not limited to financing it.

  5. 5

    Kim

    While not a comprehensive solution the City should leverage the handful of dedicated, established public charities that exist to support individual parks to pursue state and federal as well as private grants. This would require some creative thinking in terms of unique goals and amenities that would garner grant-makers’ attention. We have let years pass while this opportunity to develop our parks has been neglected. This would require a sustained, collaborative and open spirit of engagement with the park groups. Much goodwill was let to waste in our first years. Can the community groups and the leadership get a “second take?” No quick fix – such an effort would require much patience … “The second best time to plant a tree is today.”

  6. 6

    Robert

    I think they should be done at the same time. Many parks have already received upgrades while others get nothing. There has to be a fairness about the spending.

  7. 7

    Killing Nature

    Tom I don’t know what to think about you. You profess to be a conservator and caretaker of nature yet your support for the creek greenway leads me to believe otherwise. You occasionally write articles about the little animals living in undisturbed areas in our city with the respect these little animals deserve. Then you show strong support for destroying the homes of the little animals. When the creek greenway is actively used the little animals will be driven from their homes. They will try to find new homes because of the people invading their habitat and in their search of new homes they will cross highways only to be run over and killed. You write about the need to save trees, but what about the little animals? The little deer, possums, raccoons, coyotes and other little animals making their homes in the peaceful woods are about to be forced to move from their homes because of man. Please don’t write any more articles about the little animals. I think you write articles about the little animals because you want to see your name in print, not because you really love and have concern about the little animals.

  8. 8

    David

    Great post Greg. A general obligation bond would be the best way to get this done. If we rely on annual budget money projects will constantly be hijacked by things like trees falling on bridges and the political process to decide what projects get done could be mind numbing.

  9. 9

    Saul

    Park improvements? These aren’t park improvements, they are proposing constructing mini resorts for the Brookhaven elite at taxpayer expense. The Brookhaven elite that cannot afford to live in Hampton Hall, Brittany, or Historic Brookhaven and partake in their respective community clubs

    Although there is a clamor from a small group of people for park improvements only a few support these Mercedes like value improvements. The majority of Brookhaven residents do not frequently utilize these parks as a vibrant city like Atlanta offers so many entertainment options to choose from. Certainly these parks are not used to the degree that this kind of money needs to be spent on improvements to this extent. Quick example, spending 140k on a .20 acre pocket park seems crazy. Let’s also be practical. In addition to these expensive improvements, did Greenberg Farrow also make some maintenance cost projections too? A maintenance projection really puts actual costs in perspective even for park dreamers.

    When your child starts crying for candy when you pass the candy isle at the grocery, do you let him load up the cart with candy or do you allow a couple of choices and then tell him when he goes for more that’s enough? I think it is time to have a conversation with the ‘children’ in this little town.

    Some of the best parks I have been to are the ones isolated with a blazed trail and a bench to sit on so the beauty of God’s gift of nature can be enjoyed.

  10. 10

    Tom Reilly

    Hi, “KN!!” I’m very sorry that you’re upset. Please understand that in my view one of those “animals” is, well, us. I’m trying for an environment where ALL creatures live in harmony, know and respect each other each in their own way, and therefore work harmoniously to enhance the environment for all concerned.–Tom Reilly

  11. 11

    Brandon the Builder

    The bond for any new park improvements will most likely be a protracted political negotiation winnowing park needs to absolute necessities, tallying up new infrastructure cost in D3 for MARTA, making a deal and putting it on a ballot.

  12. 12

    Resident

    Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything? Brookhaven elite: ridiculous!

  13. 13

    Dean

    Did you just get called out?

  14. 14

    Eric Robert

    First of all the priority needs to be buying parkland for District 4. also I hope these are just guidelines. The outreach for these plans was horrible. They did one public meeting for each park in Lynwood and they didn’t make the proposals available before the meeting so turnout was very low. Murphey Candler has some real problematic proposals. Including a huge increase in parking spaces on the east side of the park that are inside the natural areas. The leagues should not be allowed to expand in Murphey Candler, if they want to expand either expand in Dunwoody or elsewhere. The proposal to build a new meeting house where the sea hut house is, is unnecessary. And then seeking to move the seahut house to the east side of the Lake and make it a “boat house” is a huge waste of money. Just keep the sea hut house where it is and use it as a meeting room. Finally the proposal to put two ball fields in the park extension area is very problematic. Why is Brookhaven shouldering the costs of these leagues for Chamblee, Dunwoody and parts of Gwinnett and Sandy Springs? Why in the world would they clear cut the buffer for the Nancy Creek to put these fields in? On one hand we are spending money to do a study to protect the watershed for the Nancy Creek and on the other hand we are spending money to damage the watershed. Not smart.

  15. 15

    Eddie E.

    In short, a waste of time.
    Revisit park improvements in the cold light of reality, clearly state all the improvements, all the costs and get REAL community input (rather than consultant driven input) and see what the will of the Public toward an honest proposal might be.

  16. 16

    City-Weary

    Eric, you are spot on.

  17. 17

    David

    Might want to work on your map reading and check your facts before spouting off. Those aren’t new ballfields. That map is a cutout of the primary map. Those fields already exist.

  18. 18

    David

    Almost all of these projects were suggested by citizens are the planning meetings. You were there, right? The consultant did their job of bringing community ideas together into a cohesive plan.

  19. 19

    I Just Wanna Slide

    You do realize this has been done over and over and over again. People DID give input at these meetings. Time to stop planning and start doing.

  20. 20

    City-Weary

    “Proposed challenger field.”
    “Proposed batting cage.”
    “Community center.”
    “Proposed plaza entry with GRAND STAIRCASE –WTF?”
    “Low-level lighting”
    “Proposed parking area”

    David bro, you might want to check your reading skills.

  21. 21

    Charles

    Just for clarity, the ball fields referenced in the MC Park extension are EXISTING fields. There are no new fields in the plan.
    There is very little cost to the City for Youth Leagues at Murphey Candler, in fact, the leagues maintain all the fields at their own cost and pay the City an annual fee for the use. The activities at the Park are a tremendous boost to a sense of community and a great asset to our City, as well as a draw for people to want to live here.

  22. 22

    David

    The proposed Challenger field replaces an existing field, as I said it does not add additional fields.

    Don’t recall saying anything about staircases or any of those other projects. Nice try, bro.

  23. 23

    Jeremy M

    The Colts pay the city a mere $2,800 annually, M/C Girls Softball pays $1,600 annually, M/C Little League pays $5,600 annually with a clause in each contract that gives each entity the sole discretion and control of where those fees can and will be used. This “arrangement” costs the citizens of Brookhaven dearly every year. The terms of the contracts have not been fulfilled yet they continue to be renewed. This 15 year contract needs to be void and renegotiated to the benefit of the City of Brookhaven BEFORE we approve or pay for anymore of the MCLL.

  24. 24

    Chad Peterson

    Does the Council have to conduct a referendum for this money or can they just increase our taxes? I was under the impression that the plan was a wish list and not actually the “final” plan. If this is actually a plan to be implemented, I think the Council would really need to spend some time explaining why all this is needed.

    If you look at Lynnwood, it really seems like they are building a bigger (indoor?) pool over tennis courts, paving over the swimming pool, and then putting tennis courts over the current dirt parking lot. If Brookhaven needs an all season pool, why not just provide a seasonal cover for the current Briarwood pool? Granted, I know nothing about the needs in the community, but that’s the whole problem. We seemed to have finalized something without justifying to taxpayers why it’s needed. This document definitely doesn’t justify anything. Maybe a indoor pool will generate revenue that justifies all this expense, but it seems to just be a lot of rearranging without expanding park amenities very much.

    I also think its ridiculous that the Council isn’t addressing Brookhaven Park.

  25. 25

    MC neighbor

    I have personally seen city lawn mowers (Optech) mowing those fields in the summer many times.

  26. 26

    Eric Robert

    David, you are right. My apologies. The shading of the one field and the lack of adequate description led me to an incorrect conclusion. Mistake on my part, though the rest of my complaint still stands regarding these plans. Including but not limited to the lack of adequate availability of the Master Plan details to the community. I mean I heard Brookhaven may have decided to spend several hundred thousand to replace the bridge in MC and did not look into if it could be repaired or replaced with a less expensive style because of something in the Master Plan saying that all the parks should have a common design standard that uses granite. Yet I can’t find any record of that on Brookhaven’s website or elsewhere.

  27. 27

    Eric Robert

    Thanks Charles and see above i stand corrected. And I think the leagues are great. What I do not support is adding more parking spaces to the park. The traffic is already a problem especially since it seems a number of parents from Dunwoody must always be running behind schedule because they speed through the neighborhood from Chamblee Dunwoody Road to get to the Park.

  28. 28

    David

    Not true, you are mistaken. Optech maintains the common areas and mows that grass not the fields.

  29. 29

    Resident

    It’s called “taste” and “class”. Improvements, bro. Also there is no place to meet in the north end of town. As far as what’s necessary and what looks good, been to Chastain lately, bro?

  30. 30

    Resident

    LOTS of looking into whether bridge could be replaced or repaired. Openly discussed at several public meetings.

  31. 31

    David

    It would be nice to see the detailed plan which must exist.

Comments are closed.