Residents urge city to reconsider pickleball complex at Tucker Rec Center, raising noise, traffic and equity concerns

Dozens of Tucker residents used the meeting’s public-comment period to press city council on the proposed 12-court pickleball complex at the Tucker Recreation Center, voicing concerns about noise, traffic and whether the investment fits the parks master plan.

Speakers said the project already has generated community conflict and questioned whether the facility would serve Tucker residents or nonresidents. “There are approximately 38,000 Tucker residents, of which 400 are currently signed up, less than 400 are currently signed up to play pickleball through parks and rec,” said Rebecca Gross, citing registration figures when she asked whether a large allocation of taxpayer dollars is justified. “This is less than 1% of our total population.”

The speakers outlined several recurring complaints. Heather Hale said construction costs rose from an original budget of $600,000 to at least $3 million and that drainage problems at the site would add cost. “In terms of bang for taxpayer buck, this project just does not measure up,” she said. Multiple neighbors on Morgan Road flagged quality-of-life risks for houses closest to the rec center and warned of legal action if the city moves forward without addressing their concerns.

Opponents concentrated on noise. Dr. Megan Nyer, a sport and health psychologist and pickleball player, described pickleball’s sound profile as “unusually loud” and likened the high-pitched impact noises to a garbage truck’s backup beeper. She said unpredictable, high‑frequency “popping” noises can produce chronic stress and, over time, adverse health effects. “Imagine me being outside your home backing up my beeping truck for 16 hours a day, every day, all year long. Beep beep beep beep,” she said.

Several speakers urged the council to stick to the rec center’s existing parks master plan, which they said prioritized playgrounds, multiuse trails and community gardens. One resident asked the council to commission a second opinion on the acoustic study, citing limitations in the study’s ability to measure impulse sounds.

Not all public comments were opposed. Some speakers and others who have supported pickleball elsewhere emphasized the sport’s social and fitness benefits. Several supporters said the city could find a “win-win” solution by siting courts where noise and parking impacts would be lower.

Council did not vote on the pickleball project at the meeting. Mayor and council members repeatedly told speakers the project remains under study and that specific proposals — with site plans, operating hours, and cost estimates — would be subject to future public hearings and council decisions.

The council’s mayor noted that public comments are not under oath and that detailed factual debates should await formal proposals; the city intends to examine alternate sites, acoustics, traffic and funding as the planning process continues.