Residents, advocates clash over proposed Big Branch Greenway route through Anderson Forest

Dozens of residents and greenway supporters urged City Council to take or reject the proposed Streamside West alignment for the Big Branch Greenway Connector—known in staff materials as Segment 1B—during the meeting’s public comment period.

The issue drew sustained comment because the route would run adjacent to or through backyards in the Anderson Forest neighborhood and close to the Big Branch creek. Speakers raised legal, environmental and safety concerns as well as competing public-benefit arguments.

Elizabeth Scott, an Anderson Forest resident, told the council: "This Greenway Connector project has not been a 50 year city priority. The 1976 and '89 Greenway master plans don't mention it. If anyone claims otherwise, I challenge you to read these documents." She also said an "1986 easement focuses on protecting nature rather than paving over it" and warned that building "a 10 foot wide asphalt trail through a 30 foot riparian buffer is not leading by example and could jeopardize a vital natural resource." (Elizabeth Scott, public commenter.)

Opponents catalogued related objections. Several speakers cited a Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board vote recorded in public statements as 9-to-5 against the Streamside West alignment. Andrew Bennington argued the plan would require eminent domain takings of private yards, calling the route an "amenity not a necessity" and noting alternative street-side routes.

Multiple neighbors raised hydrology and maintenance concerns. Jane Hubbend described a narrow Big Branch channel near 6 Forks Road that she said "makes swift and powerful floodwaters rise quickly" and warned that a trail ramp descending toward the stream would be dangerous in flash floods. Other residents said seasonal standing water would leave mud and debris requiring frequent maintenance.

Speakers also contested staff outreach and cost figures. Carrie Bennington said public records showed a $4,730,000 estimate for Section 1B that did not include a separately identified $785,000 contract; she identified a later Parks presentation with a $5,760,000 figure that included $1,200,000 from stormwater, and argued combined sections could push total costs over $7.3 million. Joe Duncan told council that the public-bond and survey results do not provide a mandate: "Only 1,600 responses—less than 0.2% of Raleigh's population—with no sampling controls and including duplicates and nonresident votes," he said.

Supporters said the greenway would create safe places for children and connect new neighborhoods to existing trails. Mike Provosnick, advocacy chair of Oaks and Spokes, urged council to follow staff recommendation for the West Streamside alignment and said: "Right now, thousands of children in Raleigh don't have a safe place to learn to ride. Their options are busy streets like 6 Forks Road... This is about equity." (Mike Provosnick, Oaks and Spokes.)

Other supporters, including longtime greenway users, said the City’s parks staff conducted a thorough review and that the Streamside West alignment best balanced access and feasibility.

What council did: the item was discussed only in public comment during this meeting; there was no formal council adoption, motion or vote on the Big Branch alignment recorded in the meeting minutes. Multiple speakers asked council to delay or reverse staff recommendations and asked that staff develop alternate routes.

Context and next steps: petitioners and opponents repeatedly referenced existing deed restrictions and a scenic/conservation easement that some residents say prohibits a greenway through backyards. Speakers also said state Department of Environmental Quality rules and the City’s Capital Area Greenway policy constrain construction in riparian buffers unless no practical alternative exists. Council did not act on any of the requests at this meeting; advocates and opponents said they expect the matter to return to council in coming weeks or be resolved through the public meeting process and additional staff work.

Community impact: speakers identified nine homeowners they said would be directly affected by the Streamside West alignment and warned of heightened implementation risk, including potential eminent-domain proceedings and litigation. Speakers from both sides urged clearer, documented cost estimates and better public-engagement materials.

Quotes in this article are verbatim from individuals who spoke during the public comment period and are attributed to the speaker names provided to the city clerk.