Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Greenway Anderson Forest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors say greenway routing through Anderson Forest would break a 40‑year easement and blow the parks bond
Summary
Multiple residents told the council that the planned Segment 1B greenway path through Anderson Forest would exceed the parks bond allocation, threaten riparian buffers, and violate a long‑standing conservation easement; they urged the council to choose alternate routes and cited a February 2026 estimate that they said exceeded $8.65 million.
Residents from Anderson Forest and adjacent neighborhoods used the council’s public‑comment period on March 17 to press officials to reconsider a city‑recommended greenway route they say would cut through private backyards, violate a conservation easement and exceed the parks bond funding allocated for the project.
Elizabeth Scott, speaking on behalf of herself and Anderson Forest neighbors, told council staff previously told the city’s Greenway Committee that Segment 1B could be completed within the $4.48 million parks bond allocation. Scott said a February 2026 project estimate produced in response to a public‑records request shows the segment alone could exceed $8.65 million and that even with a pledged stormwater contribution there would be substantial overruns. “We urge this council to choose a different segment 1B path in order not to build a trail that leaves a legacy of fiscal waste, environmental damages, and broken promises,” Scott said.
Robert Huard and other residents amplified the point, alleging city staff produced biased survey materials, used altered images in outreach, and failed to inform affected residents about easement restrictions and flood risks. Huard said the parks staff and consultants ran multiple rounds of public outreach but that initial surveying and materials obscured private‑property impacts and that advisory boards largely opposed the staff‑recommended route.
City staff did not adopt an alternate routing during the meeting; planning and parks staff have said additional analysis and outreach will continue as the project proceeds through committee review and future public hearings.
What residents asked for: alternate street‑side routes and more transparent cost and easement analysis. What council did: accepted public comment and continued project review; no formal reversal of the selected alignment occurred at the meeting.
Source: public‑comment statements from Elizabeth Scott, Robert Huard and other residents during the March 17, 2026 council meeting.
