Residents press Villa Rica council over Parkway costs, eminent domain and environmental concerns

A large group of residents used the public-comment period at Villa Rica’s June 9 City Council meeting to challenge the administration’s handling of the Villa Rica Parkway project, raising budget discrepancies, eminent-domain threats and alleged environmental violations.

Lisa Conner, a resident of Evelyn Drive, said she reviewed earlier plans and correspondence and raised a series of specific questions about the project’s cost and acquisitions. She noted an early plan that described a 1‑mile urban connector originally estimated at $3.4 million in 2017 and contrasted that with recent presentations showing a half‑mile alignment and a $15.4 million budget. Conner also said the city reported having spent $3 million toward property acquisition and that the project now requires or required acquisition of roughly 25 properties, 16 of which the city owns. “If that sum is divided evenly between the 16 properties that were acquired, it would equate to $225,000 per property,” she said, and asked, “Why is the project four and a half times more expensive than originally quoted in 2017?”

Multiple speakers echoed concerns about notice, due process and the potential use of property as security. Pamela White said residents were not given written notice about property pledges and called the process a violation of civil rights: “We weren't given due process,” she told the council. Alida Farmer said her family has held land for generations and said pages of properties were listed as collateral for tax allocation bonds in the Eastside TAD without written notice to owners.

Several commenters raised environmental issues. Amy McCoy said she had requested permits and Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) notifications related to hay‑bale placement in local creeks and had received no documentation: “I asked for the permits and I asked for the EPD notifications and the authorizations that supposedly justified this as an emergency mitigation measure… I have still not received a response from that request,” she said. Josh Evans, who said he is an MS4 stormwater inspector, described continuing illicit discharges and said he would press the issue with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if local fixes are not made.

Speakers also flagged the human impact of displacements. Jackie Childress, Linda Parrish and others described multigenerational roots in neighborhoods targeted for acquisition and urged council members to consider alternatives and rescind votes they believed would cause lasting harm. One commenter asked rhetorically, “If your grandmother was in Ms. Knowles’ place, what would you do?” to underline the personal stakes.

City leaders responded in part with offers to continue dialogue. Councilwoman Conté acknowledged the strong feelings in the room and clarified procedural matters — noting that the city’s support for Juneteenth and the separate Villa Rica Parkway vote occurred in different processes and at different times — and said she was listening to residents’ concerns. Councilman Barr said he had met with residents who called and asked for follow-up and invited citizens to bring factual documentation: “If you got facts, let’s talk facts,” he said.

Several questions raised by residents — including the reason for the apparent jump in project cost, the full boundaries of the TAD and whether more phases and further acquisitions are planned — remained unresolved on the record. City staff said they would summarize public outreach and PIOH (public information open house) feedback and provide follow-up materials, but no formal decisions or reversals were announced at the meeting.

The council did not vote on the Parkway project at the June 9 meeting. The public-comment session concluded and council business continued, including adoption of a revised public-comment policy and other routine items.