Speakers accuse city staff of misleading survey materials in Big Branch Greenway debate

Two public commenters told the council they believe the city has mischaracterized public input and historical planning documents related to the proposed Big Branch Greenway connector.

Elizabeth Scott asserted that staff claims the connector appeared as a priority in the 1976 and 1989 greenway master plans are false and pointed out an easement that she said forbids greenway construction through some Anderson Forest backyards; she also argued survey materials were non‑statistical and contained deceptive images. "These documents do not mention the Big Branch Greenway connector project," Scott said, and she urged the council to watch the Parks and Recreation Greenway Advisory Board’s October deliberations and vote.

A later commenter identified as Robert said the city used photoshopped images and biased presentation materials in public surveys, and noted the advisory board voted 6‑3 against running a greenway through Anderson Forest backyards. Robert suggested cheaper street‑side connectors on existing city property could achieve the same access for a fraction of the cost and urged the council to reconsider plans that would require easement condemnation.

Speakers asked the council to revisit staff presentations and survey design and to ensure advisory board votes and easement restrictions are fully considered before advancing land‑acquisition or condemnation plans.

Next steps: speakers asked for council review of advisory board records and staff materials; no council decision was made during the public comment period.