BYLINE:    DOUGLAS ABRAMSON
For the Journal-Constitution
DATE: December 20, 2004
PUBLICATION: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The (GA)
EDITION: Home; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
SECTION: Editorial
PAGE: A11

Tuesday morning, the Piedmont Park Conservancy's board members are set to choose publicly between two untenable directions for the 185-acre city park.
The plan that conservancy board members endorsed in a November closed-door meeting calls for construction of an 800-car, fee-based parking deck, primarily for the convenience of people driving to Atlanta Botanical Garden and conservancy special events.

The only competing proposal is to do virtually nothing to address access issues in the area around Piedmont Park. How did the conservancy board wind up choosing between such obviously flawed options?

Friends of Piedmont Park members participated in the stakeholder and advisory committee process set up to review the proposed changes to the park's master plan. Contrary to what will probably be said at Tuesday's board meeting, I know firsthand the process was not open, fair or objective.

In fact, the stage-managed public discussions were created to make it appear a conclusion was not reached until the end when, in fact, the decision to build a deck was made at the beginning.

• No objective, independent transportation study exists that addresses transportation issues around Piedmont Park. Before the park undergoes upheaval, a professional traffic planner should take a comprehensive look at the many viable alternatives to a parking deck.
• A Piedmont Park Conservancy Advisory Committee was formed to bring in special interest groups handpicked for their interests in benefits parking deck revenues might buy for them. For example, the conservancy recruited skateboarders to support a plan that promises them a new place to play.
• Prior to the advisory committee vote, some of its members offered conditional support for the deck, but those conditions inexplicably changed to unqualified endorsement. For example, Ansley Park's representative was directed by her board to endorse a plan with a deck only if it's free of charge to anyone. When the advisory committee called for a vote, the only options offered were to unconditionally support a deck, or not. Ansley Park was marked in favor of a parking deck.

I hope when the conservancy's board meets Tuesday it will agree it's time to go back to the drawing board. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to do this the right way.