Greenways: Pluses and Minuses

There have been a number of posts recently in our local blogosphere extolling all the putative benefits of the proposed local Greenway, which is included in the Parks and Recreation bond proposal on today's ballot.

But a survey by the John Locke Foundation published yesterday suggests otherwise, indicating nearby residents complain regarding effects on crime, litter, diminished property values and decreased privacy.

The plot thickens.  Let's see what the voters decide.

Comments

[David Wharton]

Joe, unless I read the article wrong, the survey reflected what some of the nearby residents think will happen after the greenway is built; it contains no data at all about actual crime, litter, or privacy.

So here's my survey: of ten people attending a neighborhood meeting in Greensboro about the Downtown Greenway, which will directly abut their neighborhood, all of them were strongly in favor of it.

Thus I refute the JLF.

Also, here's an opposing take on the JLF survey, with on person saying the survey was a scam:

http://www.nbc17.com/midatlantic/ncn/news.apx.-content-articles-NCN-2008-04-07-0021.html

[Joe Guarino]

David, the JLF sample may be a bit less biased than a group of people who self-select to attend a meeting on a subject. But you are right-- the Neuse River respondents are objecting to anticipated impacts, in the same way that proponents in Greensboro are claiming positive anticipated impacts.

One of my concerns in Greensboro is whether our police department is going to keep it safe.

[David Wharton]

Joe, the neighborhood group was at a regular association meeting mostly devoted to neighborhood, so it was at least as fair a sample as JLF's -- where the respondents were to some extent self-selected (by choosing to send a response). Actually, neither is really a valid sample from a sociological point of view.

Safety is a concern. I believe that more crime is prevented by having more "eyes on the street" than by leaving these areas unpleasant and unlit.

The studies at the following link back me up:

http://www2.geoplan.ufl.edu/projects/greenways/whatisagreenway.html#crime

[Joe Guarino]

David, I understood when I posted this that the discussion is entirely academic because the voters are deciding today in spite of whatever we say here.

But somehow I can't help but feel that a group that attends a community meeting is qualitatively different than a group that responds to a mail questionnaire. But a random sample is best.

The aspect of the crime issue in which I am interested is not whether the greenway may somehow decrease crime, which will depend on utilization levels; but instead whether folks will, based on the current realities with our local police, be safe using it as it traverses through certain high-crime parts of town. Yes, it will be safer if the masses are attracted to it and use it in great numbers-- but how do we know that will happen enough to discourage crime against users, especially in high crime areas?

[David Wharton]

Joe, what high-crime areas are you referring to?

[Joe Guarino]

Perhaps I should say higher crime areas. But I am referring, in general, to the southeastern half of the loop (or rectangle).

[David Wharton]

Yes, that Southside neighborhood is pretty scary, especially when those software engineers hit the streets when the wine bar on MLK closes.