A Dunwoody Homeowners Association meeting on Oct. 1 turned contentious over discussion of the Nov. 7 parks bond referendum.
In the end, after more than 90 minutes, disgusted attendees walked out before the meeting officially ended.
At the beginning of the session at the Shallowford Annex Building, Dunwoody Assistant Manager Jay Vinicki described the process that precipitated the call for the $60 million bond referendum and outlined the proposed expenditures should the referendum pass. He also discussed projects that the proceeds can fund, explaining that the bond can only pay for trail construction and parks improvements.
After the presentation, officials invited the 100 attendees to ask questions, and despite a call by the DHA board to be respectful in their interactions, the meeting turned into a shouting match between the two factions and city council members.
“Vote No” group, represented by longtime residents Tom Simon and Bob Hickey, dominated most of the public comment.
The two claimed that the bond referendum funds would ultimately defund the police department, that the city has hidden the results of a survey that measures the interest in multi-use trails, and stated – incorrectly – that 93% of Dunwoody residents oppose the construction of trails.
The “A Better Dunwoody” group, which favors the bond’s passage, held up red cards after Simon’s and Hickey’s statements, indicating that they felt that the information imparted was untrue. During the times when the pro-referendum speakers had the floor, the opposition members waved their “Vote No on Dunwoody Bonds” signs.
DHA President Bob Fiscella attempted to curb the unruly crowd, but the speakers, dominated by those opposing the bond, refused to yield the floor, instead repeating their claims of malfeasance by the city and the group supporting the measure.
Dunwoody Council Member Tom Lambert attempted to address the statements made by “Vote No” group, stating that the statistics on the opposition website contained misinformation, prompting the opposition group to accuse him of lobbying for the bond.
Lambert took particular offense at the opposition’s website, mailers, and printed materials that incorrectly state that 93% of Dunwoody’s residents are not in favor of trails. That statistic, cited in the PATH Foundation’s report prepared for the city, is quoting a 2013 survey of Portland, OR. classifying bike riders into four categories regarding their feelings about using trail networks.
Hickey, when confronted at the meeting about the statistic, said the group would take down the information if it was inaccurate and told the group that the graphic was created “at my request” by his granddaughter, who is a high-school senior.
After the meeting, Simon said his group was going to continue to use the statistics until the results of a survey conducted by the city in December were released to the public.
“We will modify our website message to reflect such survey results,” he said. “Until then, we stand behind the message on our website.”
However, the results of the survey have been published on the city’s website, which found that “those who do not frequently use Dunwoody’s existing trail today tend to oppose new trails.”
Another statistic cited by the survey said “Up to 93% more people would use trails daily and up to 78% would use trails frequently if the trail network were within a 10-minute residential walk.”
“In Dunwoody, there is a strong latent desire for trails,” the survey concluded.
After the meeting, Lambert said he wasn’t lobbying for the bond, but only trying to set the record straight.
“There is a significant amount of misinformation being circulated in the community, and I feel an obligation to replace those false statements with verifiable facts,” Lambert said. “This is an important issue for Dunwoody, and I believe our residents deserve to be provided accurate information so that they can make an informed decision on election day.”
Fiscella said the meeting, albeit chaotic, went as well or better than expected.
“The meeting went about as I thought,” he said. “If anyone came to the meeting thinking they were going to change someone else’s mind or position, that was never going to happen. I’m just happy there wasn’t too much yelling and screaming.”
One attendee, Eric Oliver, said he was unsure about his vote after hearing both sides, saying he understands the distrust some might have about the city’s handling of the proposed project, but felt assured by Vinicki’s response that the expenditure on each project would be part of the city’s annual audit.
Michael Rock, who is a part of the pro-bond group “A Better Dunwoody,” said he was disappointed by the contentious atmosphere.
“During last night’s meeting, there was an unfortunate and disingenuous display by a very small group of residents who simply refuse to recognize facts regarding the bond, even when city employees and the DHA president himself reiterated them,” Rock said. “The parks bond is the same financially responsible mechanism that cities like Johns Creek, Sandy Springs, Marietta, even the state of Georgia, have used to fund capital projects like the ones the park bond outlines.”
Travis Reid, who is also in favor of the bond’s passage, said he appreciated the opportunity to hear information from the city and its council about the costs and benefits the bond will provide.
“I feel this bond referendum is a win for Dunwoody citizens and hope it passes,” he said.
