Judge: Friends of Piedmont Park must pay damages
July 25, 2008 at 9:20 am by Thomas Wheatley in NewsA Fulton County Superior Court judge yesterday ruled in favor of the Atlanta Botanical Garden in its case against Friends of Piedmont Park, the nonprofit citizens’ group that fought a parking deck in the city’s iconic Midtown greenspace.
Judge T. Jackson Bedford determined two of the four claims filed by the garden against the group were “without merit” and ordered lawyers from the two sides to assess damages in the next two weeks.
The garden initially sought $290,000 in damages they say were incurred because of the contentious legal fight that erupted in 2005 when it announced plans for a 800-space parking deck inside the park. Friends of Piedmont Park and other neighborhood activists fought the project on the argument that a taxpayer-funded public space should not gift property to a private nonprofit organization without public engagement and input. The bitter dispute raged both in court documents and yard signs and divided nearby residents and the city at large.
The Atlanta City Council voted for the deck and Mayor Shirley Franklin signed its legislation later that year. The deck is scheduled to open in May and according to Mary Pat Matheson, the garden’s executive director, it will be virtually unseen, grant more access to the park, and potentially boast LEED-certification.
Matheson says she is “obviously very pleased” with Bedford’s ruling. Doug Abramson of Friends of Piedmont Park declined comment.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Fabulous!!!!!!!!!!!
July 25th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Unbelievable. ABG, your actions are truly a disgrace to this city.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:19 am
How so Dave? By asking someone who filed a frivolous suit to pay the attorneys fees they incurred? By making the park more accessible to all the citizens of Atlanta while probably reducing street parking in our neighborhoods?
July 25th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I really don’t understand this ruling - whether you agree with the parking deck or not, there were legitimate questions regarding the arrangement made by the Friends of Piedmont Park (a private organization) to hand over public land to another private organization - the Atlanta Botanical Gardens - with no public input.
Will this allow developers the right to sue neighborhood groups (or individuals) who fight rezoning applications? Very chilling settlement.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Sorry, I meant to say the Piedmont Park Conservancy in the above post, not Friends of Piedmont Park.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Fighting a zoning application is not the same as filing suit. This suit came after the normal zoning fight was lost at the hands of City Hall.
This may help prevent frivolous legal actions which are designed to encumber the opponent legally or extend the length of the suit in the hope that they simply give up. Endless frivolous motions are one of the ways that deep pockets offenders insulate themselves from suits. They keep you in court for so long and force you to spend so much money, that you give up or are forced to quit.
The concern is that legitimate suits will not be brought for fear of a finacial crushing at the hands of a corporate giant. This judges ruling could not more clearly address that concern. That is why only two of the five counts were found to be frivolous. If it were all five, they would owe the full $ 290k.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
It is really sad to see the Botanical Gardens sue The Friends of Piedmont Park over the construction of the parking deck. There was nothing frivolous about the original lawsuit to force the Garden to open its books and shine a light on the process that led to construction of a parking deck in the heart of Piedmont Park. It certainly appears they are trying to intimidate citizens from investigating or disagreeing with the Garden in any way. What happened to our American rights to gather together and give an opinion that is different than corporate giants?
It sickens me to think now that groups and individuals will be fined for gathering together to voice their opinion.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
It should raise some concern that when a group asks questions regarding public land that they are subjected to a ruling such as this. However, the greater concern should be with Judge Bedford himself. Why was he at the NPU-F meeting on July 21st openly discussing this case? While he tried to justify his position and members of the NPU disagreed with him, he went to into an outrage and admonished members of audience that they were disrespectful. After being asked to end his presentation by the Chair of the NPU; the Judge continued a heated debate in the hallway, basically disrupting 30 minutes of a NPU Meeting; to top it off, the Judge then waited in the parking lot and started conversations with people coming and leaving to communicate how fair he is and people should vote for him, while in the same breath justifying the upcoming ruling he was going to render!! The judge seems a bit biased in his interpretation given that more arguments were to be presented in his Court; but that’s status quo for Fulton County Superior Court. The real question is why this Judge was discussing the case in a public meeting. Perhaps the ethics rumors are true.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The Judge in this case has a history of siding with powerful political interests against citizen groups. He dismissed the claims made by FOPP with little consideration of the issues. He also inexplicably ruled that the Piedmont Park Conservancy was subject the the State Open Records Act but ABG was not - a distinction which makes no sense. He didn’t “get it” or couldn’t be bothered.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I’m part of the minority at NPU-F who support the parking deck. I was a bit shocked by the Judge’s comments and actions at Monday’s meeting. Perhaps the Botanical Gardens should clean their hands of this whole issue. After seeing the Judge in person, I can not be confident in the ruling or the fairness. The Garden does too much good for the City to be tied in any way to man who behaves like he did in public.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Tracy - no one is being fined for expressing an opinion protected under the 1st Amendment. A group is being fined for filing frivolous suits and only some the suits they filed are judged to be so.
Jim - or the Judge knows more about the law than you do and it is you who doesn’t get it. If you know as much as he does, you are probably a lawyer and should take the appeal on a pro bono basis and embarass him with being overturned.
Anna - if he behaved inappropriately, you should tell Jim what you know so he can include it in the appellate case.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Dale C clearly has a stake in this outcome. He (or she) certainly is more versed in the details of the case than a casual reader of CL. There is still damage assessment to be completed, so it’s no wonder the Botanical Garden attack dogs are still frothing at the mouth and anonymously posturing. Dale C., if that’s not so, then you’ll be happy to identify yourself, yes?
July 25th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Dale C., (that’s supposed to be Dale Cardwell, right?) how much are you billing for these posts? Does your client really want you running up the tab like this?
July 25th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
For the record: frequent CL commenter DaleC is not former TV journalist/recent candidate for U.S. Senate Dale Cardwell.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
That syntax sounds just like Dale Cardwell. They could be twins. Dale Carnegie?
July 26th, 2008 at 5:59 am
Dale - your point about the expense of filing frivolous lawsuits doesn’t make sense to me in the context of this case.
Had the case turned out the other way, ABG would have all the funding they needed to file numerous, frivolous motions and appeals. FoPP, on the other hand, does not have that much money.
The chilling effect here is not on the ability of big-monied interests to file endless lawsuits. This case serves as an example of the disadvantage small-monied interests continue to have in the courts.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I attended the first hearing in this case, and one of the Judge’s first question was: “where is this deck supposed to go?” I think that demonstrated his level of interest and familiarity with the case–and then he dismissed most of the case that very day.
As to the notion that two of the claims were frivolous, the ABG could not point to single case that supported their position, because this was a relatively untested area of the law. If there are no cases on the law, it seems to me that bringing claims testing the applicability of the laws are per se not frivolous(that is in a real sense what courts are for: to examine the effect/applicability of laws to real situations).
July 26th, 2008 at 7:54 am
One more thing about the Judge: At another hearing, when he had to spend time considering the facts and was forced to postpone other hearings, he complained in open court that he had to listen to arguments about “frivolous claims” instead of a hearing involving some Cheetah girls. He meant it as a joke, but even so, it demonstrated an appalling lack of judicial decorum (and a real good ole boy sense of humor).
July 26th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I too was at the NPU-F meeting last week and was also dismayed by the conduct of Judge Jackson Bedford. I must admit he had a lot of nerve coming to the meeting in an attempt to explain a bad decision he made in a previous case and obviously asking for forgiveness for his blunder. It was interesting to see him in a public forum unguarded by the power of his courtroom. He was rude and scary. I thought it was hilarious that such a self important man brought a “handler” (his clerk) to the meeting with him. I am following this blog because I care deeply about pubic participation in these fast growing public-private groups. When I saw that Bedford was the judge in the case I was extremely disappointed and not surprised by the decision he levied against Friends of Piedmont Park. It is too bad our Park is being given away to the well-connected and moneyed crowd that runs Atlanta. I am very sad over this outcome.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Is Dale C. in fact Judge T. Jackson Bedford? I think someone needs to pull a Viacom vs. Google discovery action on CL! I, for one, am not worried about any conflicts.
July 26th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Interesting that since the Viacom v Google post all discussion has stopped. Guess it just goes to show that if an individual or small group questions a government decision/ruling and a mention of legal action is even brought up it’s best to stop asking questions. In this case, stop the discussion all together. Hey Judge Bedford, the people are listening and you have reinforced the fact that freedom of speech is dangerous and expensive. And for those of you out there who say this was a court case, not a freedom of speech issue, it’s my belief that bringing a court action for the purpose of obtaining information is Freedom of Speech. Go Judge Bedford, you are winning the cause of shutting up the people.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I am not currently living in Atlanta but love reading my hometown CL. In the 1990’s I lived in Midtown and helped Friends of Piedmont Park stop the sewage treatment plant the City of Atlanta wanted to put in the Park at the 10th Street meadow. It was a real battle but FoPP won in the court of public opinion. The Mayor, Maynard Jackson, showing infinite wisdom, moved the plant down stream and kept the meadow open and unobstructed. FoPP has only the best interests of all citizens in the City of Atlanta and the betterment of Piedmont Park at heart. Thank God they’re still around! Keep up the good work FoPP! Don’t let the bad guys get you down. (Shame on the Atlanta Botanical Gardens, a once fine institution!)
Hey Beth, what is the situation you were referring to in your entry? What case did the judge want to explain at your NPU meeting?
July 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Usually, I tend to strongly agree with Wheatley’s reporting, however, this time I think that he failed to fully grasp the issues.
Compare what Wheatley wrote…
The garden initially sought $290,000 in damages they say were incurred because of the contentious legal fight that erupted in 2005 when it announced plans for a 800-space parking deck inside the park. Friends of Piedmont Park and other neighborhood activists fought the project on the argument that a taxpayer-funded public space should not gift property to a private nonprofit organization without public engagement and input. The bitter dispute raged both in court documents and yard signs and divided nearby residents and the city at large.
…with the Friends of Piedmont Park position (excerpted) from January of this year…
In December 2007, the Atlanta Botanical Garden (ABG) filed a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) motion seeking $273,000 in legal fees against Friends of Piedmont Park (FoPP) and its attorneys. The ABG claimed that the original FoPP lawsuit was frivolous and was filed in bad faith. FoPP filed an answer, contending that:
- the ABG claim did not come close to meeting the necessary legal standards for their lawsuit
- the FoPP lawsuit is meritorious and raises important public policy questions
- granting the ABG motion would have a chilling effect on first amendment rights and the willingness of citizens to participate in public debates and decisions.
ABG’s maneuver is an effort to discourage public participation in decisions about their parks and public assets; and to intimidate those who seek public documents so that citizens can know what their government is doing. The five counts that the original FoPP lawsuit sought to enforce were:
(1) Georgia’s Open Records laws;
(2/3) state and local competitive bidding laws for public works projects;
(4) a prohibition on converting public land to private purposes; and
(5) the requirement in the Georgia Constitution that the government must receive fair compensation when public assets are converted to private use.
The deck is going to be built — ABG already won that battle — the current litigation is not about that issue.
This case has far-reaching precedent-setting adverse impacts regarding citizen’s rights to public information, and the vulnerability of citizens to SLAPP actions.
The litigation pending before Judge Bedford is a SLAPP action. Among the issues is that the public was not allowed access to full disclosure of documentation regarding construction of the deck. That’s why the AJC, ACLU, and First Amendment Foundation are all siding with FoPP!
Bad Judge — Worse Decisions — Devastating Consequences for citizens…not to mention the financial impact that might befall FoPP.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Amy: I did a web search of T. Jackson Bedford and the information that popped up is great. Look at these two sites. The first one is a CL article about the situation I referred to, a murder case in L5P and Judge Bedford . But I also came across another item. The second site is written by Bob Barr (yes, the presidential candidate!) and talks about when Judge Bedford handcuffed the district attorney in the courtroom.
http://blogs.creative.loafing.com/freshloaf/2007/12/19/accused-l5p-killer-granted-bail
http://nowcobbblog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
July 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
One more thing: “Judge” Jackson Bedford faces highly qualified opposition in the upcoming election.
He sided in this case with monied interests; the public (which opposed the parking deck) should show him he was wrong.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:42 am
this is about the mayor not tending to her core bidness.
unlike mayor maynard jackson
with i.e. saporta ; she can’t
deal with our historic and important properties .
she gave us the philadephia
solution. her name with others
will grace this structure
in history .that’s good .
what’s bad : henri jova’s legacy
July 27th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Amy: I put in the wrong web address for the story about Judge Bedford setting a low bond for the person accused of the L5P murder. It is
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2007/12/19/accused-l5p-killer-granted-bail/
July 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am
It is a scary day when citizens cannot openly contest what happens with our public land. And with a judge like Bedford on the bench, I fear the result of his ruling on damages. Since he is an elected official, it will be important to watch what he does. We have a vote on his future on the bench.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Under what pretense can the Conservancy, the mayor, and this easily “influenced” judge justify keeping secrets from the people they have been elected/appointed to serve? Perhaps they can follow the lead of their corrupt counterparts in the federal government and claim the parking deck deal is a matter of national security. Disgusting and un-American.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
This ruling has serious and negative implications for the future. The precedent that it sets will surely deter activism and is a tremendous hinderance on our right of Freedom of Speech. Additionally the ABG does not own the property they traded to the PPC, they rent it! Think of it this way, if I rent an apartment it doesn’t give me the right to trade or sell my landlords windows, doors, appliances, etc. Allowing them to use and develope public land without public oversight,input, and following the laws for developing PUBLIC land has grave implications for our parklands and public property..What would stop the city from renting parkland to a highrise developer, mining company, etc.? The precedent has now been established that OUR PROPERTY can now be rented and developed unlawfully. Anyone who raises questions could face a lawsuit from a corporate machine backed by a crooked “Judge”.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I too witnessed this judge’s outrageous display of arrogance at the NPU-F meeting. He came under the guise of responding to a supposedly unfair characterization by CL of one of his rulings. But from the moment he opened his mouth, it was clear that he had no purpose other than to campaign for his own re-election. He even had his campaign sign plastered on the side of his Mercedes convertible - - which he had prominently parked near the entrance to the hall.
If he had any votes in the audience before he spoke, he lost every one by the time he was finally asked to sit down by the NPU chairperson. The amazing thing is that, due to his ego, he didn’t even have a clue as to how thoroughly he had antagonized the audience.
His opponent in November is Keisha Bottoms, a well-respected magistrate judge. Unfortunately, her campaign website is still not live, so we don’t know yet how to help support her campaign.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
As a frequent park goer and long-time resident of Atlanta, I am shocked and dismayed by the actions of the ABG. I once enjoyed spending time at the ABG and even participated in their summer camp programs, however, I will never step foot on their property again. I am disappointed in how they have treated concerned citizens and I am embarrassed their handling of the situation. Who the heck is in charge over there?? According to the ABG website “The Atlanta Botanical Garden is working with private landowners, government agencies, and other nonprofit conservation groups to restore and manage threatened plant communities in Georgia.” They should also add that they are working with these agencies to sue the citizens of Atlanta for asking to be informed.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Public interests cannot afford the city hall relationships that construction interests enjoy. Now public interest groups cannot afford the risk of protecting neighborhood concerns in court.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
The Atlanta Botanical Garden is out of control and out of order. Their executive director, Mary Pat Matheson, has led this institution grossly astray.
When they first started pushing for the parking deck, I did not renew my Garden membership, as I did not want to financially support that goal. It’s bad enough that they succeeded in ramming the deck down the citizens’ throats and ruining Atlanta’s crown jewel park.
Now they are viciously and vindictively going after Doug Abramson and FOPP. It’s a disgrace. All these folks ever did was try to protect the park and make the City and the Piedmont Park Conservancy do the right thing.
I, for one, will never set foot in the ABG again.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
The S.L.A.P.P. lawsuit brought by the Atlanta Botanical Garden has a chilling effect on all of us who devout much of your time to public participation in local governance. The most unfortunate part of the suit, is that the garden could easily have avoided it all by simply operating in an open manor, in accordance with Georgia open records statues: thereby avoiding even the appearance of inpropriety. Instead, they spared no expense on a vindictive lawsuit against many people whos only fault was a desire to help preserve Piedmont Park. While I certainly enjoy both Piedmont Park and the Botanical Garden, I have withdrawn my membership and in good conscience cannot support the garden anymore, especially under its current anti community leadership.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
The friends of Piedmont Park were trying to prevent the ABG from violating Georgia’s Open Record statute and competitive bidding requirements. Judge Bedford’s biased decision is a serious miscarriage of justice. The ABG ought to be ashamed.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:47 am
The ABG should be ashamed of itself. To let Mary Pat Matheson carry out this vindictive assault on Atlanta’s core activists (many of whose families helped build this city in the first place) is appaling! She is merely here to improve her resume with a list of projects. Atlanta is a merely stepping stone to her.
While the ABG is officially a not for profit, I would argue this is no longer the case. When you look at MPM’s salary..The ABG is for profit! They have to be to justify paying for their high salaries, high legal fees, and money lined pockets of their cronies. What a way to Launder!
Imagine if they would have taken the $25 million and donated it to the Park system so that everyone in Atlanta could enjoy manicured grass in their local and much neglected parks…Now that would be increased accesibility!
July 31st, 2008 at 6:36 am
If you have concern on this case, just wait till the Beltline plans start to unfold. I suspect this is the test case to see how the public can be stopped in not agreeing with the give aways coming with the Beltline development plans. One only needs to attend a Beltline Steering Committee in their subsection to see how Beltline Inc and their Developer partners “bully” neighbors when the citizens do not agree with the “professional planners,” and developers (who are also members of the steering committees.) FoPP, you may feel this suit is targeted at you. Sorry to say, you have been singled out by the moneyed power of Atlanta to test ways to silence public opposition and actions to question Beltline Development Plans. Look at the conversion of Liz Coyle, the leader and outspoken opponent of Wayne Mason; she was rewarded with a position on the Board of Beltline Inc. Now she sits silent in public meetings as neighbors raise the same concerns they did 3 years ago with Mason, but now it’s the City with the same plans and her silence is certainly implying agreement. The City and the powers that be have silenced Liz Coyle and FoPP. Who’s next?? Hold on for what is to come. This relatively small case with FoPP is only a snapshot of what is to come. Let’s all remember Beltline incorporates extensive acquisition and development of parks, along with increasing density with only a promise of improved infrastructure. Though not popular, John Sherman’s/Fulton County Tax Payers Foundation, challenge of School tax dollars being spent on development was successfully upheld by GA State Supreme Court. But look at the public negative campaign directed at John Sherman personally, and the very negative comments made by Beltline Inc Officers. We can now see the pattern emerging of the government trying to silence and punish citizens for questioning and assuring compliance with established law. This ruling by Bedford is the warning shot across the bow!!
July 31st, 2008 at 6:59 am
What’s with CL on this story? A very active blog, but no follow-up. Maybe CL is really intimidated by Judge Bedford’s gag order. At least the AJC, thanks to David Beasly, is keeping the public informed! And actually giving an opinion and insight.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/2008/07/30/piedmonted.html
CL was outfront with the past reporting on Judge Bedford, but now is leaving the reporting to the bloggers. As Sceptre points out, there’s more to this issue than FoPP. Maybe CL has gotten more main stream than AJC..LOL
July 31st, 2008 at 8:01 am
S
N
O
R
E
July 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Mr. T, try waking up and seeing what’s going on.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Now that’s it’s gotten dark enough to take a nap, let’s shine a light on the really dark spot of ABG and their powerful friends. Found this interesting site:
http://abg.eporio.com/
P.S. CL & AJC, why haven’t heard about this from you?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
holy moly jane doe !
thank you for that .
there are “individuals”involved
in this horrible episode .
let’s see who they are .
the atlanta botanical garden is a
parasite ;invading a perfectly
healthy and valuble host.
for the botanical fans ;ABG is not
your only hope.
i propose a botanical congress of
all such efforts take the park away from the “conservancy” and grow,grow,grow.
let’s see how beautiful this park can be .
a
July 31st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Who knew a such beautiful garden could turn so ugly? I am so disappointed in the ruling, the judge, the ABG, and the PPC. I guess that’s what FoPP gets for wanting to exercise our (the public’s!) right to know? Are our open records laws a joke? How was the lawsuit frivolous? I wish Judge Bedford could explain this to a mere mortal like me. Or maybe we can all vote his ass out of office next go-round.
Like some of the other posters, I will never again spend my money in the Atlanta Botanical Gardens. I’ll ride my bicycle to Piedmont Park and NEVER need their cursed deck.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am
ABG has history too .
The original botanical garden design work was performed at low fee to capture
future projects from
J B Fuqua’s conglomerate.
In business “low fee” equals
low level of attention and you get what you pay for.
No key personnel was used and the result was a poor Master Plan that didn’t provide adequate parking or future expansion.
The “architecture”
[pavilion,greenhouses]are catalog
package items.No experience in
this project type caused an amateurish result with much conflict and unhappiness.
ABG didn’t learn from that and
has duplcated their management techniques in this garage.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
As I see it, this is one small loss (in the scheme of things) for the Friends of Piedmont Park and a giant loss for Piedmont Park, the citizens of Atlanta and the people of the State of Georgia. Other big losers include the “judge” in this case T. Jackson Bedford and the Atlanta Botanical Gardens. Me thinks you will both be haunted by your consistantly bad decisions and actions. At least from the looks of this blog, many people hope so!!
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Now I might seem petty here, but I’m sure good o’l Boy Bedford reads this on a daily basis….Well, hey “Judge,” if you’re really out there to uphold the law, why are your campaign signs on the right-of-way along Monroe Drive between Piedmont and the entrance to the Parking Deck? Any candidate knows that is a clear violation of City of Atlanta Ordinances. Well “Judge”, guess you think you can get away with it since your signs are so close to the Parking Deck. Sorry readers, I know it’s petty but this “Judge” is just so full of himself and then wants to rub it in our faces!!
August 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
We in Italia are shocked and dismayed to hear this sort of thing can happen in America. It seems this ABG place has quite a strong “mafia” working for them.
We hope the courageous FOPP group will appeal this outrageous decision and continue their encouraging work.
Forza FOPP!!!!
August 5th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I have been going to the ABG for longer than I can remember and I will probably continue to go, but… My heart is heavy with grief that the ABG would behave this way and viciously try to punish those that do not agree with them. The parking deck was and is a bad idea and most people in Atlanta agreed with that position. The way that people and neighborhoods voice their opinions is through their NPU’s (Neighborhood Planning Unit). About 90% of the NPU’s voted against the parking deck. The City choose to ignore the people of Atlanta, but there were real legal issues to be settled. I listened to the arguments in court and there is no way that anything that FOPP did was frivolous. They presented a clear and elegant case and they lost. End of story - NO. ABG wants to punish FOPP and they have a judge in their pocket to do it with. A message to ABG - let this go! You won! Your reputation has suffered enough already - cut your losses and just accept victory. Everybody hates a sore winner!
August 7th, 2008 at 9:47 am
From what I can tell, Judge Jackson’s opposition comes from a Keisha Lance Bottoms.
Anyone know anything about her?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Joe,
Magistrate court judge, I believe. I think she’s a former legal analyst for the media, as well. Trying to gather more info.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:38 am
I just saw a new rendering of the deck and they are planning on naming the different levels to make it easier for drivers to remember where they parked. And, of course, the namings will forever memorialize the giant concrete structure so parkgoers can know who made it possible. So far the working names are: T. Bedford Jackson level, Mary Pat Matheson level, Debbie McCown level, Dianne Harnell Cohen level, Anne Fauver level and, at the top, Shirley Franklin level.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Judge Bedford’s ruling is disgraceful! I’m definitly voting for Judge Keisha Lance Bottoms for this upcoming election.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Single issue voters are stupid.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Any press is good press, and the fact that this issue has NOT been laid to rest proves that the discussion is NOT over. The public will not stand by and watch the city and its corrupt judges get away with rulings based upon personal feelings and cronyism. Friends of Piedmont Park were (and are) fighting to protect unnecessary development in the park. If it were not for FOPP, Piedmont Park would be a gigantic slab of concrete.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
As a former Midtown resident now living at the beach, I am truly disgusted with the Atlanta Botanical Garden. This is such an example of how at this time in our culture people simply need \\
August 25th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Judge Keisha Lance Bottoms is running against Judge Bedford and her website is http://keishalancebottoms.com/
The website is active and her contact info is on there as well.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I am just now catching up on some details related to the ruling against Friends of Piedmong Park. I have never heard of a judge appearing outside of court (in this case at a neighborhood meeting) to justify/defend a ruling he made. I am not a lawyer so someone explain to me is that acceptable behavior for a presumably unbiased judge? Is that ethical? I am really puzzled and disappointed by the behavior of the “winners”- the apparently vintictive ABG and activist Judge Bedford.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
This is about more than a parking garage. It’s about the abuse of authority and a threat to freedom of speech. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t understand all the legal intricacies. But here’s how I see it. Atlanta Botanical Gardens usurps PUBLIC space to build a parking garage to generate revenue. Friends of Piedmont Park object. Friends lose the challenge to prevent the garage and ABG sues Friends for exercising free speech! Atlanta is fortunate to have dedicated citizen advocates such as Friends of Piedmont Park. Comment from: Dave Felice, Denver CO, gelato321@aol.com, http://www.savecitypark.org
October 7th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
This is not about abuse of authority. The bottom line is: the lawsuit was frivolous. Plaintiffs were properly made to pay fees. Judge Bedford is a very fair, well-respected, and honorable judge.
October 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Dear Smart Lawyer,
Thank you very much for contributing nothing new, without offering any justification for your position.
If the lawsuit was truly frivolous, fewer people would have taken it so seriously, and the case would not have gotten as far as it did.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Yes, the measure of a lawsuit is how seriously “people” take it.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:59 am
And something frivolous is something people don’t take seriously.
I’m a person, I took it seriously, and I know I’m not the only one.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:10 am
A lawsuit is determined to be frivolous on the basis of law, not popular opinion.
October 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
If you don’t like the law, talk to the Legislature — Bedford did his job. Ours is a government of laws; not men. Any judge who offers to rule based on what’s considered popular by a small, but vocal, group is not fit to sit on the bench.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Bedford has a pattern of unethical behavior. The SLAPP suit judgment against Friends and his absurd discussion of it at an NPU meeting are merely the latest episodes. George Anderson, our state’s teeasured ethics maverick, has nailed Bedford beautifully in ethics complaints, just filed. Vote the unfit knave off the bench in November. Vote for Keisha Bottoms.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:40 am
The group opposing the parking deck was anything but small. Every NPU but one voted against it. Virtually every neighborhood group voted against it. The City’s own Planning Dept. (not the exact name, but the panel responsible for reviewing park development) said the deck violated the principles of the Park’s designer, Olmstead. The small group in this fight was the well-connected, well-financed Atlanta “elites” who will not have to endure the increased traffic and congestion the deck will introduce to the park, but will now have conveniently reserved parking spaces for their ABG and PPC soirees.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:43 am
It will be interesting to examine the extent of the correlation between the list of ABG/PPC benefactors and Judge Bedford’s contributors, if and when he is forced to comply with the law and release that list.
October 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I like smart lawyer’s repsonse; maybe someone should tell Bedford that we governed by laws not him (men). It’s obvious to anyone that followed this trial that Bedford thinks he is the law. Not just the “Friends” case, look at his actions in case after case; then there’s his meltdown at NPU-F. Oh, and what about that small detail of his bizzare court fines that go into his personal “kitty.” The man has got to go!!
October 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Bedford is a loose cannon. He is erratic and irrational. How did he ever get on the bench anyway? Who does he know? His FOPP ruling was one of a string of crazy decisions. Anyway, whoever said above the anti-deck movement was small but loud is pretty out of touch. Those who supported it were in the minority – a wealthy, well-connected minority.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Judge Bedford made an appalling comment on the first day of the hearing that he had not bothered to read the briefs prepared by the attorneys. With an arrogant attitude like that, how can we expect fair rulings based on the law?
It is time for this judge to GO.
Remember that this is the same judge who was going to allow the young murderer in L5P to go free on a low bond. Citizen input and interest changed his mind and the murderer is in jail awaiting trial.
As citizens we still have the right to vote and we can retire Judge Bedford. My vote goes to Keisha Bottoms.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
@ Amy
I can tell you that I am far from wealthy and ever farther from well connected and I support the deck 100%
As someone who uses the park on a daily basis and almost gets hit by cars using the current lot almost monthly I can tell you that the deck, its placement and its access roads are about as good as it is going to get.
Those that are against it are not against it because of rational reasons. People decry the size of a structure that will be SEVENTY PERCENT UNDERGROUND!
These idiots were pissed that they had no say in the matter and so they filed a lawsuit that they had no justification doing so. Quite simply, they got what they deserved.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Well, so “O” thinks concerned citizens got what they deserved when Judge Bedford squashed their rights and gave the right of total secrecy and privacy to the Atlanta Botanical Gardens. (Eventhough the ABG is on public land and uses public resources!) How pathetic and uninformed. The citizen group that fought the deck were not fighting the idea of a deck but the insane location of the deck. “O” drank the tainted Kool Aid and thinks this concrete monstrosity is going to be “underground” and “hidden”! What a laugh. Thank God for citizens who get involved in community issues. I hope the ABG gets what they deserve for their bad intentions towards the citizens of Atlanta. BTW, there will be a terrible conflict of people and cars at the mouth of the deck leading into the ABG. Do your homework O! Good luck fundraisng ABG, my money is going to groups that allow their records to be open and public!
October 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
“Park user” seems pretty damned uninformed. I’d recommend “Park user” take a look at the plans on the FOPP site and then actually go to the park and see if he can even find the construction site.
If “Park user”’s head isn’t firmly planted up his own ass he might find it if he walked up the hill behind magnolia hall. Well out of view of the rest of the park. He may see the construction from the access road in the ABG… but then again, he might realize he isn’t even in the park.
Where EXACTLY will there be “a terrible conflict of people and cars at the mouth of the deck leading into the ABG”? Will it be at the top of the deck on the EXISTING ROAD IN THE ABG? Will it be at the bottom of the deck at the tunnel and bridge that are physically separate for pedestrian accessible areas?
Obviously “Park user” is just another knee-jerk reactionary that has no clue what they are talking about.
It’s a done deal. Quit bitching about it.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Two thoughts:
(1) The decision that the FOPP lawsuit was frivolous was absurd; it almost makes you wonder if Judge Bedford obtained his legal training from the contents of a Cracker Jack box. Frivolous should mean that the lawsuit was
based on an absurd or incompetant claim-clearly not the case her.
(2) The only issue proved here is that a very wealthy non-profit can muscle aside public opinion and do anything they want in this town. The idea of putting a parking deck inside a city park is a bad joke come to life.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Wow O - you seem to have the same disagreeable disposition as Mary Pat and the rest of her little friends at the ABG. Perhaps you’d like to sue “park user” for making a “frivolous comment”?
As another frequent user of the park for over 20 years – just thought I’d remind you, Friends of Piedmont Park started the Piedmont Park Conservancy and have been advocates for the park probably back when you were living in the burbs. If it were not for FoPP, you would have a nasty sewage treatment center to look at from the tavern at 10th & Monroe instead of the meadow with a beautiful sunset . The only consolation that you have now is that you don’t have the sewage plant and a parking deck.
How anyone can think a parking deck in any section of Piedmont Park is a good idea simply astounds me.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:48 am
O’s ridiculous challenge to go to the park and see if it’s even possible to locate the deck exposes him/her as either remarkably unobservant or not a park visitor.
See, there is this massive, towering construction crane…kind of hard to miss…
October 15th, 2008 at 10:13 am
@Sarah
Perhaps the FOPP has outlived its useful life as an organization? Perhaps you should can your silly assumptions.
Take a step back and look at the big picture. Consider how this will affect people living on Park Dr, Orme or Elmwood. Consider how this separates cars and pedestrians in the park. Consider the extra revenue for the park. Consider the 52 acres that is part of the deal. Consider that the deck has a smaller footprint then the current parking lot. Then again, you seem like someone that hears “car” and “park” and runs around like Chicken Little.
@Jim
Seriously, a crane is the best you can do? I suppose because they have bulldozers on site it means that the parking will be for heavy construction equipment! The pool area has a fence around it… that must be a permanent structure as well!
October 15th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I ride my bike in the park every week or two. Last time, i rolled up the big hill to the construction site. It is a MONSTER. Cranes and orange plastic fencing notwithstanding, the deck is huge. What an eyesore. We’ve all been cheated out of a nice, fat chunk of public park land. Congratulations on your new deck, you conniving Botanical Gardens weasels!
October 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
O (for Out of It?)
“A crane is the best you can do?”
What does that even mean?
I responded to your inane challenge to go to the park and try to locate the deck’s location by pointing out that the enormous crane hovering over the park made the deck’s location hard to miss.
If you miss the crane, I don’t know what to tell you, except that you might consider an eye exam…
October 25th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Come now Jim. Don’t be obtuse.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Thanks for the clarification: O is for obtuse.
It can’t be for observant if you can’t find a construction crane in the middle of the park…
October 27th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Jim,
I can’t believe you can be that stupid. You’ve made it onto the internet after all.
Let me simplify it for you.
When construction done, crane come down.
You using the crane to locate the deck simply proves my point. Thank you.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:06 am
This was your challenge, remember?
You said ‘go to the park now and you will be unable to find the location of the deck.’
I merely pointed out that the crane is a bit of a giveaway….Maybe you should visit the park…
And when the crane is gone? I think the new road might also be a bit of a give-away…
October 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am
As I expect you’ll deny what you said, here you go:
O Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
“Park user” seems pretty damned uninformed. I’d recommend “Park user” take a look at the plans on the FOPP site and then actually go to the park and see if he can even find the construction site.
Maybe you should have gone to the park first, then you might have noticed the crane and not made such an asinine challenge…
October 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Jim, poor poor Jim,
My point is that most of these bellyachers would need a big fucking sign to point out where the deck is. That crane seems to be your (temporary) sign.
As for the road? Well the Piedmont access road was already there so I’ll assume you are talking about the road that will cut across that drainage culvert behind the dog park and connect to Evelyn. Have you ever been back there?
Jim, the side you took lost. Suck it up and move on.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Your point? What point?
You issued an inane challenge, and don’t have the sack to admit it.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
[...] 2008, after much heated debate and several legal skirmishes, a Fulton County Superior Court judge said Friends of Piedmont Park must pay damages to the [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
poor “o”.
he can’t stand when people point out how uninformed he is…
anyway, the point stands - a wealthy non-profit should never have been allowed to dictate the use of public land when the CITIZENS of atlanta were so strongly against this misuse of park land.
and of course, the FOPP lawsuit was anything but frivolous and the judge who decreed it was (among many other poor decisions) shouldn’t be holding public office.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Poor “wesley”
He has to sneak his tired opinions into an old thread.
anyway, the point stands - a wealthy non-profit should never have been allowed to dictate the use of public land
Truly laughable. What fucking reality do you live in? It isn’t this one.
when the CITIZENS of atlanta were so strongly against this misuse of park land.
No not “the” citizens, a few, vocal, tunnel visioned citizens.
Luckily your personal opinion counts for shit (as does mine) but justice prevails!
February 27th, 2009 at 12:48 am
“o”, i have to agree with everyone else on here (and no doubt everyone who has to deal with u in real life) - u are a sad and bitter piece of shit.
go back to your hole, douchebag.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Project much?
If I seem like a condescending jerk it’s only because I’m dealing with the likes of you, Jim, and Beth. The arguments you three have brought against the deck are ill-conceived and half thought out.
And really… name calling? Have a little self respect man.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am
ok, we’re in agreement on one point.
u and i (and lots of other people) think that u sound like a jerk.
actually, a condescending jerk, as u say.