FILED 2/12/2021 4:26 PM CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT DEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

SOUTH RIVER WATERSHED ALLIANCE,

SOUTH RIVER FOREST COALITION,
MARGARET S. BRADY, ALLEN P. DOYLE,
JOEL FINEGOLD, JOSEPH S. PEERY, and
IOHN AND IANE DOES, CIVIL FILE ACTION NO. 21CV1931

Plaintiffs,

DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, by and

through its Board of Commissioners, and
BLACKHALL REAL ESTATE PHASE II, LLC

Defendants

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

COME NOW, Plaintiffs South River Watershed Alliance, South River Forest

Coalition, Margaret S.Brady, Allen P. Doyle, Joel Finegold, ]oseph S. Peery and John

and Jane Does (collecfively,"PIatnti[f"") and hereby file this Complaint for Declaratory

Judgment,Injunctive Relief and Writ of Mandamus, showing the Court as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: NATURE OF THE CASE

1.. This case seeks declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus,

regarding land commonly known as Intrenchment Creek Park (sometimes referred to

herein as"lCP" or the "Park"), which land was conveyed, accepted, dedicated, and held

continuously as public park land for the use and benefit of the public. This case arises

from Dekalb County's intent to andf or decision to exchange approximately forty (40)

acres, more or less, of Intrenchment Creek Park - public park property - to a private
entity, Blackhall Studios, for highly disturbed and less valuable property, both

economically and ecologically, owned by Blackhall Studios. The land exchange

represents an unlawful conversion of public park land to private uses and a waste of

taxpayer money. The land exchange violates the conditions imposed via deed on

Intrenchment Creek Park, which conditions may be enforced,by any member of the

general public who utilizes the Park. The land exchange is not in accordance with laws

and regulations concerning the use and disposal of County property. Among other

reasons, Plaintiffs challenge the exchange of public park land as ultra vires, and thereby

void.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION STANDING, AND VENUE

2. Defendant DeKalb County, Georgia ("DeKalb County" or the "County") is a

political subdivision of the State of Georgia and pursuant to O.C.G.A. S 9-1'1,-4, may be

served by delivering a copy of the Complaint and summons in this action to DeKalb

County CEO, Michael L. Thurmond, 1-300 Commerce Driae Decatur, Georgia 30030 andf or

Clerk to CEO Michael L. Thurmond and DeKalb County Board of Commissioners ,DeKalb

County, L300 Commerce Drioe Decatur, Georgia 30030 andf or the Chairman/Presiding

Officer of the Board of Directors, currently identified as Commissioner Steoe Bradshaw,

1-300 Commerce Driae Decatur, Georgia 30030.

3. Defendant Blackhall Real Estate Phase II, LLC is a foreign limited liability

company doing business in the State of Georgia, including in DeKalb County. Pursuant

to records on file with the Georgia Secretary of State, its principal place of business is

14L5 Constitution Road SE, Atlanta, Georgia 3031,6 and it lists a record address as17

2
Blackland Road, NW, Atlanta, Georgia30324. Upon information and belief, it is

associated with Blackhall studios, LLC and will be referred to collectively herein as

"Blackhall" or "Blackhall Studios." Blackhall Sfudios conducts business and owns

properties and operates film and production studios in SW DeKalb County near

Intrenchment Creek Park. The land exchange that forms the basis of this lawsuit was

conceived and pursued by Blackhall Studios. Blackhall Studios may be served by

delivering a copy of the Complaint and Summons on its Registered Agent, identified

pursuant to corporate records filed with Georgia Secretary of State as Corporation

Service Company,40 Technology Parkway, S, Suite 300, Norcross, Georgia3}992.

4. Plaintiff South River Watershed Alliance ("SRWA"), who brings this action on

behalf of itself and its supporters, volunteers and members, is a Georgia non-profit

corporation. SRWA's mission is to protect and restore the water quality and

biodiversity of the South River watershed to the beneficial use of humans and wildlife.

As part of that mission, SRWA is committed to protecting the ecological resources of the

South River watershed as well as ecological restoration of the South River for the

benefit of nature and people, which includes protection of Intrenchment Creek Park,

including from development. Intrenchment Creek Park's tree canopy, wetlands and

floodplain work together to protect the South River's largest urban ttibutary,

Intrenchment Creek. The creek and river depend on Intrenchment Creek Park for

improved water quality and protection from destructive stormwater runoff. As part of

its work, SRWA has tried on numerous occasions to engage DeKalb County on matters
a
J
related to the land swap, including by requesting relevant in-formation related to the

same, most of which the County refused to provide.

5. Plaintiff SRWA has standing to bring this action in its own right and on behalf of

its members. Many of SRWA's members, supporters and volunteers are citizens and

taxpayers of DeKalb County. SRWA's members, supporters and volunteers are regular

users of Intrenchment Creek Park. Many recreate in, reside near, as well as derive

aesthetic enjoyment from the Park and the trees, vegetatiory wetlands, wildlands,

streams, waterways and wildlife dependent thereon. SRWA's members, supporters

and volunteers have a legal right under the deed for the Park to enforce the protection

and use of Intrenchment Creek Park as a public park. SRWA and its members,

supporters and volunteers are adversely impacted, harmed and injured by the Counfy's

decision to swap the Park - land held by the County for use and benefit of the pubic -

to a private entity. SRWA and its members have been denied legaIly protected

property rights and interests as a result of the County's actions and land exchange.

SRWA and its members have been denied due process rights under the Georgia and

U.S. Constifutions as a result of the County's actions and land exchange.

6. Establishedin20lS, Plaintiff South River Forest Coalition ("SRFC" or the

"Coalition") supports community collaboration for sustainable, equitable growth in SE

metro Atlanta. SRFC was established by residents of SE metro Atlanta to work in

partnership with municipalities, environmental, civic, neighborhood organizations and

other partners on land use planning and advocacy for low-impact, sustainable,

equitable growth in SW DeKalb and SE Fulton Counties. SRFC's mission is to increase

4
conununity engagement and raise awareness to protect significant greenspace in the

South River watershed and to advance the South River Forest/Park vision. SRFC has

orgarrrzed,many initiatives to researctu inform and engage the public in regards to the

land swap of Intrenchment Creek Park. SRFC has made numerous efforts to engage the

County and other involved parties on a plethora of issues related to the land exchange,

including, but not limited to, concerns over the loss of public park property, ecological

and environmental loss resulting from the land exchange and concerns regarding the

value of property being exchanged and the lack of enforceable commitments to ensure

restoration of lost public park lands and habitat.

7. Plaintiff SRFC has standing to bring this action in its own right and on behalf of

its supporters, members and volunteers. Many of SRFC's supporters, membets and

volunteers are regular users of Intrenchment Creek Park. Many use Intrenchment

Creek Park for hiking, walking, wildlife viewing, peace of mind, and other aesthetic

enjoyment. SRFC' supporters, members, and volunteers have legal right under the

deed for the Park to enforce the protection and use of Intrenchment Creek Park as a

public park. SRFC and its supporters, members, and volunteers are adversely

impacted, harmed and injured by the County's decision to swap the Park - land held by

the County for use and benefit of the pubic - to a private entity. SRFC and its

members, supporters and volunteers have been denied legally protected property rights

and interests as a result of the County's actions and land exchange. SRFC and its

members, supporters and volunteers have been denied due process rights under the

Georgia and U.S. Constitutions as a result of the County's actions and land exchange.

5
 8. Plaintiff Margaret S. Brady is an individual residing in DeKalb County, Georgia

and a Dekalb County taxpayer. Plaintiff Brady is a member, suPPorter and volunteer

of SRFC and SRWA. Plaintiff Brady uses and enjoys Intrenchment Creek Park on a

frequent and regular basis, including for recreational, observational, peace of mind, and

aesthetic purposes, among others. Plaintiff Brady is a member of the public for whom

Intrenchment Creek Park was set aside and held to benefit. Plaintiff Brady has an

interest in and right to enforce deed restrictions requiring the Park to be held as public

park for the benefit of the public. Plaintiff Brady represents the public's common

interest and enjoyment of Intrenchment Creek Park. Plaintiff Brady is adversely

impacted, harmed and injured by the County's decision to swap the Park - land held by

the County for use and benefit of the public - to a private entity. Plaintiff has standing

as a private person seeking to enforce the public use and benefit of Intrenchment Creek

Park. See O.C.G.A. SS 9-6-24 and9-6-23'

g. Plaintiff Allen P. Doyle is an individual residing in DeKalb County, Georgia and

a DeKalb County taxpayer. Plaintiff Doyle is a member, suPporter and volunteer of

SRFC and SRWA. Plaintiff Doyle uses and enjoys Intrenchment Creek Park on a

frequent and regular basis, including for hiking, walking, exercise and other

recreational purposes, as well as, obsetvational, peace of mind, and aesthetic purposes,

among others. Plaintiff Doyle contributes to and participates in the upkeep and

maintenance of the Park. Plainti{f Doyle is a member of the public for whom

Intrenchment Creek Park was set aside and held to benefit. Plaintiff Doyle has an

interest in and right to enforce deed restrictions requiring the Park to be held as a public

6
park for the benefit of the public. Plaintiff Doyle represents the public's common

interest and enjoyment of Intrenchment Creek Park. Plaintiff Doyle is adversely

impacted, harmed and injured by the County's decision to swap the Park - land held by

the County for use and benefit of the public - to a private entity. Plaintiff has standing

as a private person seeking to enforce the public use and benefit of Intrenchment Creek

Park. See O.C.G.A. SS 9-6-24 and9-6-23.

10. Ptaintiff Joel Finegold is an individual residing in DeKalb County, Georiga and a

DeKalb County taxpayer. Plaintiff Finegold is a member, supporter and volunteer of

SRFC and SRWA. Plaintiff Finegold uses and enjoys Intrenchment Creek Park on a

frequent and regular basis, including for walking, exercise and other recreational

purposes, as well as, observational, peace of mind, and aesthetic purposes, among

others. Plaintiff Finegold is a member of the public for whom Intrenchment Creek Park

was set aside and held to benefit. Plaintiff Finegold has an interest in and right to

enforce deed restuictions requiring the Park to be held as a public park for the benefit of

the public. Plaintiff Finegold represents the public's common interest and enjoyment

of Intrenchment Creek Park. Plaintiff Finegold is adversely impacted, harmed and

injured by the County's decision to swap the Park - land held by the County for use

and benefit of the public - to a private entity. Plaintiff has standing as a private Person

seeking to enforce the public use and benefit of Intrenchment Creek Park. See

O.C.G.A. SS 9-6-24 and9-6-23.

L1. Plaintiff ]oseph S. Peery is an individual residing in DeKalb County, Georgia and

a DeKalb County taxpayer. Plaintiff Peery is a member, supporter and volunteer of

7
SRFC and SRWA. Plaintiff Peery uses and enjoys Intrenchment Creek Park on a

frequent and regular basis, including for hiking, mountain biking, and other

recreational purposes, as well as, observational, peace of mind, and aesthetic purposes,

among others. Plaintiff Peery leads tours of Intrenchment Creek Park. Plaintiff Peery

is a member of the public for whom Intrenchment Creek Park was set aside and held to

benefit. Plaintiff Peery has an interest in and right to en-force deed restrictions requiring

the Park to be held as a public park for the benefit of the public. Plaintiff Peery

represents the public's common interest and enjoyment of Intrenchment Creek Park.

Plaintiff Peery is adversely impacted, harmed and injured by the County's decision to

swap the Park - land held by the County for use and benefit of the public - to a private

entity. Plaintiff has standing as a private person seeking to enforce the public use and

benefit of Intrenchment Creek Park. See O.C.G.A. SS 9-6-24 and9-6-23.

12.Plaiftrtfs John and Jane Does are members of the public who use Intrenchment

Creek Park and/ or are taxpayers and citizens of DeKalb County for whom

Intrenchment Creek Park is held in public trust for the use and benefit of the public and

whose rights and interests have been invaded, violated and deprived as a result of

DeKalb County's actions and the land exchange forming the basis of this actions.

13. Plaintiffs are users of Intrenchment Creek Park and members of the public for

whom the public trust and Intrenchment Creek Park property deed requirements are

intended to benefit. In additioru Plaintiffs are among a class for whom the dedication

and use of Intrenchment Creek Park as a public park is intended to benefit.

8
 14. Plaintiffs' injuries include the loss of protected public property rights, the loss qf

park land dedicated and held for the benefit and use of the public, loss qf public green

space, loss of access to public park land, services, resources and amenities,loss of

ecological services,loss of mature trees and wildli{e habitat,loss of storm water

management feafures, disrupted access to public park land, damage to remaining park

lands due to separation of connected and established natural systems and habitats,

damage to the aesthetic enjoyment, piece of mind, and overall park experience.

Moreover, Plaintiffs have been denied legally protected property rights and interests as

a result of the County's actions and land exchange. Among other constitutionally

protected rights, Plaintiffs have been denied due process rights under the Georgia and

U.S. Constitutions as a result of the County's actions and land exchange,

15. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Georgia Constitution of !983, Article

VI, Section IY,Paragraph I and O.C.G.A. SS 15-6-8;9-4-2;9-5-'l'; and9-6-20'

l-6. Venue is proper because the subject real property is located in DeKalb County

and actions giving rise to this matter occurred andf or are occurring in DeKalb County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Intrenchment Creek Park

L7. Intrenchment Creek Park, originally established as an approximately 136-acre,

more or less, public park is located in south DeKalb County, inside Atlanta's I-285,

along the banks of Intrenchment Creek. Intrenchment Creek Park is bound, generally,

by the centerline of Intrenchment Creek on the west, Bouldercrest Road to the east, and

9
Constitution Road to the south. The Park also connects with Constitution Lakes and

benefits from this natural connectiqn.

L8. The Park boasts a thick tree canopy, beautilul forest trails and abundant wildlife.

The tree canopy, wetlands, and floodplain work together to protect the South River's

largest urban tributary, Intrenchment Creek, while providing critical storm water

management for the area. In addition to the lush natural feafures, the Park serves as an

invaluable recreational amenity.

19. Intrenchment Creek Park was establishedinf around 2003 with the support of

the Trust for Public Land ('TPL") and the Arthur Blank Family Foundation ("Blank

Foundation"), with the understanding that the property would be held as a public park

permanently for the benefit and use of the public.

20. The County, in working to secure the acquisition and permanent protection of

the property, remarked on its importance stating: "[t]he South River is one of the most

significant natural features in DeKalb County and [the acquisition] will provide

important environmental amenities to the public while preserving sensitive resources

along the South River's tributaries."

21..TheCounty further noted that the acquisition and establishment of the Park "will

more successfully prevent further deterioration of the watershed and protect the

floodplain, enhancing the long-term benefits to the entire atea."

22.Infurther reference to the importance of the acquisition and establishment of the

Park, the County stated that the Park "will provide premiere educational and

L0
recreational opporfunities and, at the same time, insure that development does not

negatively impact water quality flowing to the South River."

23. Moreover, the County, remarking on the importance of the acquisition and

establishment of the Park, clearly expressed its intent that the Park would be

permanently protected for the public use and benefit. In its April 1,2021etter to the

Bland Foundation, the County stated: "DeKalb County is pleased to be working in

collaboration with'I'PL on acquisition and permanent protection of properties

[Intrenchment Creek Park] along the South River and its tributaries."

24.Thecontinued public use of Intrenchment Creek Park as a public park are

threatened by the County's actions to exchange portions of the Park with Blackhall

Studios, a private entity in contravention of law and requirements set forth in the deed

establishing the Park.

Deed Establishing Intrenchment Creek as a Public Park in Perpetuity

25. On or about January 15,2003, the Trust for Public Land ('TPL") conveyed and

dedicated Intrenchment Creek Park, being approximately. !36 acres, more or less, to

DeKalb County as a park for the benefit and use of the public.

26.The deed memorializingthis conveyance was dated January 15,2003 and

recorded on January 22,2003, at Deed Book 1.4082, page 22, DeKalb County, records. A

true and correct copy of that deed is attached as Exhibit A (the "ParkDeed")'

27.DeKalb County accepted the property - Intrenchment Creek Park - subject to a

permanen! recreational use deed requirement which provides in pertinent part as

follows:

LI
 This Property is conveyed subject to the covenant and use restriction that
it shatl be used in perpetuity as park property ("Park Property
RestrictiorU" as hereinbelow defined), which for purposes hereof, shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the uses permitted of "greenspace" as
provided by the terms of the Georgia Greenspace Act, O.C.G.A. 536-22-'l''
it ttq.,. Forpurposes hereof, the "Park Property Restriction" to which the
Property is hereby subjected shall be an exPansive term, and is defined to
include, without limitation, the use of the Property solely for one or more
of the following par uses, as appropriate given site conditions, the location
of the Property, and other attributes considered in sound park planning
practice: (1) passive recreation, such as walking, hiking, bicycling,
irorseback riding, picnicking, andf ot " dog parks" and the like, and (2)
active recreation, such as ball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts,
playgrounds, swimming pools (indoor or outdoor), gymnasiums andf or
ii*ilut recreational facilities (and associated auxiliary improvements) and
activities for the use and benefit of the park-going public. No other uses
or buildings (commercial, industrial, residential or municipal (i.e. Fire
stations, police stations,libraries)), shall be permitted on the Property.
The foregoing Park Property Restriction and covenant is imposed with
the consent and acquiescence of the GRANTEE, and is imposed in favor
of and for the benefit of the Property so held by the GRANTEE for the
use of the public, and thus is intended to be and shall be perpetual in
accordance with the provisions of o.c.G.A. (s) 44-5-60(.). ... Both (i)
Arthur M. Blank Foundation, in consideration of its grant awarded
towards the purchase of the Property for a public park, as well as (ii\ any
member of the general pubtic utho utilizes the Property, shall have the
right to take any action necessary at law or in equity to enforce the Park
Property Restriction contained herein.

AND THE SAID GRANTEE,by its acceptance of this conveyance, the

consideration for which is funded in part with private foundation grant
proceeds, dedicates, the Property to the Park Property Restriction in
perpetuity for the benefit of the public pursuant to o.C.G.A. $ a4-5-60(c)'
bneN1'fE further covenants to provide public access to the Property,
consistent with sound park planning and management practices. The
Park Property Restriction shall run with the Property in perpeturty,
exclusively fbr the purposes identified herein, for the benefit of DeKalb
County, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, and the public.

(emphasis supplied).

12
 28. The Park Deed specifically grants to the Blank Family Foundation AND any

member of the general pubtic utho utilizes the Park the legal right and authority to

enforce the permanent Park Property Restriction.

29.8y way of conveyance of the Park Deed, the County accepted conveyance of the

land and the dedication of Intrenchment Creek Park as a public park for the use and

benefit of the public.

30. Since its establishment,Intrenchment Creek Park has continued to be utilized by

the public as a public park.

31. The citizens of DeKalb County and the State of Georgia have not abandoned

Intrenchment Creek Park as a public park nor authorized the abandonment of the Park.

Prior Unauthorized Land Exchange

32. Apparently, in2007,the County conveyed approximately 8.9 acres, more ot less,

of the Park to a private entity - TND City Crest, LLC - in exchange for 20.8 acres/ more

orless,of land ("2007 LandExchange"). Thedeedmemorializingthisconveyancewas

dated November 27,2007 and recorded on December 3'J.,2007, at Deed Book 20536,

page 3l7,DeKalb County, records.

33. The 2007 LandExchange Deed failed to include the Park Property Restriction

required under the Park Deed.

34. The County did not hold a referendum on the2007 Land Exchange.

35. Likewise, the County did not engage the TPL, the Blank Foundation or the public

on the 2007 Land Exchange.

13
 36. Notably, it appears that neither TPL nor the Blank Foundation learned about the

2007 LandExchange until approached by the County in the context of the proposed

land exchange offered by Blackhall Studios.

3T.Inresponse to learning of the 2007 LandExchange and offer of the Blackhall

Land Exchange, the Blank Foundation stated as follows: "... due diligence discovered

that the County no longer owns nearly nine acres of [Intrenchment Creek Purk]... The

original nine acres remains undeveloped and to our knowledge has not excluded public

access, so it appears to remain in compliance with the deed restriction. \Mhoever owrls

the land, publicly or privately, is required by the deed restriction to make the property

available for park use. Please note: This transfer took place without informing the

Blank Eounilation, the Trust for Public Land, or others inaokteil in the ortginal

transaction, which reflects poofly on the County's stezpardship." (emphasis supplied).

Seeqebraary 2019 Blank Foundation Letter, a true and correct copy of which is attached

hereto as Exhibit B.

38. Upon information and belief, the portion of properfy involved in tlne2007 Land

Exchange is still being utilized as public park property and the public retains all rights,

privileges and benefits under the original conveyance of the land to the County as a

public park.

Blackhall Studios Land Exchange

39. In 2018,the County was approached and courted by Blackhall Studios, a private

entity, with a proposal to swap approximately 55.6 acres of Intrenchment Creek Park in

L4
exchange for three separate tracts of land - approximately 55.6 acres, more or less,

Blackhall purchased on Bouldercrest Road.

40. The land exchange was conceived by Blackhall studios and was not the result of

a County initiated action.

41. The proposed land exchange enables Blackhall studios to expand its film and

production facilities in a contiguous manner with existing facilities, while stripping the

public of valuable park land and tegally protected rights, benefits and privileges to the

use and enjoyment of that land.

A2.Theland offered by Blackhall in exchange for valuable portions of Intrenchment

Creek Park has largely been disturbed and denuded of vegetation while the land being

lost by the County is predominately wooded.

43. With regard to the proposed land exchange, the Blank Foundation, who along

with the public has a right to enforce the Park Property Restriction, informed the

County, in February 2019,that any exchange must meet the following conditions,

among others:

o " Any land transaction must result in a net increase in public greenspace for

DeKalb County. ...We would prefer a transaction that would result in

acquisition of up to 1.5 acres of new parkland for each acre transferred by the

County but require a ratio of at least L.L to1'."

o " Any land transaction must result in the County receiving land that clearly is

more value than land that is being transferred. ... We require at least a10%

different in valuation to the benefit of the County'"

15
 o DeKalb County must host community meetings to present the details of the

proposed transaction and receiae feedbackfrom residents znith the goal of

ensuring that the community has a complete unilerstanding of the planned

amenities, accessibility and long-term maintenance plan, " (emphasis

supplied). A true and correct copy of the February 2019 Blank Foundation

Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

44. Upon information and belief, TPL also informed the County of certain conditions

that must be met along the lines of those articulated by the Blank Foundatiory

specifically including the need for robust public engagement and involvement'

45. The County held one purported "public meeting" on the Blackhall Land

Exchange in May 2}l9butfailed to provide meaningful information about the proposed

exchange and a meaningful opportunity for public engagement and comment.

46. Instead, the land exchange has been driven in large part, rt not exclusively,by

Blackhall Studios with propagandaand unsecured promises about anticipated benefits

of the exchange.

4T.Publicinformation regarding the land exchange, including, but not limited to,

details surrounding the actual value of land lost and gained in the exchange, the

ecological value lost and gained, communications with Blackhall and others related to

the land exchange, and commitments or money needed to ensure necessary

improvements, has largely, if not exclusively, been withheld from the public.

L6
 48. Purported public meetings have been designed not in the interest of the public

good and not with the intent to engage and weigh the support of the public, but with an

end-goal in mind - the exchange of land with Blackhall.

49. The nature of the Blackhall Land Exchange changed significantly since the

original proposal and the May 2019 meeting'

50. The County has failed to provide meaningful information to the public on the

Blackhall Land Exchange and has failed to engage in meaningful public dialogue and

public participation as it relates to the Blackhall Land Exchange.

5L. Nevertheless, on October 13,2020, DeKalb County Board of Commissioners

(BOC) voted to "authorize the exchange of approximately 40.00 acres of land in the

County's Intrenchment Creek Park for approximately 529 actes of adjacent property

owned by Bouldercrest 7},LLCand Blackhall Real Estate Phase II,LLC, affiliates of

Blackhall Studios (collectively "BlackhaIl"); and accept the donation of a number of

improvements to be made by Blackhall, valued at an amount of approximately

$L,500,000.00."

52.Inrendering this d.ecisiory the BOC did not put the matter to a public

referendum.

53. The decision by the BOC fails to provide any meaningful information about

protections aJforded the public in the land exchange, including whether the exchange

will protect in perpetuity the acquired land for dedicatiory benefit and use as a public

park and the nature of any purported "donations" and "improvements" by Blackhall

and the en-forceability of the same.

L7
 54. The public is not privy to any property appraisals performed by the County

and.f or Blackhall Studios regarding the land subject to the proposed land exchange and

the basis for the same.

55. The public is not privy to any information regarding the purported $1,500,000.00

improvements and whether there are any legaIly enforceable assurances, commitments,

obligations or the like in place to ensure the improvements are actually made and upon

what timeframe.

56. Upon information and belief, the land offered by Blackhall in the exchange is less

valuable than portions of Intrenchment Creek Park that the public would lose.

52. Upon information and belief, the Blackhall Land Exchange does result in the

County receiving land of equal or greater value.

58. The Blackhall Land Exchange also results in the County receiving land of

signi{icantly lesser ecological value.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

59. On or about ]anuary 15,2003, TPL dedicated Intrenchment Creek Park as a park

for the benefit and use of the public by conveying it to DeKalb County in accordance

with the Park Deed.

60. Since its establishment, Plaintiffs along with the citizens of DeKalb County and

the State of Georgia have continuously used Intrenchment Creek Park as a public park,

such public use being for period of time in excess 17 years.

61. The citizens of DeKalb County and the State of Georgia, including Plaintiffs,

have not abandoned Intrenchment Creek Park as a public park.

L8
 62.Thecitizens of DeKalb County and the State of Georgia, including Plaintiffs,

have not been given the opportunity to vote on the exchange of public land.

63. Ptaintiffs are interested in the continued public use and benefit of Intrenchment

Creek Park.

64. Upon information and belief, Blackhall Studios intends to develop the portion of

Intrenchment Creek Park it seeks for the expansion of its film and production studies.

65. DeKalb County failed to provide meaningful public engagement on the land

exchange.

66. DeKalb County deprived Plaintiffs and the public of critical information needed

to evaluate and consider the land exchange and ensure meaningful public participation

in the process.

67.DeKalb County refused to release information and records related to the land

exchange, including information regarding the valuation, appraisal and assessment of

the subject properties.

68. It is presently unknornm whether and how the alleged value of Intrenchment

Creek Park was appraised by the County and Blackhall Studios based on its use as a

public park or by some other method.

69.Itis presently unknown whether and how the alleged value of the land exchange

was evaluated, determined andf or appraised by DeKalb County.

7}.Itis presently unknown whether the property authorities and/or individuals at

DeKalb County reviewed and approved the valuation of the land exchange.

19
 71,.Il"is presently unknown whether DeKalb County complied with all valuation

and assessment, including required environmental assessments, in association with the

land exchange.

T2.IJponinJormation and belief, DeKalb County is not receiving property of an

equal to or greater value than the property or interest being exchanged in the Land

Exchange with Blackhall Studios.

73. Likewise, upon information and belief, DeKalb County is not receiving property

of equal or greater ecological value than the property being exchanged in the Land

Exchange with Blackhall Studios.

TL.Uponinformation and belief, DeKalb County does not have sufficient funds to

conduct the necessary improvements arising from the Land Exchange and the

"promises" made to the public in association with the Land Exchange for the benefit of

the public and for establishment of public park land.

75. Upon information and belief, DeKalb County has improperly leveraged funds

that are dedicated to other park purposes in support of its "promises" associated with

the Land Exchange.

T6.IJponinformation and belief, DeKalb County has not obtained necessary and

legally enforceable commitments from Blackhall Studios related to the purported

donations and improvements offered by Blackhall Studios in support of the Land

Exchange.

20
 TT.IJponinformation and belief, DeKalb County has not obtained an appraisal or

valuation of the purported donations and improvements offered by Blackhall Studios in

support of the Land Exchange.

78. Upon information and belief, there is no legally cognizable right or interest

afforded the public to protect the public and public park lands if and when Blackhall

Sfudios fails to perform on its purported donations and improvements.

79.DeKalb County has already exhibited a pattern and practice of disregard for the

rights and benefits afforded the public as it relates to Intrenchment Creek Park.

80. DeKalb County has already exhibited a pattern and practice of over-promising

and underperforming on commitments to the public with regard to its management

and stewardship of Intrenchment Creek Park.

81. As a result of the County's actions and the land excharrge, Plaintiffs and the

public have been denied legally protected properfy rights and interests, including as

named and third-parry beneficiaries of the Park Property Restriction in the Park Deed

and as beneficiaries of the public trust under which Intrenchment Creek Park is held.

82. Among other constitutionally protected rights of Plaintiffs (and the public) that

have been violated, Plaintiffs and the public have been denied due process rights under

the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions as a result of the County's actions and land

exchange.

CLAIM ONE: FIRST REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

83. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of. paragraphs L through 83 above as

if restated and fully set forth herein.

2L
 84. Plaintiffs are in a position of uncertainty regarding their continued public use

and benefit of Intrenchment Creek Park because of actions threatened and/or taken by

DeKalb County.

85. The conveyance and transfer of Intrenchment Creek Park to DeKalb County

included a specific requirement, referred to in the Park Deed as the Park Property

Restrictioru that Intrenchment Creek Parkbe used in perpetuity as park property for the

benefit and use of the public; whereby, the public was a named and third-parry beneficiary

and whereby DeKalb County dedicated and agreed to hold and maintain Intrenchment

Creek Park for the benefit and use of the public, including Plaintiffs.

86. The conveyance and transfer of Intrenchment Creek Park to DeKalb County as a

public park and the public use of Intrenchment Creek Park imposed a public trust upon

Intrenchment Creek Park; whereby, DeKalb County serves as trustee of that public trust

for the benefit of the citizens of DeKalb County and the State of Georgia, including

Plaintiffs.

87. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. SS44-5-230 and36-37-L, Intrenchment Creek Park's use as a

public park may not be alienated or abandoned without consent of the citizens of

DeKalb County and the State of Georgia, as beneficiaries of the public trust.

88. Intrenchment Creek Park has not been alienated or abandoned as a public park

and has continuously been held and used as a public park for the benefit and use of the

public since its establishment.

89. DeKalb County's decision to transfer andf or conveyance of portions of

Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall Studios is ultra vires, and thereby, void.

22
 90. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. S 9-4-'J, et seq.,Plaintiffs request that this Court declare that

(i) DeKalb County's decision to transfer portions of Intrenchment Creek Park to

Blackhall Studios is ultra vires, (ii) any conveyance or transfer of portions of

Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall studios is ultra vires, (Iii) the transfer or

conveyance of portions of Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall studios and land

exchange, to the extent it has already occurred, is void, (iv) DeKalb County cannot

alienate or abandon Intrenchment Creek Park, including any portion of Intrenchment

Creek Park for the development and expansion of Blackhall Studio's film and

production studios, without the approval by referendum of the citizens of DeKalb

County.

91. In additioru Plaintiffs request that this Court declare that DeKalb County is

obligated to hold and maintain Intrenchment Creek Park for the public's use and

benefit in accordance with the Park Deed and the public trust.

CLAIM TWO - SECOND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

92. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of. paragraphs 1 through 92 above

as if restated and fully set forth herein.

93. Plaintiffs are in a position of uncertainty regarding their continued public use

and benefit of Intrenchment Creek Park because of actions threatened andf or taken by

DeKalb County.

94.The conveyance and transfer of Intrenchment Creek Park to DeKalb County as a

public park and the public use of Intrenchment Creek Park imposed a public trust upon

23
Intrenchment Creek Park; whereby, DeKalb County serves as trustee of that public trust

for the benefit of the citizens of DeKalb County and the State of Georgia.

95. Even if DeKalb County is able to exchange portions of Intrenchment Creek Park,

which Plaintiffs dispute can occur without a referendum authoizingthe same, the

Land Exchange with Blackhall fails to satisfy the requirements imposed on the County

pursuant to O.C.G.A. S 36-9-3(a)(3)(D).

96. DeKalb County's land exchange with Blackhall studios is or willbe in

contradiction to the requirements of O.C.G.A. S 36-9-3(a)(3)(D), including requirements

which impose certain procedural and public notification and participation requirements

and mandate an exchange of county property must return for the county value that is of

equal to or greater than value of the property transferred to the other entity.

97.Likewise, upon information and belief, DeKalb County has not complied with

other requirements and restrictions imposed on the transfer or conveyance of land,

including as it relates to environmental assessments and due diligence.

98. Pursuant to O.C.G.A.S9-4-1, et seq., Plaintiffs request that this Court declare

that DeKalb County's conveyance of portions of Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall

Studios and land exchange, to the extent it has already occurred, violates the

requirements of O.C.G.A. S 36-9-3(a)(3XD).

99. Pursuant to O.C.G .A. S 9-4-1, et seq., Plaintiffs request that this Court declare that

DeKalb County's conveyance of portions of Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall

Studios and land exchange, to the extent it has already occurred, violates other

24
requirements imposed on DeKalb County related to the transfer, conveyance andf or

exchange of property.

CLAIM THREE - MANDAMUS

100. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs L through 83

above as if restated and fully set forth herein.

101. Plaintiffs bring a question of public right and seek to procure the

enforcement of DeKalb Counfy's public and fiduciary duty to faithfully maintain

Intrenchment Creek Par as a park for the public's benefit and use.

102. DeKalb County has taken andf or caused andf or plans to take andf or

cause wrongful acts that violated or violate its public and fiduciary duty to faithfully

hold and maintain Intrenchment Creek Park as aparkfor the public's benefit and use

including be: (i) transferring a portion of Intrenchment Creek Park to a private entity by

way of the2007 Land Exchange, (ii) acquiesced to and approved a land exchange with

Blackhall studios whereby it has kansferred or seeks to transfer approximately 40 acres/

more or less, of Intrenchment Creek Park to a private entity for development by

Blackhall Studios as private commercial property.

103. DeKalb County's decisioru acting by and through its Board of

Commissioners, on October 13,2020 to "authorize the exchange of approximately 40.00

acres of land in the County's Intrenchment Creek Park for approximately 52.9 acres of

adjacent property owned by Bouldercrest 70,LLC and Blackhall Real Estate Phase II,

LLC, affiliates of Blackhalt Studios (collectively "BlackhaIl"); and accept the donation of

a number of improvements to be made by Blackhall, valued at an amount of

25
approximately $1,500,000.00" demonstrates its intent to breach its fiduciary duty to

maintain Intrenchment Creek Park as a park for the public's use and benefit.

104. DeKalb County by holding information "public" meetings regarding the

land exchange with Blackhall studios has demonstrated its intent to breach its fiduciary

duty to maintain Intrenchment Creek Park as a park for the public's use and benefit.

105. DeKalb County's actions are ultra vires.

106. Pursuant to O.C.G.A . g 9-6-20 et seq., Plaintiffs request the Court to order

the Clerk to issue a writ of mandamus directing DeKalb County to hold and maintain

Intrenchment Creek Park as a park for the public's use and benefit.

CLAIM FOUR - INIUNCTIVE RELIEF

107. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs L tfuough77

above as if restated and fully set forth herein.

108. Plaintiffs bring a question of public right and seek to enjoin DeKalb

County andf or Blackhall Studios andf or any other private parq from using

Intrenchment Creek Park for any purpose other than a park for the benefit and use of

the public.

109. DeKalb County's decision, acting by and through its Board of

Commissioners, on October13,2020 to "authorize the exchange of approximately 40.00

acres of land in the County's Intrenchment Creek Park for approximately 52.9 acres of

adjacent property owned by Bouldercrest 70,LLC and Blackhall Real Estate Phase II,

LLC, affiliates of Blackhall studios (collectively "Blackhall"); and accept the donation of

a number of improvements to be made by Blackhall, valued at an amount of

26
approximately $1,500,000.00" demonstrates its intent to breach its fiduciary duty to

maintain Intrenchment Creek Park as a park for the public's use and benefit.

110. DeKalb Counfy by holding"public" meetings regarding the land

exchange with Blackhall studios has demonstrated its intent to breach its fiduciary duty

to maintain Intrenchment Creek Park as a park for the public's use and benefit.

111.. DeKalb County's land exchange with Blackhall Studios is or will be in

violation of the public trust as well as the Park Property Restriction in the Park Deed.

112. DeKalb County's land exchange with Blackhall Studios is or will be in

contradiction to the requirements of O.C.G.A.536-9-3(aX3XD) that mandates an

exchange of county property must refurn for the county value that is of equal to or

greater than value of the property transferred to the other entity.

113. Upon information and belief, the land exchange with Blackhall Studios is

not an exchange of equal or greater value and represents a substantial financial loss to

DeKalb County and the public.

11.4. DeKalb County's actions violate Georgia law and the public trust of

Intrenchment Creek Park and, therefore, are ultra vires.

115. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. S 9-5-1 et seq., Plaintiffs request the Court to issue an

injunction prohibiting DeKalb Counfy from (i) exchanging portions of Intrenchment

Creek Park with Blackhall Studios and/ any other private entity and (ii) allowing the

development of any portions of Intrenchment Creek Park by a private entity {or any

other use other than a public park

27
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

a. Enter an order declaring that (i i) DeKalb County's decision to transfer

portions of Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall Studios is ultra vires, (ii) any

conveyance or transfer of portions of Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall Studios is

ultra vires, (Iii) the transfer or conveyance of portions of Intrenchment Creek Park to

Blackhall studios and land exchange, to the extent it has already eccurred, is void, (iv)

DeKalb County cannot alienate or abandon Intrenchment Creek Park, including any

portion of Intrenchment Creek Park for the development and expansion of Blackhall

Studio's film and production studios, without the approval by referendum of the

citizens of DeKalb County andf or (iv) DeKalb County's conveyance of portions of

Intrenchment Creek Park to Blackhall Studios via the land exchange violates

requirements placed upon the County pursuant to O.C.G.A. $36-9-3(a)(3)(D).

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing DeKalb County to hold and maintain

Intrenchment Creek Park for the public's use and benefi!

c. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting (i) the land

exchange between DeKalb County and Blackhall Studios, (ii) DeKalb Counfy andf or

Blackhall studios from entering into a land swap /Iand exchange involving any portions

of Intrenchment Creek Park andf or (iii) any development or land disturbance of

Intrenchment Creek Park, or any portions of it under the land exchange, for any reason

and for any use other than as a public park; and

d. Enter any further order, decree, writ, injunction or relief as is appropriate

under the law, equity and justice of this case.

28
This 12e day of February

Sturm

Kimberly [Kasey] A. Sturm

Georgia Bar No. 690615

Weissman PC
One Alliance Center,4ft Floor
3500 Lenox Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
Office: 404.926.4600
Direct 404926.4630
[email protected]
-
Att o rn ey f o r P aintiff s
I

29
 VERIFICATION

Personafly appeared before the undersigned oflioer. duly authorized to

administer oaths. Allen P. Doyle who being swom, deposes and states that the facts

contained in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correc! to the best of her personal

knowledge.

This l0 dayoiFebruary. 2021.

mew]
W" Allen P. Doyle
-

..

SWORN (o before ma this IO day of February. 2021

_“....m

Mammk
.vm

fix”

NOTARY PUBLIC. 55M Q ( k2 County. Georgia

My Commission Expires:

07f 24 [?U‘W
“\H' NH”,
X “367.8 Os \\
(AFFIX SEAL) ~‘ x». (”Rf'n‘ \\‘\

'lllaxa‘t\‘

a..‘mk.m;x

.....
n=-
 y.t#ffi#*:tsll.'l
autharixed ta
Per*onally appefirsd b*fore the undersignod cfficer, duly

deposes and states thst the

ad'rninister oa1hs, Jacqucline fchols, whu being $wCIrn,
correct to ths best nf hsr
facts *ontaincd ln the faregoing csMpLAlNT are trus and

personal knowledge.

fn'* ##, daY of February, 2Q2'1,

n& for and on behalf af $KWA

SWSRN ts bcfors rn* this

f.lSTAftY PUSLIC, {,n

I Tlrwd
tro"{a {, /r-t
r n
CountY, Goorgia

*O *o:missiun SxPires:
#^4 /ra rL6:r

{Arfix $f;AL}
 Vamacmou 1

aBpearud before the undersignednfficer. duly'author-izad to

--

Personatly appeared
Personaliy

caths, Joel
administer oaths.
administer Finegold
Joel Finegoid being
who being sworn. deposes and states that the":
dds i
:::i

contained in the foregoing are true

PLAINT are
COMPLAJNT true:and
and correct to the best of her personal_

knoMedge.

This [0 “’"Hay of February. 2021. yum.

'

U U Joel Finegold
SWORN to before me this
to before (9 day of February. 2021

NOTARY PUIB'L'IC, 1:9 [g am County. Georgia

Expires:
Commission Expires:
My Commission
owl'alzow
\\‘:1lllllu;”
gee r’
(ArHX SEAL)
(AFFIX ¢ pvafiggm a
s .0 a
E I.
#3931 2-10 'u
E
g I. DEfOE 1 E
Sg‘dlldXE III é.
a a
'

gowogim é“
I’I
‘
0‘}

W
(Sf.
A -'
’
a \o
 VERIFICATION
personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly authorrzedto

ad.minister oaths, foseph S. Peery who being swom, deposes and states that the facts

contained in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of her perso:ral

knowledge.
.fr
t tr{'{e1
This *tg*-flay of February, 20n,

I
SWORN to before me this f 0 day of Febtuary,2}Z7

NOTARY County, Georgia

My Commission ExPires:
?J,ZJ|

(AFFIX SEAL) t.
I
{
.{-
I
 vg.tflHtcATts"*$

*unatly appe+ed befOre $re Undersigneri officel, dfrlf authorized,to

,,,,
at{minister Mutg**t S, Brady who being swon:l' deposes and states that the Jacfs
"uth*, 'i
:.::.i.. :,':':

contained;in'the loreg@ COMff$.lti.l are trtre and correct fo:the best of 'kt ip-ers.snal
"',.
. ..::iit,iil,
. . :,
::,:,;;,1.i',.,,,1;,'r:

': , ,,_ ,

knowledge .,':...'..i, "1:;::,,i1

' . :::: ,, :! ':'

15.i*,1C ar1, of

:'
SWORN.to'befote'rne davof
J-
Februarv,'2}Ll

NCIl]ARY

My Cornmission F-xPires:

Lt

{ATFIX$HArt
.$$#{ii-"-
ii i'#ti6gol
l.' ,.'
sa*!ax**
?
5

"t##,#$
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

SOUTH RTVER WATERSHED ALLIANCE,

SOUTH RIVER FOREST COALITION,
MARGARET S. BRADY, ALLEN P. DOYLE,
JOEL FINEGOLD, JOSEPH S. PEERY, and
JOHN AND ]ANE DOES, CryIL FILE ACTION NO

Plaintiffs,

DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, by and

through its Board of Commissioners, and
BLACKHALL REAL ESTATE PHASE II, LLC

Defendants

VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Exhibit A (the "ParkDeed")
 Dred Sook lr+@BE Pq ee
Filed end Recorded Jan-32-?003 03:0bpr
[email protected]
Real Estate Transfer Tsx 10.90

MMCarta
{- Linda carter
Clsrk of Suoprior Count Dehalb Ctv, 6a.
lillrtlrItrHIn[ililHInIEunIHl

Aftcr recordirg retunl to;

L. Jlutch Moorc, Ilsq.
Milcs, McGofl'& Moore, LLC
.Suite 400
4360 Cltantblee Dunrvoody Roatl
Aduta, GA 30341 -
Ftlefllt tSt:u rolt'i
STATE OF CEORCIA

COUNTY OF FULTON

LIMITED WARRANTY DEED

THIS INDENTURE, nrade as of thc l#Orof January,2003, betwcen l'HE TRUST

FOR PUBLIC LAND, a nonprofit Califonria public benelit corpotalion d/b/a Tbe 'l'rust for

Public Land (Inc,) having a place of business in Atlanta, Georgia (hereinafier refsrred to as

"GRANTOR'), and DEKALB COUNTY, a political subdivisiol of tlre State of Georgia, having

an address of The Manuel J. Maloof Ccnter, 1300 Conrmerce Drivq 6th Floor, Decatur, Georgia,

30030, its successors and assigns (hereinafter refcrred to as "CRANTEE'),

IYIINES9ETE:
THA'[ GRANTOR, for and in consideration of this sum of TEN AND NO/100

DOLLARS (510.00) and othcr good and valuable consideration, in hand paid at and beforc the

sealing and delivery of thesc prosents, tl,e receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby

aoknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, aliened, conveyed and cotrfirmed, and by these

presents does grani, bargain, sell, alicn, oonvey and conhrm unto the said GRANTEE, all that

+T
 Deed Eooh t 4?tB3 Pq es
lilttHt trlll] I [[$t$fi ll][ flf, Ht til

tract or parcel of land lying and bcing in Laud Lots 82 an<t 83 of the l5rl'District of DeKatb

Counln Ceorgia coritaiu.ing 13.5.98 acres, more or less, and being moreparticularly described iu

Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this referencc made a part hereof(hereinafter rcfemed to as

thc "Propelty").

TO IIAVE AND TO HOLD, lhc said tract or parcel of land, rvith all and singular thc

rights. mcmbers and appurtenances thercof, to the samc being, belonging, or in anywisc

aplreltaining, to the only propcl use, bencfit and behoof of 1he said GRANTEE f<rrevcr in ]"cc

Simple; subject to the matters (hereafter refened to as "Pennitted Exceptions") sct f<lllh on

Exhibit "B" attached lrercto and by this referelce incorporatcd hereiu

AND, F'URTHERMORE, this Propcrty is conveyed sutrject to thc covcttant ancl use

restriction that it shalt be used in perpetuity as park property ("Park Property Ilestricliorr," as

lrereinbelorv defined), which for purposes hcreof , shall includc, hut shall not be limitei n, lltc

uses pennitled of"greenspace" as ptovided by the lemls ofthe Gcorgia Grcetrspacc Acl,

O.C.G,A. $ 36-22-1, at se.q. For purposes hereof, the "Park Property Restriction" to which thc

Property is hereby subjected shall be an expansive term, and is defincd to irrolude, rvithout

limitation, the use of the Property solely fot one or more of tlte following park uses, as

appropriate given site conditions, the location oflhe Property, and othcr attributes considered in

sound park planning practice: (l ) passive recreation, such as walking, hiking, bicyoling,

horsebaok riding, picnicking, and /or "dog parks" and the like, and (2) activc recreation, such as

ball fields, teunis courls, basketball courts, playgrounds, swimming pools (indoor or outdoor),

gynrrasiunrs an#or similar recreational facilitios (and associated auxiliary improvements) and

activitics for lhe use and benefit ofthe park-going public. No other uses or buildings

(commercial, industrial, residential or municipal (ie. Fire stations, police stations, libraries),

shall bc perrnitted on thc Property, Thc foregoing Park Property Restriction and covenant is

2
 Deed Book 14@BE Fq ?4
llBHl|ill nttil[f [il illtHtntuil

imposcd witlr thc consent and acquiescencc olthe GRANTEE, and is inlposed in favor of antl lor

thc benefit of tho Property so held by the CRANTEE lor lhe use olthe public, and thus is

intended to be and shall be perpelual in accotdance with the provisions of O.C'G.A. 4a-5-60 (c).

Notwithstanding anything to thc contrary contained in the forgoing, municipal uses or buildings

(ic. Fire stations, policc stations, libraries), lnay be pcmtilted on a portion oflhe Propcrty that

docs not excccd 6,8 acrcs provided CRANTI]n first obtains tle consent anrl approval of thc

Arthur. M, Blank Fatnily Foundation, in considelation ol its grant awarded torvards thc purchase

olthe Property for a public park, which such consent shall not be urueasonably withhcld,

conditioncd or dclayed. Both (i) the Arthur M. Blank Fanily Foundatiorr, in corisideratiou of its

grant awardcd towards thc purohase ofthe Prope(y for a public park, as rvell as (ii) any nlentber

ofthe gcneral public who utilizes the Property, shall have lhe right to take any aclion necessary at

law or in cquity to enforce the Park Property Restriction contained herein.

AND THE SAID CRANTOR, subject to the Pennitted Exceptions and thc Park Property

Restriction, will warrant and forever defend the right aur! title to the Property unto the said

GRANTEE against tho claims of all persons owning, holding or clairning by, through and uuder

theCRANTOR.

AND THE SAID GRANTEE, by its acceptancc of this corveyance, lhe consideration for

which is funded in part with private foundation grant proceeds, dedicates tho Property to the Park

Property Restriction in perpetuity for the berrefit ofthc public pursuant to O.C.G.A $ -5-60(c).

GRANTEE further covenants to provide public access to thc Proporty, consistent with sound

park planning ard nranagement practicos. The Park Property Restriction shall ruu with the

Property in perpetuity, exclusively lor the purposes identified hcrein, for tha benefit of DeKalb

County, r political subdivision olthe Stato of0eorgia, and the public.

3
 Deed Bool 14@ete Pg e5
r{IHHnUf$]fi[Sll $ ll][sil$ilil

lN WITNnSS WHEREOF, thc GRANTOR and GRANTEE havc sigrted and scaled this

Limited Warranty Deed, as of the day and year first above writton.

GRANTOR:
Signctl, scaled and doliv*ecl th i"M
day ofJanuary, 2003, in the presencc of: THE TRUST FOR }UBI,IC I,AND,
a Califorrria public benefit corporation
rJlblaThe Public Land (lnc.)

My Cornmission
Its:

INOTARIALSEAL] CORPORATE SEAL

rl
0:

4
 0eed Sook t4rage Pg e6
rmnarHtultr[n$w f,uilNilur
GRAI{IfED:
Sigsed, soalod and debvertdua 4 day
of January, 2003, ln tle prese'qcc o* DEI(AI,3COULIY;

M
Witneas
a politioel sub{vlslon
"'.f.F^:ti"i"
{.;

Ll
ri\\
.'1 ,l
Expirtsl

INOTIRIALSBAL]

5
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

SOUTH RTVER WATERSHED ALLIANCE,

SOUTH RIVER FOREST COALITION,
MARGARET S. BRADY, ALLEN P. DOYLE,
JOEL FINEGOLD, JOSEPH S. PEERY, and
]OHN AND JANE DOES, CIVIL FILE ACTION NO

Plaintiffs,

DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, by and

through its Board of Commissioners, and
BLACKHALL REAL ESTATE PHASE II, LLC

Defendants

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Exhibit B -
February 12,2019 Letter from Blank Foundation
to Mr. Zachary Williams, COO, DeKalb County
 UUU' Oltice
i i-:. ; , .,'.

Date Reseived
Tnn A*vNuit &,1. Slanx Faruatlv Ft:l'l*

February 12,2019

Mr. Zachary Williams

Chief Operating Officer
DeKalb County
1300 Commerce Drive, 61h Floor
Decatur, GA 30030

Dear COO Williams:

I am writing in response to your November 27,2018, letter requesting the endorsement of The
Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation for a proposed land swap that has been offered by Blackhall
Studios involving land acquired by the County in 2002 with funds provided by the Blank
Foundation.

Our initial due diligence in assessing the proposed swap was to review the commitments made
by the County and the Blank Foundation in 20012. The attached letter documents DeKalb
County's intention to build a regional athletics complex on the site, with some passive
greenspace on the land near lntrenchment Creek. Our expectation is that any land transaction
involving the property will result '1n parkland that is consistent with the original intent of the Blank
Foundation's lnvestrnent, and we believe that the proposed:transaction meets this criterlon., We
do note that while the park now hosts a multiuse trail, trailhead and model plane airfield, most of
the promised investrnent in amenities remains unfulfilled'

Further due diligence discover:ed that the County no longer owns nearly nine acres of the
property acquired 'in 20102. We subsequently learned that the acreage was swapped ln 2007 for
sligfrtly-more than 20 acres of nearby land to facilitate the construction of the multi-use
lntrenchment Creek Trail currently running through the property. The original nine acres
remains undeveloped and to our knowledge has not excluded public access, so it appears to
remain in compliance with the deed restr:iction. Whoever owns the lahd, publicly or privately, is
required by the deed restriction to make the property available for park use. Please note: This
transfer took place without inforrning the Blank Foundation, The Trust for Public l-and or others
involved in the original transaction, which reflects poor,ly on the County's stewardship.

We also requested that The Trust for Publie Land, an original partner in the acquisition of this
land, review the proposed transaction from the perspective of providing recreational amenities
to the community. The Trust for Public Land concluded that the proposed transaction would
increase recreational opportunities on site, create a more cohesive public space, increase
residential access to the park (see attached GIS analysis) and more clearly delineate

3223 HOI/VEIL MILL ROAD, NoRfllWEH ' ATLANTA, Gol-l.o.r 30327

TIIIERJONE 4O4.367-2LO0 rFACSIMIIE 404-967-2056 'vrmrtr'hl:mkfuund:uion'org
 Page D

residential, park and industrial uses in the impacted area - with the park serving as a buffer
between residential and industrial uses.

Since receiving your November 27 letter, several citizens and park users have reached out to
the Foundation to express theirconcern aboutthe potential ecological impact of the proposed
land transaction and subsequent development. The Nature Conservancy, which has been
active in this community, has requested an ecological assessmentto comparethevalue of the
two sites in regard to trees, water and habitat. We believe that there is merit in this exercise.

Given the above, The Arthur M Blank Family Foundation is prepared to concur with the
proposed land swap under the terms outlined in your November 27 letter, contingent upon
additional commitments from the County and Blackhall Studios being accomplished before the
closing of any exchange.

a
Any land transaction must result in a net increase in public greenspace for DeKalb
County. The original pr,oposal called for an acre-for-acre swap. We would prefer a
transaction that would result in acquisition of up to 1.5 acres of new parkland for each
acre transferred by the County, but require a ratio of at least 1'1 to 1.

a
Any land transaction must result in the County receiving land that clearly is of more
value ihan land that is being transferred. Appraisals obtained by the County indicate
that the transaction as originally proposed with an acre for acre swap would result in the
County receiving land valued at 3o/o above the land that they would transfer. We require
at least a 10o/o difference h valuation to the benefit of the County.

DeKalb County must complete an ecological evaluation comparing the ecological

features of the properties h the proposed transaction, To the extent that there is a
disparity to the detriment of the County, DeKalb County should address those
disparities.

DeKalb County must retroactively apply the acreage, valuation and ecological evaluation
requirements to the land transaction that took place in 2007. That transaction clearly
meets the 1.1 to 1 acreage requirement, and the land acquired is subject to the same
deed restrictions as the land acquired in 2002, However, the County must get
appraisals for the two parcels and conduct ecological evaluations. Should that
transaction not meet the valuation and ecological evaluation criteria, the County must
present a plan to remedy any discrepancy - and commit resources to the execution of
that plan - before the current proposed transaction may proceed.

a
DeKalb County must host community meetings to present the details of the proposed
land transaction and receive feedback from residents with the goal of ensuring that the
community has a complete understanding of the planned amenities, accessibility and
longterm maintenance Plan.
 Page 13

The terms of the November Zl letler require that any existing recreational amenities
displaced by the proposed transaction be replaced. We further require that there be rn
diminishment h thevalue of the amenities promised by Blackhall as outlined h the
November Zl letler.

. As noted earlier, The Arthur M Blank Family Foundation invested h lntrenchment Creek
Part with the expectation that it would be developed for recreational purposes. \A,b
reiterate this expectation of investment by the County. We particularly stress the need
for.DeKalb County to adequately invest h the ongoing maintenance alrd care of the
park. The Gounty significantly decreased funding for park maintenance during the
recession of 2008, and that funding has not been fully restored, to the detriment of park
users and DeKalb County residents. To merit park investments included h the proposed
transaction, and to attract future private investments h ib parks, DeKalb County must
improve park maintenance. As a condition of the proposed swap, the Foundation
requests that the DeKalb Department of Recreation and Parks commit to developing a
park maintenance plan and submitting it b the County Commission for approval by
September 2019.

The Arthur M Blank Family Foundation and our fellow stakeholders appreciate the opportunity
b work with the County b ensure that any land transaction involving lntrenchment Creek Park
result h a definitive improvement h pakland and recreational opportunities h DeKalb County.
\lVfiile \,e encourage the County to continue to work for the best possible terms to the proposed
transaction, \ e are prepared b concur b7 execuiing necessary releases at the closing once the
commitments outlined above are met

$t

McPhe
President

Cc. George Dusenbury

Deron Davis