Friday, Dec. 9, 2016    Login | Register        

King: Reasons to OK new light

Having served as a councilman for the past 90 days, by any standard, makes me no expert in all things Peachtree City.

The experience and wealth of knowledge possessed by Mayor Fleisch and council members Learnard and Imker along with their willingness to work in harmony for our city is a rare commodity as compared to other locales.

Couple this with being able to work alongside my long-time friend Terry Ernst makes this experience that much more enjoyable.

This is not to say that we all agree on each and every issue facing us, but we have the maturity to disagree without being disagreeable.

The issue of yet an additional light on Ga. Highway 54 West has city residents and especially those of both Cardiff Park and Planterra Ridge upset, in that it will invariably clog an already busy thoroughfare, not to mention the backlog along Planterra Way.

This traffic light decision rests solely with our state DOT, with Peachtree City possessing only the right to apply for a review. Should we decline to apply for this review we must accept the liability for paying the quarter-million-dollar cost should DOT decide to approve it over our objection.

Currently, the developer has lined up clients for the property who have asked that a light be installed for ease of access to their businesses. If we say no, we may very well be stuck with businesses that may not meet the standard to which we are accustomed.

Further, discussions are ongoing regarding the abandonment of city streets in order to provide access to both MacDuff and Planterra Way.

The residents of Planterra/Cardiff have every right to voice their concern over the potential increase in cut through traffic onto Planterra Way heading through their neighborhood, but certainly they would not deny a member of the Tennis Center the safer access from the soon-to-be-installed Racetrack gas station direct access to Planterra Way.

Council is very much aware of these concerns and will actively pursue remedies from companies located along Dividend Drive.

Council recently approved three separate smaller contracts for mowing and specific landscape requirements that have actually shown potential for future savings, while at the same time provide a better service to our city.

Further, Council approved the hire of six additional employees (two part-time) to accomplish what is not covered in the three contracts.

What is not widely known is that the preponderance of the cost of these new hires is to likely be made up from savings due to internal reorganization.

This spring will bring about the new construction of the boat dock along Battery Way, the shoring up of the unsightly erosion along the shoreline of Lake Peachtree, and long-ignored landscaping of traffic islands and intersections on our city streets.

I appreciate and welcome any and all input from the citizens of our fine city and I may be contacted at

Additionally, I have been known to frequently enjoy breakfast with friends at Mimi’s and would enjoy the opportunity to say hello.

Hope to see you on the paths!

Mike King

City Council Post 2

Peachtree City, Ga.



pursue remedies from companies located along Dividend Drive? For what? What remedies will that be? Is this some sort of a threat to our industrial park businesses? So, let's see, if I work at Eaton and decide to drive through Planterra to get to my home in Sharpsburg, my employer is going to suffer a "remedy" from our local elected?? Planterra and Cardiff residents need to realize this is an empty threat.

And last I checked, there is no guarantee anywhere, anyplace, anyhow that this developer will bring in businesses that will "meet the standard to which we are accustomed". If Mr. King knows that this is a guarantee from Trinity for this development, I suggest that be made public now.

This council and mayor are in office to represent the citizens of this city. Do your sworn duty and vote no to this light.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

are soon to make an appearance. Employers being fined because one of their employees were spotted on one of Planterra's streets. This is not the kind of thing a business-friendly city does. A better idea is a citizen vigilante group armed with paint guns. Red and yellow splattered vehicles will signal shame for the driver having dared to violate the sanctity of Planterra's private streets. What? They are actually public streets? Maintained by city tax dollars? Well, never mind.

If you still want to blame someone for the cut-through traffic, ask the city or the old developer why the area didn't have a collector road with subdivisions entrances off that road - like virtually all the rest of PTC? A properly designed collector road would have tied into the traffic light at McDuff and the commercial would have developed in an entirely different way.

Again, I give credit to Mr. King for speaking the truth about the new traffic light. He said it is GDOT's decision, which we all knew, but what he says next was news to me " Should we decline to apply for this review we must accept the liability for paying the quarter-million-dollar cost should DOT decide to approve it over our objection."

Gamechanger. So we either apply for a review and it is still GDOT's decision and they will pay for the light if they decide it is needed OR we don't apply for a review, it is still GDOT's decision, but by not applying we assume the entire cost of the light ($250k) should they decide it is needed now or at a later date. It would be pretty irresponsible not to apply for the review, if you want to protect the taxpayers of PTC, doncha think?

Live free or die!

and PTC votes no and GDOT approves it, we are stuck with the bill. There is only one prudent course of action.

I agree with King's take on this...assuming it's correct about PTC being stuck with paying for the light.

Excellent points about the design of Planterra....and I see no problem with talking to employers/employees about NOT cutting through Planterra..

Let me also say that is nice to see a letter from one of the Commissioners/Mayor not calling out everyone else on the Council.

mudcat's picture

Wish this salient fact would have emerged last year when George and Kim were shouting at our little mayor. One more example of why we should have mature people in leadership positions.

Speaking of which, your fuzzy warm feeling about King's abuse-free letter will last only until you discover another letter to the editor correctly calling out Steve Brown for his "don't confuse me with the facts" style of leadership. Hint - it starts out with the writer pointing out that he - like Brown - is a resident of new District 3 of the county commission.

I was going to comment, but in reality, Don doesn't deserve the pub. He's clueless.

FYI, I like to look at that Wednesday paper before coming here...old school kind of thing.

mudcat's picture

Old school for sure, but even I like paging through the paper in the AM. Especially on Sunday. The cartoons and Parade Magazine. Way back in the '80's stayed in bed until noon with the New York Times. Good old days.

No more papers in 5 years. Sad.

Very nice letter from Mr. King keeping us informed. I was not aware that the request was needed or we would be stuck with a bill for the light should it be required by the state. Why was this not identified months ago?

was not faced with losing Chick fil A months ago. Thus, reduced traffic counts coming in and out. Thus, less need for a light. Anyone think maybe RaceTrac is threatening legal action due to a promise by the developer that has not been followed through on? Was the sale of RaceTrac's land made with a promise by the developer to get a light there?

You need to question where this new "potential" for the city being stuck with the cost of a light is coming from.

Again, the correct vote by council is NO, we will not request a light from GDOT. Our citizens don't want it, and it does not fall within the 1,000 foot threshold between lights.

Ad space area 4 internal