Letter to the Editor: Suzanne Brown strikes back at Hamner

Kenneth Hamner, a columnist for The Citizen, and Vice Chairman of the Peachtree City Planning Commission, has once again published a politically charged narrative that omits key facts and misleads readers. Even the few who follow his column deserve a complete and honest account.

In his latest piece, Mr. Hamner cherry-picked a single email from a lengthy thread concerning the appointment of two expiring Planning Commission seats. If transparency were truly his goal, he could have easily linked to the whole exchange. Instead, he chose selective outrage over full disclosure.

Here’s what Mr. Hamner won’t tell you:

We received 12 applications for the two open positions. The selection committee consists of Mayor Learnard, Planning Commissioner Andrew Kriz, and me. Mr. Kriz, per his email, proposed eliminating half of the applicants and interviewing only those he personally recommended. That proposal was highly unusual and not mine. Yet Mr. Hamner conveniently omits this critical detail. Why?

My position was clear: if interviews were limited to half the applicants, I wanted that group to include individuals I would seriously consider for appointment. For example, Chairman Scott Ritenour, whose term is expiring, has conducted himself with professionalism and restraint, avoiding partisan political commentary. Mr. Hamner, on the other hand, has repeatedly used his title as a member of the Planning Commission while launching into political attacks in the local media.

Let’s be clear: elected officials, such as mayors and council members, are inherently political, chosen by voters through campaigns and their respective platforms. Planning commissioners are appointed and expected to operate in a non-partisan, deliberative manner. Mr. Hamner’s behavior undermines that expectation.

His pattern of public accusations against council members and council candidates erodes the collaborative spirit that should exist between the Planning Commission and the City Council. That spirit is essential, and please recall the Fleisch administration’s decision to suspend the Planning Commission’s authority entirely. We cannot afford a repeat of that breakdown.

Mr. Hamner recently wrote, “Even with Ms. Brown, I have never had a bad in-person interaction. All of this is why her claim that I am ‘compromising the Commission’s ability to maintain constructive relationships’ is baseless.” I believe respectful interactions are essential, but they do not excuse the antagonism and reputational damage caused by his ongoing political commentary. I, too, have been the target of his smear tactics, something we’ve never seen before from an active planning commissioner, and for good reason.  Somehow, Mr. Hamner believes that I am not entitled to an opinion on his performance and the impact his partisan accusations have on the Planning Commission’s image.

His claim that criticism of his column constitutes a First Amendment violation is equally misguided. Mr. Hamner is free to write as much as he likes. No one attempted to silence him. But as an appointed commissioner, he has a responsibility to the citizens, city government, and development applicants to maintain constructive relationships with elected officials. Removing a divisive figure from a volunteer post is not censorship, and it’s a step toward restoring the integrity of the Planning Commission.

If Mr. Hamner prefers political commentary to public service on the Planning Commission, he should choose one and step away from the other. His readers deserve full facts, not his selective outrage.

I stand by my previous comments on wanting a harmonious and non-political Planning Commission:

“Mr. Hamner’s public commentary in local newspapers—where he is identified as both Vice Chair of the Planning Commission and Chair of the UDO Committee, has introduced a concerning level of political partisanship into what should remain an impartial and objective civic body. His repeated partisan remarks and political accusations have fostered tension among current elected officials and candidates for the 2025 election cycle, undermining the Planning Commission’s reputation as a non-partisan institution. This erosion of neutrality risks compromising the Commission’s ability to maintain constructive relationships with both elected leadership and the development community, which are essential to the city’s planning and governance efforts.”

Suzanne Brown
City Councilmember

Peachtree City, GA