Peachtree City’s 2025 Election: Do We Want Steve Brown’s Return?

This fall’s municipal election is shaping up to be as much about personality as policy. With former Councilmember Eric Imker out of the mayoral race, former Mayor Steve Brown has stepped in. He’s now running alongside City Council Post 4 candidate James Clifton as part of a coordinated ticket — an uncommon approach in Peachtree City’s officially nonpartisan system. Their message is straightforward: elect them both, and voters will have an aligned bloc on the council to “restore” what they describe as the city’s founding principles.

That joint approach raises an obvious question: do voters want Brown-style politics again?

Steve Brown’s Controversial History

Brown’s name has been woven into Peachtree City’s political story for more than two decades, often as the disruptor in the room. His start came before he ever held office when he became a familiar presence in the pages of The Citizen, submitting sharply critical letters that accused city leaders of backroom dealings and misplaced priorities. 

One pointed attack targeted then–City Attorney James Webb. That feud escalated beyond rhetoric. In 2000, Webb filed a libel lawsuit against Brown and The Citizen. The newspaper countersued, citing Georgia’s anti-SLAPP law designed to shield citizens and media from lawsuits meant to silence criticism. The case was dropped, but the episode cemented Brown’s reputation as someone willing to go directly at individuals in power, regardless of personal or political fallout.

In 2001, riding a wave of anti-establishment sentiment and casting himself as a reformer, Brown was elected mayor. He wasted little time in challenging projects and institutions he saw as threats to the city. He fought the proposed TDK Boulevard extension into Coweta County, warning it would bring traffic congestion and overdevelopment. He led the restructuring of the Development Authority, and he opposed rezonings he believed favored developers over residents.

Supporters saw these as principled stands that put the public ahead of private interest. But the same directness that energized his base also defined his mayoralty’s turbulence. Council meetings frequently turned into battlegrounds with public clashes between Brown, his fellow council members, city staff, and business leaders. He tended to frame disputes in absolutes: he was right, and his opponents were wrong, corrupt, or conspiring against him. I’ve seen this pattern firsthand — at an April council meeting, he baselessly claimed that Mayor Kim Learnard ordered me to write the article about Imker. (If that’s what he thought then, I can’t wait to see the angry conspiracy theory this one inspires.)

By 2005, voter fatigue had set in. In his bid for a second term, every other council member backed his opponent, Harold Logsdon, who went on to win in a landslide. Brown received less than 30% of the vote, but even in defeat he held fast to the same core themes — limiting residential growth, keeping taxes in check, and closely scrutinizing government decisions.

The Political Upside of Teaming Up

As Brown and Clifton fully link their campaigns, they could give themselves a set of advantages most candidates never get. Campaigning side-by-side would let them hammer the same points at every stop. Imagine a steady drumbeat against high-density residential development, for expanding public comment, and for trimming taxes and spending. That repetition, coming from two different voices, could make their message harder for voters to tune out.

They could also present themselves as a ready-made two-vote bloc on the council. For voters who want a sharp turn away from the current mayor’s approach, that’s an appealing pitch: elect us both and the shift happens instantly. That promise of immediate change could become one of their most powerful talking points if they frame it as a chance to redirect city priorities in a single election night.

The practical benefits are just as obvious. They could share yard signs, mailers, volunteers, and door-knocking. Instead of duplicating effort, they could double their reach. In a local race where turnout often hinges on familiarity and personal contact, efficiency like that can make a real difference.

The Political Downside of Teaming Up

However, the same closeness that could make Brown and Clifton more effective on the trail could just as easily magnify their problems. Linking their campaigns would mean linking their fortunes. If one stumbles, the other is dragged into it. A bad comment, a poorly handled question, or a controversy that sticks to one name automatically becomes baggage for both.

Running as a de facto ticket also means doubling down on an alarmist platform built on many claims that do not hold up under scrutiny, including:

• Public comment restrictions – They have claimed that residents are being silenced at City Council meetings, which arguably happened in 2022. But the city expanded its public comment policy in 2024. Speakers are guaranteed more time at every meeting, and the council has extended that time when more residents want to speak.
• Reckless spending – They warn of runaway budgets but cite no examples. About half of Peachtree City’s FY2025 general fund goes to public safety, leaving little to cut without reducing core services like patrols, fire response times, path resurfacing, or library hours.
• City-driven tax increases – Claims of record tax hikes by the city neglect to mention that recent increases in residents’ tax bills are largely the result of Fayette County’s property value assessments. Rising home values have pushed taxable assessments higher, which increases bills even when the city’s rate stays the same. In fact, the city reduced its millage rate in the 2025 budget, keeping it lower than in many neighboring communities.
• Neglected maintenance – Their claims of poor upkeep do not match recent projects, which include major cart path repairs, road resurfacing, and facility upgrades. More improvements are already in the pipeline, such as new ballfield lighting.
• Inflated recreation spending – They have pointed to a $150 million recreation commitment, but no such commitment appears in any city or third-party source.
• Runaway growth – They have suggested the 2022 Comprehensive Plan is fueling unchecked population growth. Yet the city’s growth has not exploded, and there is no evidence of strain on services or schools.

Running together would mean doubling down on a platform Clifton failed to defend when I questioned its details. That might energize voters who already share their skepticism, but it also risks making them seem out of step with the city’s current realities. In local politics, perception can matter as much as policy, and opponents would have little trouble casting the pair as running on grievances rather than presenting a clear, workable plan for governing.

That challenge becomes sharper when tied to Brown, whose political style has long been polarizing. His tenure as mayor from 2002 to 2005 was marked by public clashes with fellow council members, combative exchanges with residents, and frequent personal attacks in public forums. Council meetings during his term often ran long and devolved into contentious back-and-forths, overshadowing policy discussions. His approach ultimately led to voters turning him out after a single term, becoming the first mayoral incumbent to lose re-election. Clifton’s decision to align so closely with Brown would inevitably make that history his own, inviting scrutiny not just of Brown’s record but of whether Clifton would govern in the same confrontational style.

There’s also a question of independence. For supporters, Brown and Clifton’s joint campaign might look like a strong, united front, but it can just as easily turn off swing voters or residents who value independent thinking. To date, Clifton has largely adopted Brown’s past statements as his platform without offering much that is distinctly his own. If he is simply echoing Brown on the campaign trail, it is fair to ask whether that would change in office or whether he would serve as Brown’s “Yes Man” on the council.

Just as important is how this pairing would function within the broader council. Electing both could create an entrenched voting bloc, raising the risk of gridlock, especially if Steve Brown-ally and current Councilmember Suzanne Brown leaves the dais. For voters who prefer collaboration over confrontation, that possibility alone could be reason enough to look elsewhere.

Is Peachtree City Ready to Embrace Brown-Style Politics Again?

This year’s election is no longer just about who leads our city. It is about whether we are willing to return to the combative, high-drama politics that defined Brown’s tenure as mayor, now with Clifton’s partnership.

Electing both Brown and Clifton would create an aligned voting bloc built on a narrative of crisis that does not match the city’s actual record on taxes, maintenance, and growth. Regardless of the facts, supporters may see that as a badly needed course correction. Opponents may see it as a step backward from the collaborative problem solving many residents say they want.

So do we want to give abrasive leadership and its ensuing chaos a mandate in 2025? November will give us that answer and show whether Peachtree City is ready to forget what happened the last time Steve Brown held the gavel.