Most of us will agree that

those are appropriate words for an election year. How

many times have you read or heard a candidate say they

will do "whatever is in the best interest of the

city." It can be applied to any and every issue. The

phrase sounds wonderful but it means absolutely nothing.

Please recall any local politician that you thought did a

horrible job. I can most certainly assure you that the

person you recalled promised to do whatever was in the

best interest of the city while campaigning.

I had great doubts as to

how Jim Pace, a commercial developer, would vote on

commercial development/zoning issues when he was elected

four years ago. Of course, we have witnessed many

memorable votes, including the now famous "yes, no

and, the next day, I abstained vote" on the proposed

Mews development at Walt Banks and Ga. Highway 54. Most

recently, Mr. Pace was the only councilman to vote

against the Traffic Impact Ordinance.

In our current election, I

have some reservations about Dr. Bruce Perlman. Dr.

Perlman is scant on specifics and uses generalities like

"neighborhoods first." He stated, "I am

against any annexation unfavorable to Peachtree

City" (AJC, Oct. 21). What is his particular

definition of "unfavorable"? Dan Tennant

clearly stated, "I say no to annexation" (AJC,

Oct. 21).

At the last city council

meeting, Councilwoman Annie McMenamin went so far as to

propose a moratorium on annexation (AJC, Oct.22).

Annexation is a monumental issue for Peachtree City, and

a definitive position from the candidates is imperative.

It was brought up that Dr.

Perlman has received in excess of $80,000 in his position

as the city physician and handling city workman's

compensation cases (Peachtree Citizen Review, Oct. 22).

The disturbing factor in all of this is how did he obtain

the non-competitive position with the city and why does

the city not bid these services out?

Candidate Melvin Ewing also

stated that he is doing business with the city but stated

that he would sever those relations if elected. Dr.

Perlman asserted, "I fail to see how my continuation

of this work could be a conflict of interest or present

an appearance of impropriety" (AJC, Oct. 7).

A large portion of Dr.

Pearlman's campaign funds appear to be coming from

specialty practices that he refers to in Atlanta

(Peachtree Citizen Review, Oct. 22). It appears that his

business interests are certainly involved in his

politics. If he were elected to the city council, could

we ever bid those services?

What really raises

skepticism is Dr. Perlman's constant reference to the

"Master Plan." His campaign mail-out contends,

"Bruce recognizes that growth in Peachtree City is

inevitable, but he believes that following Peachtree

City's Master Plan will protect our quality of life. The

strict guidelines imposed by the Master Plan will ensure

the protection of existing neighborhoods and preserve the

character of our community."

The original Master Plan

accounted for a population of approximately 70,000

citizens, skyscrapers and all sorts of wild things. It is

obvious when you read the newspaper each week that we are

having some planning difficulties. Absolutely sticking to

what we have is not the best solution. The mayor recently

had to create a task force in an attempt to straighten

out our planning difficulties in the Hwy. 54 West

corridor.

The research also showed

that actions speak louder than words. There was a heated

debate at the Aug. 24, 1998, Planning Commission meeting

regarding Dr. Perlman's new building at the intersection

of Prime Point and Petrol Point. Councilman Jim Pace's

company, Group VI, was the contractor for the project.

Dr. Perlman and Group VI

had agreed to tree-save areas in the conceptual site plan

with the city. However, it was later "discovered

that virtually all of the trees designated to be saved

had been removed without [City] Staff authorization or

approval" (planning commission minutes, Aug. 24).

"A revised plan on the commission's agenda Aug. 24

was not as extensive as the original [replacement plan].

City Planner David Rast said that the revised plan was

done because the owner, Dr. Milton [Bruce] Perlman, and

the contractor, Group VI, decided that the city had `no

legal basis' under which to require that the trees be

replaced" (Citizen Review, Aug. 28, 1998).

This situation started a

major debate in Peachtree City as to what needs to be

done when an entity does not abide by the provisions of a

city-approved site plan.

All this from the same

candidate that promised the citizens strict adherence to

developmental guidelines - a definite contrast.

Please do your research and

solve the problem of "knowing what is right."

Steve Brown

Peachtree City

[email protected]

<!-------------