Some

encouraged us to join them in the zoning dispute four

years ago over general commercial and multifamily zoning,

that eventually went to court and resulted in 399

apartments being approved for the property next to ours.

We refused to join in that endeavor.

We were

once under contract with Cousins' Properties, who came to

us, for their upscale retail center, now going on the

City Circle site. Just behind our property 200

single-family homes are about to be built and just beside

us, the 399 apartments. And just up the road, Cousins'

"Avenue" project will be starting soon. Yet,

our right to sell a parcel of property properly zoned is

being challenged.

We wonder

if Cousin's had purchased our land if the degree of

protest would be the same. We wonder if

"upscale" retail consisting of maybe The Gap,

Banana Republic, Anne Taylor and Barnes & Noble would

be of as much concern to our neighbors.

One might

guess that traffic generated by the upscale retail may be

very close to traffic generated by a Home Depot. After

all, the closest Gap to Fayette and Coweta counties is

Southlake, Shannon and Cumberland Malls. While you may

prefer to drive to the mall to do your upscale retail

shopping, we would venture to say that our neighboring

communities would prefer to drive to Peachtree City.

Fayetteville and Newnan already have a Home Depot, but

they don't have a Gap or a Cousins' "Avenue"

project.

So, will

traffic be negatively impacted at City Circle?

Absolutely, but an acceptable way to mitigate this

negative impact is a longer turning lane and a second

traffic light just a few hundred feet from the existing

light at hwys. 54 and 74!

So why

can't additional turning lanes and traffic lights help

mitigate the impact for other developments in the

corridor? Maybe one of the problems is the fact that some

may not feel a Home Depot is as "desirable" in

the community as a Gap or Anne Taylor.

Well, it

may be Peachtree City but is still America and the law

allows for commercial development on commercially zoned

property, as long as buffering, landscaping and other

ordinances are adhered to.

What about

safety concerns? Traffic has been a nightmare in the

corridor for several years. Why, all of a sudden, is

everyone so concerned? Could it be political timing?

Regardless

of the environmental concerns of GRTA and laws recently

imposed by the federal government, city staff has known

for three years that the apartments and Cedarcroft

subdivision would be a reality. Considering the number of

homes in Planterra Ridge and Wynnmeade and knowing the

apartments and Cedarcroft would soon be added, why hasn't

the city already built or at least planned for a fire

station/EMS facility somewhere in the corridor? This is

certainly not the fault of current land owners.

So we ask

the city, in the face of this dilemma, are you being fair

to the landowners or are you being politically correct?

The owners

of the City Circle property were allowed to sell their

land to Cousins' Properties. The owners of the apartment

property were allowed to sell their land. Why should we

be prevented from selling our land?

It is a

commercially zoned piece of property being submitted for

commercial development. A traffic ordinance to stop

certain development but allow others is unfair. Maybe a

moratorium is the answer. That way, there would be no

development.

Can you be

politically correct and say no to future industrial

development, no to Cousins Properties and no to anything

else in this town? Can a traffic study distinguish

between "trips" to the industrial park and

other "trips" through the corridor?

We believe

it has been made clear that future industrial development

will not be denied. Are the rights of the owners of

industrially zoned property not the same as rights of the

owners of commercially zoned property? Let's face it.

Even a McDonald's would negatively impact traffic.

We

understand the concerns of the homeowners in Planterra,

but was there not a disclaimer with each home sale in

Planterra Ridge informing potential homeowners of the

airport and industrial park to the south of their

subdivision? Perhaps this should have compelled potential

homeowners to find out about other property surrounding

them or at least looked at the land use plan before

making such an investment.

And,

please, no more talk about loving the land and the trees

and the wildlife. Do you not realize that there were more

trees and deer roaming around on the land where your

house is than there could ever be on our land? Ours is

42.5 acres. "Yours" is the rest of this town.

No one

loved this land more than our father, Hugh Huddleston and

our grandfather, Daddy Bob Huddleston. Farming this land

was their life. They raised their families on this land

and made their living on this land.

Now,

because of continued development around us, we would like

to sell our land. Our property is constantly being

vandalized. We put locks on all the barns and they are

cut off. Our fences are regularly cut down. People

trespass daily, despite No Trespassing signs posted all

along the property lines.

We

frequently find children playing in and around the pond

our father built many years ago as a water supply for the

cattle. Bicycles, teddy bears and other toys have often

been found in the pond, despite the fences and signs that

have been maintained throughout the property in an effort

to prevent such potentially dangerous activity. The

police have been called many times, not only for the

vandalism and trespassing, but also for illegal hunting

with firearms. Just two weeks ago, a man from Indiana set

up a camp site with his camper! Thankfully, the police

were able to convince him to leave around 1 a.m.

We

understand the views of the opposition. Can you

understand ours? We all have rights. A temporary

inconvenience now (and it will be temporary) and

continued efforts of the city staff and land owners

throughout the west side of Peachtree City may just

result in a beautiful finished product.

We believe

it is very difficult, if not impossible, to be

"politically correct" and "fair" at

the same time. Mayor Lenox has always appeared fair and

is not afraid to state the facts, regardless of public

opinion. He seems to be able to look at the "big

picture." Many times he has not hesitated to point

out the legal rights of a few, even in the face of

criticism by a large opposition.

Others,

however, seem to say only what they feel people want to

hear. The laws of this country are not based on popular

opinion. One city council person continues to insist the

proposed development of our property was only submitted

in response to hearing of the traffic ordinance. This is

absolutely not true.

We entered

into a contract with RAM Development Corporation in June

1999. It was at that time that RAM Development met with

members of the city staff and disclosed the plan for our

property. Some time after this plan was disclosed, the

idea of a traffic ordinance arose. The public hearing to

discuss the traffic ordinance was held on Sept. 16, 1999.

The traffic ordinance was not actually adopted until the

latter part of October.

We find it

interesting that when "The Avenues" plan was

submitted, there was no discussion of a traffic

ordinance. We also find it interesting that when Summit

submitted their first site plan for the apartments, there

was no discussion of a traffic ordinance. We strongly

feel that the idea of a traffic ordinance was introduced

of our property. While the ordinance may seem like a

quick-fix to the traffic problems, we question not only

the timing, but the fairness and constitutionality as

well.

We

respectfully submit this letter with no malicious intent,

but rather from our hearts as a statement of our feelings

and fond memories of the past and a hope for the

brightest possible future. Peachtree city truly is and

always will be our home.

Bill

Huddleston

Barbara Phillips

Mary Jayne Huddleston

Dinah Holt

The Huddleston Family

Peachtree City

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