At this pivotal point in

Peachtree City's history, I think that it is fair to say

that as we near the end of the game (build-out), there is

a sudden rush to cash in all the chips. The onslaught of

potent commercial development and the final requests to

assemble as many houses as possible into a meager area is

the big, final payoff for some of our developer friends.

We are a blue-chip city for

developers because of our exceptional demographics. The

new Avenue shopping center is evidence that our upscale

market is attractive (AJC, May 11). But here are some

questions: Is the massive influx of commercial

development compatible with the mindset of our

population? What lured us to Peachtree City in the first

place? With such an ideal situation, why is not the city

in the driver's seat? Lastly, why do we not have

appropriate developmental safeguard ordinances in the

books?

Do you remember all those

Pathway Communities (formerly PCDC) advertisements in the

newspapers? There were always one or two families

reclining in this open, green field surrounded by trees.

You never observed big bold letters at the bottom of one

of their ads announcing WAL-MART COMING SOON. We were

sold on the quality of life and we expected that quality

to remain. Interesting to note that the CEO of Pathway

moved from Peachtree City a while ago - should that

tell us something?

It was humorous to hear

attorney Woody Galloway try to convince the city's

planning commission members that the Katz/Pathway

property needed to be rezoned and packed with four homes

per acre because the soon-to-be-built Cedarcroft

subdivision was set up that way.

If you will remember it was

then-City Attorney Jim Webb's firm that was in charge of

the legal arrangements for the city against (his now

fellow banking director) Mike Rossetti and Raven Homes.

Peachtree City Developmental Services Director Jim

Williams referred to the Cedarcroft project as a

"major land planning mistake" and a planning

commission member stated that "one mistake there

(Cedarcroft) does not justify another mistake here"

(The Citizen, May 12).

The humorous part was that

Galloway employed the exact opposite argument that his

law partner, Doug Dillard, used for the Home Depot site,

but they cited the same constitutional references. I

guess that would mean that no matter what the situation,

the U.S. Constitution always favors a commercial

development over the welfare of the citizens.

The appointment of Rick

Lindsey as city attorney/solicitor was the shallowest of

"compromises." The logic for this appointment

is almost nonexistent.

First, Jim Webb was always

advertised as the major reason to select the firm of

Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey, and he is supposedly out of

the picture now.

Second, Mayor Bob Lenox and

council member Carol Fritz spoke about there being

nothing but "allegations" against Webb -

which is quite true because the city attorney is totally

immune to all of the ethics ordinances of Peachtree City.

Of course a civil

counterclaim is now pending in the Superior Court against

Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey. It will be interesting to see

if a judgment against the law firm's (Lindsey included)

alleged suppression of civil rights of the media and the

private citizen who raised the conflict of interest

question will alter the city council's opinion at a later

date.

If Lenox and Fritz really

wanted to verify Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey's fitness for

the city attorney position, they should have requested

access to the sealed FBI file regarding Jim Webb and

then-District Attorney Johnnie Caldwell. The council

should totally clear the air regarding all the

allegations against Jim Webb. By gaining access to the

sealed FBI file(s) pertaining to some of Webb's past

actions, the council could then wholeheartedly endorse

the law firm or drop them.

It might also be

appropriate for the city council to ask Webb to

voluntarily participate in a hearing regarding the recent

ethics charge against him. By proceeding with an ethics

board hearing, Webb might then be able to escape all the

"allegations" that the council was so concerned

about.

The most troubling part of

the Lindsey appointment is the fact that Councilman Bob

Brooks stated that the council knew of Webb's property

ownership that was directly impacted by the buffer

ordinance of 1997. This was the subject of an ethics

charge against Webb because he allegedly openly gave an

official legal opinion to the council on that ordinance

without giving public disclosure of ownership.

It is extraordinary that

Brooks would frankly state that the city council and the

then-City Attorney Webb would conceal Webb's property

ownership from the public and the news media. We must

remember that public disclosure is supposed to be public;

otherwise, we would refer to such actions as

"private disclosure" and that carries the

probability of being unethical or illegal. This is why we

have ethics ordinances in order to avoid such backroom

disclosures.

I would not feel at all

comfortable knowing that Mayor Lenox, whose latest quote

is that public's opinions are "misguided" (The

Citizen, May 10), knew some exceptionally pertinent

information that could have a major impact on an

ordinance or annexation and he failed to share it with

the public. I am not certain that he cares about what the

majority of people think Peachtree City should be like. I

believe that the public at large would greatly discourage

the withholding of vital information from the citizenry

and the news media even on the smallest of issues if a

conflict of interest existed.

Ethics ordinances are only

reliable if they apply to everyone and we have ethical

people enforcing them. A good example comes from the May

11, 2000 Wall Street Journal where it was cited that,

"Workers are seeing - but not necessarily

reporting - widespread illegal and unethical conduct

in the workplace, despite many corporate ethics programs,

according to a survey of more than 2,300 employees by

KPMG LLP, New York."

For the city council to

effortlessly admit that they withheld such vital

information during the hearing on the 1997 buffer

ordinance is in itself shameful. The city attorney is not

the only position in our government capable of

favoritism; thus, we must have public disclosure from the

council, commissions and authorities as well.

If we fail to debate the

merits of ethics in our community, do not be surprised if

the end result is unethical government. Citizen

involvement and the news media are the only elements that

keep the process fair and impartial.

Steve Brown

Peachtree City

[email protected]