Now I am asking for your assistance.

We all need to be in attendance for this Thursday's Peachtree City Council

meeting! With one vote the City Council is going to guarantee that we

have three big boxes in Peachtree City.

The concern is that all the

City Council members with the exception of Dan Tennant favor the City

Attorney's suggestion of exempting several big box developers in the proposed

restrictive big box ordinance. As you are probably aware, the chief partner

in the City Attorney's law firm has a financial business relationship

with one of the exempted big box developers. The canon of ethics for the

legal profession suggests that interests or relationships cannot be segregated

within a law firm.

At the last council meeting,

Developmental Services Director Jim Williams stated, "The first thing

that I want to mention is on the [newly added] 'now therefore' clause

and at the suggestion of the City Attorney we have added a last

clause in there which exempts the two major areas where we have projects

where some kind of planning consideration for potentially big box uses."

Attorney Doug Dillard (representing

Pathway, RAM Development and Home Depot): "We realize that the ordinance

accepts these properties, the Huddleston property on [Highway] 54 which

is the Home Depot, Wal-Mart site and then the Kedron Village site on Highway

74 owned by Pathways."

Mr. Dillard, who previously

handed the council members some documents, continued that, "In the

event that particular [developer exemption] paragraph is pulled out of

the adoption of this ordinance, to protect us in the event that you do

adopt an ordinance which we think the public purpose for which is not

clear. We realize that there is a lot of discussion and debate about big

box uses and that kind of thing but your [city council] duty as you well

know is that there has got to be a clear public purpose served by any

legislative act by you. We think that there are some facial defects with

this particular ordinance in that regard."

The public purpose of the restrictive

big box ordinance is extremely clear in that it deals with the negative

impacts that traffic, crime and predatory damage to the local economy

associated with big box retailers.

It is interesting to note that

Mr. Dillard would have no problems with the "facial defects"

and the "public purpose" if his clients gain the exemption.

City Attorney Rick Lindsey

stated, "There's a line of Georgia Supreme Court cases that would

prevent us from going in when someone has vested rights. The question

becomes when are rights vested? And Georgia law does not provide a bright

line test such as the issuance of a building permit or some other type

of permit. It looks at kind of a balancing test between what has the landowner,

land developer spent and relied upon, what has he/she or it done versus

the interest of the community controlling zoning and whatnot. I think

that we'd have a heck of an argument to make to say that the properties

that have spent, and if the numbers [provided by Doug Dillard] are correct

and I am sure that they are somewhat exaggerated, maybe not greatly exaggerated,

but $1.37 million if that's not a vesting of rights. But that would be

their argument. It would be extremely difficult and trying to force something

that doesn't fit, in my opinion, jeopardizes the entire ordinance."

Judging by Lindsey's statement,

I would say that he is asking for the exemption without really knowing

all the facts. Show everyone the documents from 1994 and 1996 that proves

that Pathway has vested interest. How about doing the same with the Wal-Mart?

Why don't we have the "real" numbers at City Hall? The law is

extremely vague regarding vested rights and the City Attorney is simply

asking us to throw in the towel when it is not necessary. The Home Depot

store is the only store that has a real chance a proving a vested interest.

Mayor Lenox stated, "I

have a heck of a problem determining what's the difference in the impact

between the shopping center with a whole bunch of little stores and this

mix that totals 200,000 square feet and one big store that totals 200,000

square feet." The mayor needs to drive to Snellville, Ga., and the

other areas where big box stores are devastating the local economy and

quality of life. Fayetteville is also beginning to experience the same

trend with the crime and their local economy.

"Fayette County's median

new home price rose nearly 20 percent to $233,900, both the highest median

price and the highest appreciation rate in the Atlanta market" (AJC,

Oct. 29). In addition, our school system ranks among the best in the state

and our quality of life is second to none. So the question is, why would

we want to do anything that has a proven track record causing damage to

cities of our size?

Your help is needed, so please

respond. You may obtain a copy of the restrictive big box ordinance by

contacting Betsy Tyler at City Hall at 770-487-5731.

The voter registration list

for Peachtree City was used as a mailing list to send about 15,000 letters

I composed along with a response postcard. The letter addresses some serious

concerns over the pending restrictive big box ordinance that requires

that you act by returning the postcard back to me. If you check the box

at the bottom of the postcard, your name will be placed in a local newspaper

ad that will list all the people in opposition to the exemptions for big

box developers in the proposed ordinance.

The most important thing is

that you attend Thursday's council meeting because once these changes

are made we cannot buy them back.

Steve Brown

Peachtree City