I agree that as elected officials,

both council and the mayor, have an obligation to listen to the taxpayers

as well as any affected party on a particular matter. However, there need

to be certain limitations for the sake of order and sanity.

First, there is a time and

place for everything. If council brings up a point that they have a concern

over at a meeting, I don't agree that it necessarily means that they need

to take all comments on the subject at that time. For one, most off-the-cuff

comments are just factless criticisms and anger given their spontaneity.

However, I believe that council

has the responsibility to inform the public when the matter will be on

the agenda for open discussion. At that time all parties interested or

involved may present their input and facts for council's consideration

prior to council taking any action. Otherwise, as I have witnessed, these

meetings will quickly lose all semblance of order.

Second, everyone is entitled

to their opinion, but not to wasting my time or council members. Forget

the long-winded factless speeches at the meetings. I don't care how long

you've lived here, how much you love it, how well your kids are doing,

why you moved here, and your personal assessment of council or any particular

individual. Forget the name-calling and put-downs because everyone listening

to you speak is thinking of a few for you at that moment.

That said, most people really

have nothing to say. Just tell me your name; how you are affected by the

subject at hand; are you for or against the issue; and what is your question

that you would like answered. If you're with a group, pick a speaker to

represent you. If your point has been stated by someone else, we don't

need to hear it again. It's a discussion period for discovery of information.

Not a soapbox, and not a voting platform.

As an example, a few months

back it is clear that just about every member of the PTC Tennis Center

was at the Council meeting for a "head count" vote. They had

a very effective "phone-tree" call to arms for attendance, and

a far better turnout than the 30,000-plus citizens that either didn't

care or felt otherwise.

Yes, I agree that I have my

right, and maybe responsibility, to be in attendance to voice my disagreement

with their opinions. But that's not the way this country was meant to

or ever will work. That's council's job to access how the other citizens

feel or are impacted. A council meeting is not a majority rule of those

in attendance. If so, you better plan a week for the meeting and find

a place to hold 30,000 "opinions." Until that happens I don't

have to be there to defend my point of view very time someone has one

to the contrary.

As for Steve Rapson's conflict

of interest. I agree that he may not be the most objective member of council

at this time. But, unfortunately he has got to rise above his personal

family issue with his wife and address the issue of possibly unknowingly

voting on a substituted agreement.

It appears that the accusation

is that Lenox, Lindsey, and the Authority boys slipped in a revised contract,

without verbally informing all of the council members of the revisions.

I don't buy the "e-mail notification" [explanation] any more

than I would that it was posted on the bulletin board in the men's room.

These are elected officials making legal decisions that involve millions

of dollars and all of the citizens. Rapson is an elected official, directly

involved, and he has to deal with it as such.

If there is any real conflict

of interest that can be avoided, I think it would be Annie McMenamin and

her daughter's job [as an associate of City Attorney Rick Lindsey]. I

can't understand how that deal has ever been allowed to continue.

Last, I ask for answers and

information for myself, and the citizens of PTC. This whole idea of a

group of unelected individuals being given free reign with our tax dollars

with no recourse is unbelievable. I'd like to find out more about this

setup ....

My questions are as follows:

1. Who are the individual members of the PTC Development Authority, and

what are their outside interests and occupations? I get the impression

that they are mostly developers and owners of large pieces of property

in and around PTC. And, if so, isn't this a major conflict of interest?

Aren't we giving them our tax money to insure they get top dollar for

the development of their property?

2. What rights, benefits, and

usage do the individual members of the Development Authority get from

the venues that they control (Amphitheater, Airport, Tennis Center). Are

they in any way getting any personal benefit from any of these properties?

Are they giving out freebies in the way of services and access to these

facilities to individuals or businesses to attract their interest to PTC

and to sell and develop their own personal assets?

3. What is the annual cost

to operate each one of these entities? How much is paid for from the hotel

tax, and how much from the city's taxes? What is the cost to the citizens

of these Development Authority controlled properties?

4. Anyone, not just PTC residents

can purchase tickets to the amphitheater concerts at the "subsidized"

ticket prices. Who can use or join the tennis center, and at what rate?

Are non-PTC applicants charged more so that PTC citizens are not subsidizing

their membership fees?

5. And last, if the city did

control these entities, just how would that "city" destroy these

facilities/programs, as outspoken supporters have claimed, other than

making sure that people who use them are actually the ones that are paying

for them? Is the tennis center afraid of losing their "private club"

atmosphere and being overrun by the taxpaying masses?

6. What is the relationship

between Lindsey and the boys' law firm and the Development Authority boys?

I know the law firm is the title sponsor of the concert series and by

that fact I would assume has made some financial commitment or pact with

the Development Authority. What is their financial or business ties? And,

if they are financially involved, isn't this the most blatant conflict

of interest of all this mess? How can they represent the city in this

matter?

Rich Horning

Peachtree City