Bad Links?

Other glitches?

Notify Webmaster

What our Readers Are Saying

Letters

to the Editor

Yes to Walgreens will gut land use plan

A major issue currently facing Peachtree City is whether to grant a re-zoning of Christ Our Shepherd's property for commercial development at the corner of Ga. Highway 54 and Peachtree Parkway.

This intersection at the heart of our city is now 50-50 church and commercial with the two existing churches buffering neighborhoods. It is a delicate balance.

Who wants this commercial rezoning? Does the community need another and much bigger-box drugstore, or does Walgreens need the community? There are much more suitable locations already zoned commercial. Walgreens is welcome. Money talks, but we do not always have to listen. There are several alternative commercial sites.

Hwy. 54 from east city limits to Ga. Highway 74 is a lovely mixed-use corridor that is as much "Church Street" as it is commercial. Count them: there are six major churches plus two more Methodist campuses and St. Andrew's Episcopal just blocks away.

If the Peachtree City Council approved a commercial rezoning, what might the community expect in return?

We would lose an architectural gem of a church plus a beautiful lawn with a fountain at the crossroads of Peachtree City. We would lose a place to worship.

The community would get a 24-hour Walgreens and a second business to be named later. There would be a dramatic increase in traffic to this site and possibly more accidents and even loss of life at what is now the second most dangerous intersection in town. The livability of three neighborhoods near this property would be adversely affected.

A zoning change at the heart of the city would also signal other developers that our long-established land use plan has become a clawless paper tiger.

Changing the current Office/Institutional zoning would set a terrible precedent. It would be an unnecessary impediment to overcome in future rezoning requests from other Office/Institutional property owners. The city would also forfeit the ability to effectively negotiate alternative solutions for future church property rezonings.

The Lutheran church is simultaneously seeking to rebuild and likely would purchase a large parcel in the proposed 400-acre city annexation for John Wieland Homes.

Churches are private property owners, not public entities. I repeat, churches are private, not public property owners. They already have special property privileges in recognition of community service. Churches do not pay taxes and they can build in any zoning, residential or otherwise.

I question the wisdom of providing further "indirect" public financial assistance. Christ Our Shepherd is a respected private property owner with rights. The city also has the right to say no to their proposed commercial rezoning. They can relocate regardless.

Should the community continue to subsidize a private entity? Christ Our Shepherd bought their current property at one-half market rate; the proposed rezoning would raise the land-only value of this property by at least $1.5 million; and if approved they will then likely seek the equivalent of a further community subsidy to relocate and rebuild on another very favorably priced and larger parcel, thereby adding support for the proposed John Wieland Homes annexation into Peachtree City.

The Lutherans by their actions are also disregarding the original (and now legally expired) land covenant that specified church or church-related use only at their current site. Simply said, they are disregarding the spirit of this covenant.

If not a Walgreens plus another business to be named, then what? Christ Our Shepherd can still move or expand. Numerous suggestions have been made other than selling to Walgreens and include the following:

A. Build a third Lutheran Church in town;

B. Establish a two-campus Christ Our Shepherd church;

C. Sell to a much larger congregation that wants a satellite church like Christian City South or similar;

D. Sell to another local church for a youth campus, like the Methodists;

and E. Sell to a smaller, growing church or an education center that fits the current Office/Institutional zoning.

Christ Our Shepherd's active membership includes about 3 percent of Peachtree City's population. They have a wonderful ministry. They do deserve community support, but so do our other churches.

We do not, however, need to be left with an unneeded 24-hour mess and potentially other future commercial rezonings.

The delicate balance between commercial, residential, recreational and industrial that our planned community has maintained over many years through the wisdom of successive city councils would be forever broken. It is simply too large a price to pay.

B. Ray Helton,

Peachtree City, Ga.

Mayor, ex-mayor trade insults prior to sitting down at lunch

Re: Luncheon invitation

Dear Mr. Lenox, it is true that I am notoriously behind on e-mail and I apologize. I really meant it when I invited you to lunch as there are some things that we need to discuss.

People ask me all the time why you have this burning hatred for me and pursue arrest warrants and state ethics complaint against me for things that seem insignificant and not relevant to the charges.

I came in office wanting a level playing field. That means being fair to everyone, including you.

The average citizen would be shocked to read some of the things that you say to me. Former Mayor Fred Brown has certainly gathered opposition against me over the years, but he has always maintained a sense of decorum.

I have said this before and it could use repeating, the primary difference between us is that when a beneficial project was on a council agenda when you were mayor, I came to support it.

You appear set on the total destruction of anything my council acts upon. I do not see love of city and love of people in your actions.

I have not worked my way down to your Jan. 10, 2005, e-mail yet (I am behind) but I would like to talk over lunch and see if we can resolve to find issues were we can work together for the betterment of the city. I will ask my assistant to give you a call so that we can meet at a local restaurant for lunch.

I hold no ill will towards you and I wish you the best in 2005.

Steve Brown, mayor,

Peachtree City, Ga.

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, [former Mayor] Robert Lenox wrote: Mr. Brown, on Jan. 10 I sent you an e-mail accepting your "phantom" invitation to have lunch. I have as yet received no response.

I know that you are busy, busy, busy with your mayoral duties and notoriously bad at responding to e-mails in anything resembling a timely fashion, but really! A simple yes or no would suffice.

I believe that if you cannot afford me the courtesy of a response by this weekend that I will have to advise the three reporters of this strange situation.

You might also wish to note that your failure to respond has caused those of us following this amusing exchange to reach the following conclusions:

1. You are, in fact, a blatant liar, never wanted to have lunch with me in the first place, and never invited me to do so.

2. You are a coward and prefer anonymous innuendo and backstabbing to forthright and blunt discussion.

3. You are so incapable of managing your time, or anything else, that you can't even fashion a response to a simple question in a timely manner.

Bob Lenox, your constituent,

Peachtree City, Ga.

[Lenox served 10 years as mayor of Peachtree City prior to Brown's election.]

Stop pointing fingers in PTC

I listened to Mayor Principle today at Rotary. (He must have used that word 40 times in his speech.)

He is wrong about our obligation to pay that tennis center loan. We, the people of Peachtree City, are doing the wrong thing by not paying for property we intend to keep.

If we are not going to pay the loan, we need to turn that property over to the bank. Anything less is to act as if we were thieves.

Mayor Brown, set aside your petty, childish and expensive disputes and pay that bank or hand over the property.

Unfair to the people, you say? Sorry, but we stand to pay for all the incompetence, waste and corruption whether it is misuse of grounds-keeping equipment, a lawsuit from a council member's wife, paving the wrong road or not charging a market price for concert tickets.

It all comes out of our pockets and is just the nature of government and why we should look at government-oriented answers to problems as a last choice.

This is not to say the every department is staffed by bumbling fools. They work hard and we have a beautiful, safe city to show for it.

Inefficiency is just inherent in government because you are spending somebody else's money. It seems that you are always careening between being too careful, yielding paralysis, and not careful enough, leading to the attendant finger pointing.

Frankly, it is time to put our fingers in our pockets and get