Bad Links?

Other glitches?

Notify Webmaster

What our Readers Are Saying

Letters to the Editor

Worthy annexation threatened by PTC

Dear City Council members: As I am sure that you are all aware, the citizens of Peachtree City that live in the West Village have been greatly disappointed with the delays and changes in positions regarding this vital decision that is facing you with regards to the annexation application of John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods.

I have followed this whole process and have been working relentlessly to do anything that I can to convey to you, the City Council, how the West Village residents truly feel about the extension of MacDuff Parkway and the annexation proposal that John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods has presented.

Councilman [Steve] Rapson has asked me previously if the Centennial Home Owners Association would be content to simply extend MacDuff or were we really interested in the annexation as well.

Our HOA conveyed to Mr. Rapson that we wanted and needed both to protect property values and increase the quality of life here on the Westside.

Representatives from Wynnmeade, Chadsworth at Ashton Reserve, Planterra Ridge, the Summit Apartments, and Cedarcroft have all sided with our association in this. Note that all of these associations exist in the West Village.

We have received the support of the Peachtree City Youth Soccer Association, Blueberry Hill, Peachtree Christian Church, members of the Peachtree City Senior Council, and yes, the Lutheran Church as well.

Your very own Fire Chief [Stony] Lohr and Police Chief [James] Murray have said they support the extension of MacDuff Parkway. Both gentlemen realize that should that property not be annexed and yet still built, their personnel will be responding to any and all emergencies even though the emergencies will be in the county.

So with this much support for this project, I was astounded to hear Mr. Rapson claim that residents in the West Village don't want the annexation, they simply want MacDuff extended.

To be certain, there will be a few people in opposition; but in all, I repeat, all, of the public meetings that I have attended, and that is every one, there has been very little opposition and a tremendous outpouring of support.

To build MacDuff as Councilman Rapson is proposing would likely result in the "high speed bypass" that none of us want.

As residents you have certainly driven around the county at some point in time. Would you rather see the county controlled development of 5,000-square-foot homes next to 2,000-square-foot homes on two-acre lots with little or no consistency in building styles, or would you rather see your very own city staff oversee that?

In a recent newspaper article in The Citizen News, it was reported that during your meeting with the planning staff, "Weed said he wanted the city to develop a town center to create a downtown atmosphere. Peachtree City lacks a 'downtown' area as it was broken up into four villages, each served by a certain amount of stores instead of there being one main commercial district for the entire population, pushing 40,000, to use."

The article went further to claim that "Rast noted that some developers have inquired about putting small residential projects within current retail centers, which could be a way to 'invigorate' the centers by creating a live-work-play atmosphere."

You have heard both of these from the Wieland proposal as the type of development that they wish to bring to Peachtree City. So why the stonewalling? If this is indeed your wishes, here is a quality builder that can bring this to you.

At your last council meeting of Feb. 3, you tabled this motion to approach the county to see if they were interested in building this road.

I have been told that the county will not fund one dime for projects in Peachtree City as long as Mayor Brown, Councilman Rapson, and Councilman Weed are on the bench. With all of the fighting going on between these administrations, this should not come as a surprise to anybody.

At the last council meeting, Clyde Stricklin, director of developmental services for Peachtree City, gave estimates of the costs of building the MacDuff extension. His numbers appear to be incredibly low. When I e-mailed him about the numbers, this is the response that I received:

"You are correct the estimates as mentioned were not engineering estimates but only for general comparison purposes. They were general cost figures from other studies that may or may not have been similar. They may or may not include the separate cost of railroad crossings, nor a separate cost for intersections (accel and decel lanes) nor signals. They may or may not include payments for utilities relocations nor rail road easements and contracts to build the bridge over the railroad in alternative two. They may or may not include wetlands studies required to pass through wetlands areas and hydraulic studies for flood zones and/or zero-rise certifications as required for FEMA work in flood areas.

"The bridge estimate is from the Highway 54 widening project. The existing two-lane bridge is being removed and expanded to four lanes. Again site conditions and actual design may or may not warrant similar cost. Our estimate was over $6 million for alternative two...."

As you can see by all of the "may or may not's" the numbers will in all likelihood be significantly higher. Why should the taxpayer pay for this road, when again, we have a builder with the finances, offering to do so while adding value to Peachtree City?

I have been hearing a number closer to $5 million to build the road, create the intersection at MacDuff and Ga. Highway 74, and to install the safest type of at-grade crossing there is.

The crossing would be a fully gated crossing that would not allow cars to weave through the crossing, and it would be tied into the traffic signal to allow traffic to flush before the train arrives.

Mr. Stricklin's estimate was slightly over $2 million. That is a considerable spread between the two estimates and it is quite a sum of money for the taxpayer to cough up.

Lastly, I personally contacted John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods inquiring about their next moves. What I heard made me sick to my stomach.

John Wieland is considering pulling the plug on this development and may actually rescind their application for annexation.

Should this happen, we all lose. You have a chance to allow a premier builder build a development that screams Peachtree City all over it, and you may miss the opportunity to do so.

I once again, ask for your support in voting yes for the Phase 1 Annexation application at your earliest possible chance. If the plans come back and they don't make sense, then don't approve Phase 2, but at least give us a chance to see what could be done on the west side of our great city.

Dana Kinser

Peachtree City, Ga. Default position on annexing: No

First let me apologize for not responding sooner to your e-mail but I've been out of town since Monday at a conference. I would however like to respond [to] a few of the statements you made.

"Citizens of Peachtree City that live in the West Village have been greatly disappointed with the delays and changes in positions regarding this vital decision."

As I have stated on numerous occasions, my default setting for annexation requests is "no." I have to be utterly convinced, perhaps convicted would be a more suitable word, that an annexation either would be in the best interest of the city or would enhance the quality of life that our residents expect and deserve.

I do not believe a development that would be five and a half times more dense is in the best interest of the city.

In addition, Fayette County would have a bona-fide land use objection and the Fayette County chairman has already said the county would fight the request.

"I was astounded to hear Mr. Rapson claim that residents in the West Village don't want the annexation, they simply want MacDuff extended."

What I said was that dozens of West Village residents and many other residents of this city share the same concerns caused by increased density and the impacts it would have on our community.

"To build MacDuff as Councilman Rapson is proposing would likely result in the 'high speed bypass' that none of us want. By the city and county building a road without the developer, there will be no intersections to slow down traffic."

City Council would never build a road with no forethought to traffic flow or mitigation. My request was that the city, county and the developer all be involved in this project.

"At your last council meeting of Feb. 3, you tabled this motion to approach the county to see if they were interested in building this road. I have been told that the county will not fund one dime for projects in Peachtree City as long as Mayor Brown, Councilman Rapson, and Councilman Weed are on the bench."

I still remain optimistic concerning the county leadership. They stepped up to the plate with the TDK Extension and this is simply a smaller, but just as critical version, of that problem. I would be interested in knowing where you're getting your information since I'm still waiting on the county's answer to this question.

Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion and if you'd like to discuss this further please give me a call.

Steve Rapson, councilman

Peachtree City, Ga. West Village would be far too dense

Dear Dana: As you are aware I ran on a no-annexation platform. I have never supported annexation in the city and I never will. My position on this matter has never changed.

Originally I was willing to consider allowing our in-house planning team to review the plans. However, at the February meeting when this came back up, our staff indicated, for the first time in writing, that they and the city attorney could not work on this matter without considerable city expense.

Basically they said they would have to dedicate a staff person essentially full-time for an entire year to the project.

You also know we just hired a part-time planner because of the existing workload. Thus I could not justify the expense of allowing the staff to review the matter knowing that I would be voting against the same.

Mr. Wieland never committed to fund the entirety of our costs to be incurred for what would essentially be his project. His offer (after I asked him) to partially fund the same simply was not sufficient to warrant a vote in favor from me.

Lastly the matter is a density issue. I am convinced the county would issue a valid land use objection to any annexation which would raise the density five and a half times from what the density is currently.

Essentially this would mean 650 to 750 new homes and families and the new burden on the city's infrastructure and public safety.

Remember, long after any impact fee is spent, the 650 to 750 families will still be in the city.

At this time I feel the costs outweigh the benefit to the existing population.

The council fully supports extending MacDuff Parkway. Although there are many who want the annexation for other reasons than getting MacDuff extended, there are as many residents of the west side who wanted the annexation simply because they thought the annexation was the only way to get MacDuff built.

Fortunately the council seems committed to working [to build] the road whatever happens with annexation.

I supported the $280,000 to design the same and I will support full funding. The county should realize that this road is no different than TDK and support the same. If they do not, I am still committed to extend it.

In fact at the last council meeting the county asked us to dedicate certain land for a county siren project. We, of course, agreed. The city has always been willing to meet the county half way. We can prove our attempts to compromise.

I remain hopeful that they will continue to work with us. We will never give up trying.

If the road must be redesigned to be an all-city road, then I for one am willing to design it as such.

I hope this response further clarifies where I am at on this important matter and my reasoning. I also hope that while I am sure you disagree with my reasoning, you will respect the fact that I have given this matter considerable thought.

Murray Weed, councilman

Peachtree City, Ga. HB218: Vital job creation activities threatened by early public exposure

Georgia must work aggressively to strengthen our competitive position. The need of our citizens for jobs is great and attracting employers is increasingly tough. Local governments and economic developers are working together with state agencies to keep Georgia on the "short-list" for preferred location of companies across the country and around the globe.

But all too often this vital work is jeopardized by the risk of negotiations for job-creating projects becoming public too soon.

House Bill 218 allows state and local governments to protect confidential information during on-going negotiations with economic development prospects, the potential future employers of Georgians.

The law removes an obstacle to job-creation by putting Georgia on par with most other states that have already acted to protect their prospect information, and more of Georgia's competitors are figuring out how to get at Georgia's unprotected competitive information.

HB 218 will keep Georgia's economic playbook out of the hands of our competition, and protect continued job opportunities for Georgians.

Contrary to media reports, the proposed legislation does not change the laws and public procedures of zoning, planning, or environmental permitting.

Projects cannot be approved without public comment concerning any potential environmental impact on the community, nor will zoning changes be allowed outside the public's view.

All information that is currently open to the public concerning economic development projects will remain open following the completion of negotiations.

The point of negotiations is to find a deal that is beneficial to both the business and the community, with the community working to assure that the benefits received from the project are greater than the costs.

This bill protects Georgia's chance for jobs by protecting on-going negotiations, but it does not shield public officials from public accountability.

Local elected officials and economic development leaders must justify any deal they negotiate, and at the local level, this does not only mean at the polls, but also by facing their neighbors every day in the community.

Why are confidential discussions necessary? Because company relocation and expansion decisions affect employees, their families, shareholders and others, as well as a company's competitive position in the marketplace, information about those negotiations must be kept confidential until a project announcement can be made.

The business risk to employers from premature or incomplete release of information is significant, and unless confidentiality can be assured, they will take their jobs to another state.

In the Southeast today, only Georgia and West Virginia do not exempt certain economic development information from open records requests. States that protect the confidential information of companies have a clear competitive advantage over Georgia.

In fact, Florida exempts this information from public disclosure for 10 years following the completion of any negotiations.

Local elected officials fully support open government. Economic developers are in the marketing business and clearly want everyone to be aware of efforts to bring job opportunities to Georgia.

But because we want to support more and better jobs for our citizens, we need to support reasonable protection of information during negotiations.

Making a reasonable adjustment in the time at which economic development information is to be released is in the public interest, will preserve the chance for jobs, and is critical to our state's long-term competitiveness and economic success.

Jerry Griffin

Executive Director

Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG)

Jim Higdon

Executive Director

Georgia Municipal Association (GMA)

Cullen Larson

Executive Director

Georgia Economic Developers Association (GEDA) HB218 is dagger in heart of good government

I strongly appreciate your support and endorse your paper's coming out against HB 218. This issue should be of great concern to all citizens of the state of Georgia.

The pending legislation is not a Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative issue.

The installation of a law that removes from public scrutiny any negotiation between the state and prospective businesses developers for the use of state land is shady at best and a dagger in the heart of good government.

Proponents of the legislation posit the theory that secrecy is the engine that makes things happen, and that if we were to get wind of what is going on, the developers would go to another state to do business. What is there to hide?

Developers may be afraid that the general population may be against them if we knew what they were up to. That may well be the case, but we have a right to know.

So, for the short-term economic benefit of the developers, we are given no option to information until the deal has been either done or dropped.

What may appear to be a good reason for economic development is really one more reason for voters to be wary and dissatisfied with the way elected officials conduct themselves in the offices to which we elect them. Trust in government is lost.

Now, if one should be concerned that businesses will go shopping to other states to set up shop, maybe all states should have equal protection with laws of open government, and then all business can be done up front and on the table rather than sneaking around under the table undermining the intent of good government.

Juan Matute

Peachtree City, Ga. Open records laws 'hamstring' development

Providing jobs for Georgia's citizens is the mission of the Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD). The quality jobs we pursue grow a diversified industry base and provide Georgians the highest possible standard of living.

This legislation will equip Georgia to compete in the increasingly cut-throat business of economic development.

Job recruitment is a process of elimination and one of the reasons a state can be knocked out of the list for consideration is an inability to protect information deemed sensitive by the company. Today, Georgia is at a distinct disadvantage in this area.

Georgia's current laws hamstring us, giving our competition a significant advantage. Nearly every other state in the country has recognized the importance of delaying the opening of records about business negotiations until the negotiations conclude or are abandoned.

In a given year, GDEcD negotiates with as many as 400 companies to sell the state's business resources and assets, and convince them our state is the best place to locate their operations.

These negotiations seek to strike a balance that is beneficial to the state, our citizens and the company that we have sold on its ability to grow and thrive here.

As Georgians and economic development professionals, we want what is best for our communities. We recognize that our neighbors deserve information about business development and that those same neighbors will greatly benefit from good jobs.

House Bill 218 allows the privacy companies require, while providing for disclosure immediately after negotiations conclude.

We also recognize that our neighbors should be actively involved in how land in their communities is developed. For that reason, this legislation will have absolutely no impact on land use planning, zoning or environmental meetings.

Every county in our state maintains a land use plan, and any changes to that plan require public discussion. This bill will not change that in any way.

To date, Georgia has been fortunate that the assets we bring to the negotiating table have been strong enough to counteract this disadvantage. This may not always be the case. Passage of this legislation is critical to our state's long-term competitiveness and economic prosperity.

It is critical that we continue working aggressively to strengthen the state's business recruitment tools. Our future depends on it.

Craig Lesser, commissioner

Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD)

Atlanta, Ga. HB218 bad for taxpayers

I wholeheartedly agree that House Bill 218 is not in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Being a former elected official, I felt then and still feel to this day that when you are taking taxpayers' monies, the taxpayers have a right to know how their monies are spent.

If you cannot be honest and open with taxpayers' monies, then you have NO business making decisions on behalf of the taxpayers.

In my opinion, the only time a meeting should be closed to the public is [for] personnel [reasons].

Grace Caldwell

Tyrone, Ga. Maybe sit-ins needed to get district voting here

Changing from at-large to district voting in Fayette County will likely be a long uphill struggle just like many other civil rights struggles I have witnessed.

It has to be difficult because people in the majority always fear change, especially when it is proposed by the so-called minority. But change is indeed necessary to keep Fayette County from violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Voter dilution caused by at-large voting is illegal.

A change is also necessary because it benefits all of the citizens as well as those who run for office.

Perhaps change will only come after persistent high profile civil rights protest marches, sit-ins and demonstrations in downtown Fayetteville.

Perhaps change will come after economic boycotts or litigation in federal court.

Why? Because the silent majority knows it is the right thing to do. The 1965 Voting Rights Act says it is the right thing to do.

So fear not for we have been down this road before. We anticipated the virulent rhetoric and opposition that accompanies any attempt to give all Fayette voters better representation that district voting provides.

We knew some would say it is all about race but in reality it is all about fairer representation and that transcends race and politics.

There is a message for those so adamantly opposed to district voting. As you go through the unnecessary motions of resisting the change from at-large to district voting, remember that faith moves mountains and prayer changes things. You are in my prayers.

John E. Jones

Fairburn (Fayette County), Ga. Entrenched politicians seem threatened by vote change

In response to Mr. Hobbs's continued rebuffing of district voting for Fayette County's election of commissioners, I respond with the following:

1. He claims that the issue is all about Democrats wanting to get a foothold in representation in the county, and not a race issue.

2. He clings to the mantra that dividing into voter districts would only encourage commissioners to be specialized in their own constituents' affairs, and not for the good of the entire county.

I offer into discussion that the issue is about the method by which commissioners are elected, and the inability of the current system to offer fair representation. Indeed, many voters are dissatisfied, and would like to see a change.

As we get more into the discussion of the issue (at-large vs. district), we see that there is an entrenched body of local politicians who seem to be threatened that as the county changes over time, so does its government, and they don't like it.

An erosion of political power from the central core of Old Fayetteville to all parts of the county is hard for them to swallow. The good old boys don't like it, and are they ever angry that we are talking about it.

We should continue to discuss this in an open forum and hear each other out. The fact that Mr. Hobbs walked out of the open forum discussion on Feb. 8 at the Peachtree City Hall does little to bolster any credibility of him having an open mind in solving this county's problems.

The issue is: What serves the needs of the county to serve all of its voters in the selection of county commissioners, district or at-large voting?

Mervine Garlow

Peachtree City, Ga. Thanks for Thorn story

Just wanted to say thank you for a great article on Bill Thorn and the roast we had in his honor last week. It was a tremendous evening and a special night for a special man. Thanks again for the article.

Matthew H. Skinner, headmaster

Landmark Christian School

Fairburn, Ga. Later start for school: It should be about students, families, not teachers

I for one am ecstatic that the state of Georgia might mandate a later starting date to school. Contrary to various comments and articles I've seen, as a parent of school-age children in Fayette, I never received the "survey" as to whether I was in favor of year-round school or earlier start dates every summer.

I see several reasons why we should go