We have an interesting predicament in Peachtree City. Tyrone and Fayetteville may also be in a similar situation and they should probably examine their charters as well.

In the Webb ethics complaint [against James Webb, city attorney for Peachtree City], the Ethics Board's attorney did not say whether a conflict of interest existed but only that the case was out of their jurisdiction (The Peachtree Citizen Review, April 14). Now this creates an interesting dilemma for our citizens.

I have heard several city council and staff members state that the city council cannot be held legally responsible for their decisions if they are following the authorized recommendation of the city attorney. According to The Peachtree Citizen Review article (April 14), “the only persons who could charge Webb with an ethics transgression are the mayor and the city council.” Have we eliminated the citizens from the process of maintaining a fair and ethical government? It seems ludicrous that city's official position is that the city attorney-solicitor is a consultant.

To take a hypothetical example, let us say that you have a city council with a majority of lame-duck members and a city attorney in a business relationship with a group of people who are asking for something that is very controversial, like high density annexation. If the [hypothetical] city attorney wanted to provide a legal opinion that created shades of favoritism or outright conflict of interest and the majority lame-duck members approved the deal, the citizens appear to have very little recourse other than the courts and that can get very expensive (I can relate). The city attorney is out of the citizen's jurisdiction and the council members were following the recommendation of legal counsel. We can only hope that the city council will rectify the problem prior to appointing another city attorney.

Councilman Bob Brooks expressed concern at the recent council retreat that we would also have to include all the other “consultants” in the charter, like the landscape architect. My opinion is that this is an excellent idea in light of recent developments. Please recall that the city's landscape architect consultant was recently advising the city council on the merits of the Home Depot plan while at the same time working for the developer, RAM Development. Of course, the citizenry would have been unable to file a conflict of interest ethics allegation against him either.

The “West Village” annexation question is also an interesting one. There are three main themes that leak through the annexation debate: 1) We should mold that land into looking like Peachtree City; 2) if Peachtree City does not do something with that property, God only knows what Tyrone or Fayette County will do with it; and 3) the whole annexation deal is a way to make a few connected developers wealthy while causing the citizens misery at the same time.

I have read and listened to anyone's argument that I can get my hands on and it all seems to hinge on one question — who is the enemy? Are the people of Tyrone the bad guys? Are the governing body and residents of unincorporated Fayette County a band of villains? How about the developers?

Of course, some of the developers and city council members have introduced the “fear of what may happen” theme. We need to remember that FDR was right when he said that the “only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.”

Our neighbors in Fayette County are good people. For the record, Tyrone's Town Council wholeheartedly supports low density in proposed annexed area (The Citizen, April 12). In addition, the planning and zoning staff of Fayette County have also spoken out in favor of low density for the environmentally fragile area. Should not our own Peachtree City government be in favor of a safe, lower density also?

In Peachtree City, we appear to be placing the cart before the horse. State law stipulates that we must review our Comprehensive Land Use Plan on a definite schedule. It just so happens that the year 2000 is when we need to make this reexamination. This process, if performed properly, allows the city to take a good took at our current zonings to see if they are appropriate. In addition, the city has the opportunity to insure that we can manage future infrastructure demands, increased traffic and maintain our quality of life through proper land usage.

It would seem only natural that we first perform the mandated land use analysis and know what we can expect within our current boundaries for the next five years. After we address our current land use difficulties then let us begin talks about annexing a substantial piece of acreage with its own unique set of problems.

I find it odd that Mayor Lenox wants the annexation question to be answered by July 2000. Lenox himself said that “this is one of the most complex subjects I've ever looked at” and that the committee “will play a major role in determining what this city looks like for the next 100 years” (Peachtree Citizen Review, March 31). If the project is this extensive, why the time restrictions? Why not include Tyrone and unincorporated Fayette County in the discussions?

The Peachtree City annexation debate appears to be either all or nothing. Why not have talks with Fayette County about low-density zoning (which would preserve the [city's] quality of life and reduce the need for enhanced, expensive infrastructure) and Peachtree City providing the sewer to that finite set of homes (which would preserve the fragile environmental concerns)?

It has been in the city's long-range plan to place a fire station on the west side of the train tracks (does anybody know what the city did with Planterra Ridge's impact fees?). The county could simply pay us an annual sum for providing EMS service to a manageable number of county-zoned homes. Cooperation is not a bad thing. If a school site is required in that area, the county has the absolute right to condemn the needed land.

The annexation committee members were led to believe that a popular vote on annexation was not possible. If we amend our charter, we can have the citizens vote on this extremely significant issue. The question is whether the council will permit us to amend our charter for a vote and give way for the people to speak.

Tate Godfrey with the Chamber of Commerce and others are complaining about negativity in the media. Instead of the negative, we should probably use the words like opposition. Some people do not like opposition. As a high-level employee in the Pathway Communities organization, Mr. Godfrey knows that criticism can help us build a better community. Businesses around the globe spend billions of dollars trying to improve the quality of their products and services by soliciting both favorable and unfavorable opinions from consumers. Mr. Godfrey's comments on the need for better communication are very apropos as long as we make sure to include everyone in the debate and avoid intimidating them from offering an opposing view.

Steve Brown

Peachtree City

Steve_ptc@juno.com

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page