It was not surprising to read on the front page of the April 29 edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that metro Atlanta's clean air plan is the subject of yet another lawsuit. Of course, our infamous Peachtree City Home Depot is hinging on the outcome of the transportation and clean air plan. I attempted to inform the City Council members at the Home Depot appeal hearing that a legal quagmire would arise regarding the clean air plan. Please get a cassette copy of that meeting from the city and listen for yourself.

In fact, I attempted to read a letter from the director of the Southern Environmental Law Center (the same entity filing the current lawsuit) stating the possible ramifications of approving the Home Depot plan on Ga. Highway 54 West. Mayor Bob Lenox cut me off in the midst of reading that letter at the council meeting in December 1999.

Lenox did not want anyone telling him that the data used for the new and improved transportation and clean air plan was probably flawed and that the mitigation plan approved for Home Depot was most likely illegal and could be the subject of a lawsuit against the city. Of course, there was no time to discuss details such as these because the council had to approve the Home Depot plan prior to Dan Tennant coming on board in January 2000. It was quite obvious that the mayor wanted that particular deal to succeed no matter what it cost the city.

RAM Development expressed to the city and others that time was of the essence or they would lose out on their deal with Home Depot, but four months later they have still not signed their agreement with the city. The city did not impose any time restriction on RAM Development to sign (do not think that was an errant omission).

This allowed RAM to wait until the federal government approved our transportation and clean air plan at which point our traffic impact ordinance would expire (again, not an errant omission) and they would no longer have an obligation to mitigate the highway to avoid traffic gridlock.

Thus the substantial sum of taxpayer dollars that flowed into Dames and Moores' (the city's traffic consultant) “interesting” traffic studies regarding Home Depot were just flushed down the toilet. If Home Depot can elude their obligation to lessen the traffic burden, we must absolutely consider how this will affect our quality of life as well as the talks on annexation.

The hard facts are coming to light in the discussion on annexation by the Annexation Task Force in Peachtree City. Task Force member John Williams made an excellent point when he stated that the commercial projects that have already been approved near the intersection of Ga. highways 54 and 74 but have yet to be built are going to have a substantial impact on our traffic.

Taking into account how bad our current traffic is, this point needs some serious consideration. Unfortunately, a majority of our population is not aware of the magnitude of the projects that have been already approved within our city limits.

I greatly admire developer Tom Cousins and I believe he is a valuable asset to the metro Atlanta area. However, his project alone has the ability to lure an excessive number of commercial shoppers from outside of the city. Add in the other massive big-box projects along with the new homes and apartments and the future Department of Transportation Hwy. 54 widening plan is just not enough. The land to the west absolutely has to be the lowest possible density for the sake of those living in Peachtree City and Tyrone.

The one annexation topic that I am surprised has not captured more attention is the future commuter train station in Peachtree City. When looking at a map of Peachtree City, the only logical place to put a station is along the tracks in the “West Village” area.

An Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) representative told me that some beta sites existed and that the ARC had compiled data for the specific sites. Curious about the Peachtree City station location, I contacted the ARC's Ms. Monica Long who is handling the rail plan. My question was simple — Where is the proposed station location? Ms. Long's e-mail reply gave me a great deal of information regarding everything but the location of the station. Why?

Did you know that the latest planning trend is to build high-density housing around commuter trains stations? High-density apartment units are surrounding one of the newest MARTA stations along Ga. Highway 400 (north of I-285). In addition, MARTA is clashing with Buckhead homeowners about plans to build high-density apartments adjacent to the Lindbergh rail station.

I introduced the thought of a commuter rail station and its aptness to produce more local traffic to one of our city council members. The council member stated that the ARC did not have the funding for the project and that it was not an immediate concern. I contended that the ARC is dead and that Governor Barnes' Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) is the one that will move on this project. Remember that we already have the rail line and that all that is missing is the station.

The ARC is a do-nothing body run by the Gwinnett County Commission chairman, Wayne Hill (dubbed the “Sprawl King” by the AJC). So shoddy was the ARC's performance that its director, Harry West, told the ARC's 39-member board that if they could not put the best interests of the region above those of their individual counties, “maybe you need to move out of the way and let somebody else do it” (March 31, AJC). That somebody else is now GRTA and they are coming up with the cash and propelling forward.

The new strategy that GRTA will either approve or reject sometime after a May 1, 2000, public hearing includes spending $20 billion on transit facilities. Included in this plan are some fast-track initiatives that would spend $1.9 billion over the next three years.

At this juncture, I am not asserting whether or not a commuter rail station is a good thing. My point is simply that such a station and the traffic draw from Peachtree City and beyond needs to definitely be considered in our analysis of the annexation question.

Instead of having Jerry Peterson of Pathway Communities devising a rating system for annexation from a planner's perspective, he ought to be requesting the year 2000 state-mandated reexamination of our comprehensive land use plan. As a planner, Mr. Peterson knows that the updated comprehensive plan is of the utmost importance in deciding whether the city could sustain the burden of annexation either logistically or financially.

Steve Brown

Peachtree City

Steve_ptc@juno.com

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