[Editor's note: The following letter is written by Steve Brown of Peachtree City, who — along with The Citizen and its publisher — is a defendant in a libel lawsuit filed by Jim Webb and the law firm of Webb, Stuckey and LIndsey.]

At this pivotal point in Peachtree City's history, I think that it is fair to say that as we near the end of the game (build-out), there is a sudden rush to cash in all the chips. The onslaught of potent commercial development and the final requests to assemble as many houses as possible into a meager area is the big, final payoff for some of our developer friends.

We are a blue-chip city for developers because of our exceptional demographics. The new Avenue shopping center is evidence that our upscale market is attractive (AJC, May 11). But here are some questions: Is the massive influx of commercial development compatible with the mindset of our population? What lured us to Peachtree City in the first place? With such an ideal situation, why is not the city in the driver's seat? Lastly, why do we not have appropriate developmental safeguard ordinances in the books?

Do you remember all those Pathway Communities (formerly PCDC) advertisements in the newspapers? There were always one or two families reclining in this open, green field surrounded by trees. You never observed big bold letters at the bottom of one of their ads announcing WAL-MART COMING SOON. We were sold on the quality of life and we expected that quality to remain. Interesting to note that the CEO of Pathway moved from Peachtree City a while ago — should that tell us something?

It was humorous to hear attorney Woody Galloway try to convince the city's planning commission members that the Katz/Pathway property needed to be rezoned and packed with four homes per acre because the soon-to-be-built Cedarcroft subdivision was set up that way.

If you will remember it was then-City Attorney Jim Webb's firm that was in charge of the legal arrangements for the city against (his now fellow banking director) Mike Rossetti and Raven Homes. Peachtree City Developmental Services Director Jim Williams referred to the Cedarcroft project as a “major land planning mistake” and a planning commission member stated that “one mistake there (Cedarcroft) does not justify another mistake here” (The Citizen, May 12).

The humorous part was that Galloway employed the exact opposite argument that his law partner, Doug Dillard, used for the Home Depot site, but they cited the same constitutional references. I guess that would mean that no matter what the situation, the U.S. Constitution always favors a commercial development over the welfare of the citizens.

The appointment of Rick Lindsey as city attorney/solicitor was the shallowest of “compromises.” The logic for this appointment is almost nonexistent.

First, Jim Webb was always advertised as the major reason to select the firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey, and he is supposedly out of the picture now.

Second, Mayor Bob Lenox and council member Carol Fritz spoke about there being nothing but “allegations” against Webb — which is quite true because the city attorney is totally immune to all of the ethics ordinances of Peachtree City.

Of course a civil counterclaim is now pending in the Superior Court against Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey. It will be interesting to see if a judgment against the law firm's (Lindsey included) alleged suppression of civil rights of the media and the private citizen who raised the conflict of interest question will alter the city council's opinion at a later date.

If Lenox and Fritz really wanted to verify Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey's fitness for the city attorney position, they should have requested access to the sealed FBI file regarding Jim Webb and then-District Attorney Johnnie Caldwell. The council should totally clear the air regarding all the allegations against Jim Webb. By gaining access to the sealed FBI file(s) pertaining to some of Webb's past actions, the council could then wholeheartedly endorse the law firm or drop them.

It might also be appropriate for the city council to ask Webb to voluntarily participate in a hearing regarding the recent ethics charge against him. By proceeding with an ethics board hearing, Webb might then be able to escape all the “allegations” that the council was so concerned about.

The most troubling part of the Lindsey appointment is the fact that Councilman Bob Brooks stated that the council knew of Webb's property ownership that was directly impacted by the buffer ordinance of 1997. This was the subject of an ethics charge against Webb because he allegedly openly gave an official legal opinion to the council on that ordinance without giving public disclosure of ownership.

It is extraordinary that Brooks would frankly state that the city council and the then-City Attorney Webb would conceal Webb's property ownership from the public and the news media. We must remember that public disclosure is supposed to be public; otherwise, we would refer to such actions as “private disclosure” and that carries the probability of being unethical or illegal. This is why we have ethics ordinances in order to avoid such backroom disclosures.

I would not feel at all comfortable knowing that Mayor Lenox, whose latest quote is that public's opinions are “misguided” (The Citizen, May 10), knew some exceptionally pertinent information that could have a major impact on an ordinance or annexation and he failed to share it with the public. I am not certain that he cares about what the majority of people think Peachtree City should be like. I believe that the public at large would greatly discourage the withholding of vital information from the citizenry and the news media even on the smallest of issues if a conflict of interest existed.

Ethics ordinances are only reliable if they apply to everyone and we have ethical people enforcing them. A good example comes from the May 11, 2000 Wall Street Journal where it was cited that, “Workers are seeing — but not necessarily reporting — widespread illegal and unethical conduct in the workplace, despite many corporate ethics programs, according to a survey of more than 2,300 employees by KPMG LLP, New York.”

For the city council to effortlessly admit that they withheld such vital information during the hearing on the 1997 buffer ordinance is in itself shameful. The city attorney is not the only position in our government capable of favoritism; thus, we must have public disclosure from the council, commissions and authorities as well.

If we fail to debate the merits of ethics in our community, do not be surprised if the end result is unethical government. Citizen involvement and the news media are the only elements that keep the process fair and impartial.

Steve Brown

Peachtree City

Steve_ptc@juno.com

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