|
PTC has failed
to adequately protect citizens against big box problems
If you are baffled about the
proposed Wal-Mart imbroglio, you are not alone. We are now faced with
two options: (1) immediate accessibility to cheap underwear (Wal-Mart
sells more underwear than any other retailer in the U.S.A.) along with
the hoard of cars that will be filling the 963 parking spaces, or (2)
retaining our quality of life.
It is easy to obtain case studies that show how Wal-Mart stores have a
negative impact on the aesthetic character of a community, are associated
with environmental problems, have a negative impact on crime and residential
property values, cause economic devastation and promote retail redundancy,
have a negative impact on traffic, etc. The real question is can we prevent
this from happening to us? Or should we ask if our city government has
the desire to prevent this from happening to us?
Al Norman, a renowned national big box expert, aptly stated in his book,
"If you don't define growth, it will define you." Our Peachtree
City city councils of the last several years are pulling us in a direction
that can never be reversed. Our local government is in the process of
redefining our community and continually adding to our infrastructure
burden. The village concept and scale that has served us well is now being
terminated in lieu of the regional shopping model, ala Gwinnett County.
I cannot help but conjure up images of the Clinton presidential campaign
when a staff member posted a sign on the wall at their campaign headquarters
reading, "It's the economy stupid!" Even the chief financial
officer of Pathway Communities, Russell Wray, explained the phenomenal
growth in PTC by saying, "Overall, I think it's the quality of life
that has sold the city" (Atlanta Business Chronicle, Nov. 24, 1997).
Hey, city council, it's the quality of life!
Is this current, unprecedented, large-scale commercial growth that is
rapidly occurring prior to the next city council election in 2001 true
to the vision of PTC?
You would be astounded to know what our local government's vision is for
our future. In 1999, I asked the city council to impose a moratorium on
big box applications to give the city time to deliberate on the impact
of this type of development. Obviously, they choose not to do so mainly
because the city was already committed to allowing them into our community.
Our developmental services director, Jim Williams, was meeting with the
big box developers for months before the general public was even informed
about such projects. You can be certain that the city manager and the
mayor knew what Mr. Williams was doing.
Jonathan M. Peterson stated in the 1995 edition of the "Urban Lawyer,"
"Local zoning authority is a critical element of community self-determination
that allows local people to mediate the pace and pattern of residential
change and manage the economic and social dislocations attendant on local
development." Both Tyrone and Fayetteville had ordinances in place
to protect their citizens from such large-scale developments but PTC did
not. Legal methods of handling such out of scale developments were given
to the city council members and staff as early as 1999 but they were ignored.
In my opinion, Jim Williams made a terrible mistake when he allowed the
applications for big boxes to be accepted under the general commercial
zoning category. Our general commercial zoning was created using 1950s
methodology when big boxes did not even exist; therefore, a logical conclusion
is that our general commercial zoning was not designed with big boxes
in mind.
The big boxes should have been taken into account under the Limited Use
Commercial (LUC) zoning category. LUC is used for large-scale, atypical
developments that require special considerations.
In addition, Mr. Williams told me that ordinances involving size limitations
could probably not be upheld in court and that he did not view the big
boxes as being harmful to our community. What Mr. Williams does not realize
is that our city already has a number of "dimensional limitations"
such as building heights, signs, setbacks, etc., so why would the big
box limitations be any different? In fact, Mr. Williams has yet to produce
one court case that declares that such dimensional limits cannot be placed
on buildings. Cities and states across the country are enacting the very
same type of limits.
As to his non-harm assessment, how is he defining "harmful"?
Surely he has read The Citizen article "Pavilion crime stretches
F'ville police resources" (Aug. 30). Hopefully, he read the legal
documents I gave him concerning the state of Connecticut having to sue
Wal-Mart over pollution and water contamination.
I gave him a document that mentioned the Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania professor's study that showed that big boxes crush small
retailers, wholesalers and service activities for not being able to compete
(he should drive by the Bank's Crossing shopping center).
Perhaps he ought to read Professor Ken Stone's Iowa State University study
on how big boxes cause dramatic shifts in local economies or the University
of Maryland's study on the fiscal impact on tax revenues following the
arrival of a big box.
Wal-Mart has had to start placing security guards in some of their parking
lots. I personally watched the crew install the surveillance cameras overlooking
the Sam's Club parking lot (Jonesboro) that works in conjunction with
the armed off-duty police officer on site.
I am unquestionably certain that Mr. Williams received a copy of the preamble
document from our City Attorney, Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey, that states,
"the concentration of larger retail stores increases the rate of
crime in these areas and, thus, the need for greater police protection"
and "the concentration of retail areas increases traffic and the
incidents of what is now commonly known as 'road rage'." The document
also noted, "many residents moved to Peachtree City because of the
Plan and because the town appears different from many other suburban areas
and these residents have invested money and time on their homes in reliance
on the Plan."
I introduced an incremental development growth concept to the Planning
Commission. A national expert conceived the idea and I found that it would
greatly protect our quality of life. Mr. Williams rejected the idea in
a meeting that I had with him shortly after the Planning Commission expressed
an interest.
I found it interesting that our city attorney promoted the same idea of
symmetry and balance when he wrote, "The current mix and size of
commercial [and] residential uses has, in large measure, remained true
to the Plan and no one village or area of town has a concentration of
commercial uses that is disproportionately higher than the other villages
or areas of town." More or less, our city attorney is describing
the essential quality found in the incremental development growth concept
that Williams rejected.
The PTC city council went on record opposing a jail impact fee plan that
would have allowed new big box stores to pay a substantial and yet fair
portion of the county's new jail expansion. Since the big box stores will
be providing a considerable number of "regional" tenants for
the jail it would seem only fair that they provide a considerable portion
of the funding.
As it stands, the proposed Wal-Mart consisting of 204,167 square feet
would only pay an insignificant $8,663.12, thus leaving the bulk of the
jail funding on the backs of the citizens of Fayette County. The greatly
revised lower rate for new commercial facilities was a direct result of
the actions of the PTC city council.
I find it disheartening that our city government would safeguard the proposed
big box stores throughout the entire process at the expense of the citizens
and our quality of life. This type of discrimination against the residents
in favor of developers looking to reap large profits is an absolute shame
considering that our entire dilemma could have been easily averted.
The firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey is providing the legal opinions
for the city while one of the big box developers has an ongoing business
relationship with the chief partner in the law firm. Are we doing the
citizens an honorable service by allowing Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey to
represent the city on this matter?
Can we rely on the city attorney to provide the best possible defense
in order to preserve what we hold most dear? Will our city government
continue to pursue cheap underwear or will they protect our quality of
life? Based upon the decisions, or lack thereof, made since mid-1999,
what would you conclude?
In 1995, actress Katherine Hepburn expressed her concerns about Wal-Mart
expansion in Connecticut by saying, "I cherish the lovely times I
spend here in Old Saybrook [CT]. It would be an absolute shame to allow
a commercial development of this sort to forever change our town"
(Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart, A. Norman, 1999). I am inclined to agree.
Steve Brown Steve_ptc@juno.com
Peachtree City
(Editor's note: Brown is currently pursuing a court claim for attorney's
fees against Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey related to a now-dismissed libel
suit against Brown.)
Back
to Opinion Home Page | Back
to the top of the page
|
