Wednesday, June 6, 2001

Since the Wal-Mart proposal was only passed because of its supposed ability to pass the traffic impact ordinance, the project should now be denied since RAM is in violation of that ordinance. Perhaps Councilwoman Carol Fritz will recall the vote since she was on the winning side of the Wal-Mart approval.

In addition, The Avenue project is doing so well the traffic on the thoroughfare is much heavier. Current data needs to be loaded into the computer model. I doubt that Wal-Mart could pass the model again with updated data.

I will be on vacation and might not be able to make the City Council meeting. However, I had a dream of what I thought might happen at the June 7 meeting and I recorded it below.

Councilman: "Tell us, Mr. Developer, why you repeatedly stated that you were in such a hurry to begin these projects and gain approval and yet you refused to sign the developers' agreements and obtain permits."

Mr. Developer: "Well, ahh, yea, ah."

Mayor: "That's a sufficient explanation and the City Attorney agrees. Besides, they have an exemption on everything since they turned in a rectangle on a piece of paper before we began discussing the big box ordinance for grandfathering purposes."

Councilman: "Mr. Developer, why haven't you paid the money you have owed us for a substantial length of time?"

Mr. Developer: "It has always been my intention (pause) well, ahh, yea, ah."

Mayor: "That explains it, in fact, we'll just eat that expense out of the council contingency fund peanuts, don't worry about it."

City Attorney: "Mr. Mayor, would you like me to explain why we are using the Russian definition of 'no vested interest' in this particular ordinance?"

Mayor: "Not necessary. But I want to explain my sudden interest in having our local homeowners pay for the traffic improvements on Ga. highways 54 and 74."

Councilman: "Is it because it will enable the Wal-Mart to pass the traffic impact ordinance again?"

Mayor: "Well, ahh, yea, ah."

Mr. Developer: "Let me just explain that these two huge stores that will draw traffic from every nearby county, that will cause the crime rate to climb, that will ruin the village land use concept in place for the last 35 years, is truly an asset to this community."

City Planning Staff: "We agree with that assessment and we are thrilled that the Ga. Department of Transportation decided to purchase an easement for six lanes across on Hwy. 54 West. In fact, they are calling it Buford Highway South and I think that is encouraging. In the name of land conservation we are also considering the developer's proposal to build 400 apartment units atop each big box store. The proposed apartments will not impact the traffic since the developer plans to lease the units to United Nations refugees and they cannot afford cars."

Councilman: "Mr. Developer, you have promised to move the traffic light since December of 2000. Why hasn't the light been moved?"

Mr. Developer: "Have you ever tried to move a traffic light?"

Councilman: "No I haven't."

Mr. Developer: "It's not easy. I've got someone reading the owner's manual and I just got my hands on the 800 tech support number."

Mayor: "I appreciate your earnestness."

Local citizen: "Why can't we just follow the law?"

Mayor: "This is a tough decision because I like being able to buy underwear at half-price, and having a Wal-Mart nearby would be nice. Besides, crime is not a worry since our police force isn't doing anything but parking at the Hwy. 54-74 intersection preventing absolute traffic mayhem anyway. Therefore I make a motion that we give them one more chance using the Russian definition of 'no vested interest'."

I did not want to give you the results of the vote just in case you were thinking about attending the meeting June 7, 7 p.m. at City Hall.

Steve Brown

Peachtree City

Steve_ptc@juno.com

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