Wednesday, February 13, 2002
|
Wednesday, February 13, 2002 |
|
Controversy in PTC: Will the real Mayor Steve Brown please stand up? First, let me say that I will be driving the car with the bumper sticker saying, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Steve Brown." With that said, I must say that I am sorry to see that the reasons I didn't vote for Brown are coming to fruition. I didn't vote for Brown because I feared he had an agenda that would not be in the best interest of Peachtree City. That his "vision" statement was nothing more than political rhetoric designed to play on the "antiestablishment" bias of most voters. Mayor Brown promised "ethics," "honesty," "open" and "responsive" government. He seems to have a problem with his own "vision" statement. I will admit that he has let the public speak on the issues. For that he needs to be praised. However, what good is it if he operates under the "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts" mentality? When the building moratorium was presented, it was suggested that it may be illegal. Instead of studying the "facts," Mayor Brown and the City Council passed it anyway (albeit with some language change) and sure enough, it is being challenged in court. Mayor Brown's reasoning for the moratorium is that we need to stop all development to take our time and "review" the ordinances to make changes. Some opposition quite rightly wondered whether or not any particular problem drove this "need for change" or was it simply a matter that Mayor Brown's complete opposition to any development was the driving force to try to find needed changes? Certainly the idea Mayor Brown put forward, that taking time to make a complete and thorough review, is commendable. However one must certainly question if this is a legitimate reason to stop all building and open the city to legal action at a time when even Mayor Brown is somewhat concerned about finances. Now Mayor Brown proposes the Sports and Entertainment Authority. The most concerning aspect (other than creating another layer of government to fund) is the proposal to move the amphitheater and tennis center from the Development Authority to the new Sports and Entertainment Authority. Maybe this is a good idea. However, no one attending the meeting thought so, except Mayor Brown and Councilman Weed. The problem I have is, why doesn't the mayor approach the major change in city organization with the same desire stated when justifying the building moratorium? Doesn't such a major change deserve a well-thought-out plan? Shouldn't all interested parties be included in the research and discussion? And what is the benefit to the community with such a change? How will this new Authority be funded, and how will the Development Authority continue to be funded? Mayor Brown stated in the article in The Citizen Feb. 6 that it would allow the Sports and Entertainment Authority to "steer more hotel/motel tax money for other projects in the future." But what about the amphitheater and tennis center? My guess is this would mean substantial cuts in programming or substantial increases in ticket costs and fees. I do not play tennis but do attend concerts. We already pay a substantial amount for the tickets and certainly enjoy the concerts. Since both venues operate at a small loss, how could their budgeted money be "steered" to other "projects" without a substantial degrading of these two popular venues? And why, in the spirit of his promise to listen to the people, did Mayor Brown and Councilman Weed vote to continue with this proposal when, after nearly three hours of public input, it appears that 100 percent of Peachtree City seems to oppose it? Bottom line to my concerns are why weren't these questions researched prior to any proposal? Could there be a "hidden agenda" in this proposal? At the City Council meeting Councilwoman McMenamin stated that she felt Mayor Brown had a strong bias against the Development Authority. This was because of a seven-page letter he showed her in the past blasting the Development Authority. Mayor Brown stated strongly that the letter contained "only one fact" and the rest was "personal opinion." The fact dealt with missing meeting minutes. Mayor Brown stated that since they were turned in, the letter no longer applied. Is Mayor Brown to have us believe that seven pages of "personal opinions" dealt strictly with some missing minutes? It would appear he simply made Councilwoman McMenamin's point and may have a disdain for the Development Authority after all. Could this be part of the "agenda"? Mayor Brown has always been against development. That has been clearly stated in his letters to the editor, and during his campaign. And it is certainly a factor in the Building Moratorium. But then he inexplicably rushes to push through a major change in city organization without any thought, discussion, or planning. And what was his stated reason? To have the Development Authority concentrate solely on bringing in new economic development by attracting new industry! Not that attracting new industry is a bad idea, but does anyone else see the irony here? So, who is the real Mayor Brown, the "anti-development, stop all building" Steve Brown, or the "free the Development Authority to attract new industrial development" Steve Brown? Is it the "slow deliberate study the issues with a building moratorium" Steve Brown, or the "we must rush to make major changes in our city structure with a new authority" Steve Brown? Is it the "listen to the people" Mayor Brown, or the "don't confuse me, I've made up my mind" Steve Brown? Or is it simply the "I haven't yet revealed my true agenda" Steve Brown? For the sake of the city, will the "real Steve Brown" please stand up. Jim Stinson Peachtree City
|
||