Wednesday, May 29, 2002

Some questions about PTC Development Authority ties and tennis center

I have been taking notice of the recent articles discussing the relations between the Peachtree City Council and the Development Authority.

I personally have not been to a City Council meeting since Steve Brown has taken over as mayor. I had attended some of [former Mayor Bob] Lenox's meetings and was appalled by his "don't think you can speak to me" attitude, as well as the waste of time that most of the speakers were concerning various subjects.

I agree that as elected officials, both council and the mayor, have an obligation to listen to the taxpayers as well as any affected party on a particular matter. However, there need to be certain limitations for the sake of order and sanity.

First, there is a time and place for everything. If council brings up a point that they have a concern over at a meeting, I don't agree that it necessarily means that they need to take all comments on the subject at that time. For one, most off-the-cuff comments are just factless criticisms and anger given their spontaneity.

However, I believe that council has the responsibility to inform the public when the matter will be on the agenda for open discussion. At that time all parties interested or involved may present their input and facts for council's consideration prior to council taking any action. Otherwise, as I have witnessed, these meetings will quickly lose all semblance of order.

Second, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to wasting my time or council members. Forget the long-winded factless speeches at the meetings. I don't care how long you've lived here, how much you love it, how well your kids are doing, why you moved here, and your personal assessment of council or any particular individual. Forget the name-calling and put-downs because everyone listening to you speak is thinking of a few for you at that moment.

That said, most people really have nothing to say. Just tell me your name; how you are affected by the subject at hand; are you for or against the issue; and what is your question that you would like answered. If you're with a group, pick a speaker to represent you. If your point has been stated by someone else, we don't need to hear it again. It's a discussion period for discovery of information. Not a soapbox, and not a voting platform.

As an example, a few months back it is clear that just about every member of the PTC Tennis Center was at the Council meeting for a "head count" vote. They had a very effective "phone-tree" call to arms for attendance, and a far better turnout than the 30,000-plus citizens that either didn't care or felt otherwise.

Yes, I agree that I have my right, and maybe responsibility, to be in attendance to voice my disagreement with their opinions. But that's not the way this country was meant to or ever will work. That's council's job to access how the other citizens feel or are impacted. A council meeting is not a majority rule of those in attendance. If so, you better plan a week for the meeting and find a place to hold 30,000 "opinions." Until that happens I don't have to be there to defend my point of view very time someone has one to the contrary.

As for Steve Rapson's conflict of interest. I agree that he may not be the most objective member of council at this time. But, unfortunately he has got to rise above his personal family issue with his wife and address the issue of possibly unknowingly voting on a substituted agreement.

It appears that the accusation is that Lenox, Lindsey, and the Authority boys slipped in a revised contract, without verbally informing all of the council members of the revisions. I don't buy the "e-mail notification" [explanation] any more than I would that it was posted on the bulletin board in the men's room. These are elected officials making legal decisions that involve millions of dollars and all of the citizens. Rapson is an elected official, directly involved, and he has to deal with it as such.

If there is any real conflict of interest that can be avoided, I think it would be Annie McMenamin and her daughter's job [as an associate of City Attorney Rick Lindsey]. I can't understand how that deal has ever been allowed to continue.

Last, I ask for answers and information for myself, and the citizens of PTC. This whole idea of a group of unelected individuals being given free reign with our tax dollars with no recourse is unbelievable. I'd like to find out more about this setup ....

My questions are as follows: 1. Who are the individual members of the PTC Development Authority, and what are their outside interests and occupations? I get the impression that they are mostly developers and owners of large pieces of property in and around PTC. And, if so, isn't this a major conflict of interest? Aren't we giving them our tax money to insure they get top dollar for the development of their property?

2. What rights, benefits, and usage do the individual members of the Development Authority get from the venues that they control (Amphitheater, Airport, Tennis Center). Are they in any way getting any personal benefit from any of these properties? Are they giving out freebies in the way of services and access to these facilities to individuals or businesses to attract their interest to PTC and to sell and develop their own personal assets?

3. What is the annual cost to operate each one of these entities? How much is paid for from the hotel tax, and how much from the city's taxes? What is the cost to the citizens of these Development Authority controlled properties?

4. Anyone, not just PTC residents can purchase tickets to the amphitheater concerts at the "subsidized" ticket prices. Who can use or join the tennis center, and at what rate? Are non-PTC applicants charged more so that PTC citizens are not subsidizing their membership fees?

5. And last, if the city did control these entities, just how would that "city" destroy these facilities/programs, as outspoken supporters have claimed, other than making sure that people who use them are actually the ones that are paying for them? Is the tennis center afraid of losing their "private club" atmosphere and being overrun by the taxpaying masses?

6. What is the relationship between Lindsey and the boys' law firm and the Development Authority boys? I know the law firm is the title sponsor of the concert series and by that fact I would assume has made some financial commitment or pact with the Development Authority. What is their financial or business ties? And, if they are financially involved, isn't this the most blatant conflict of interest of all this mess? How can they represent the city in this matter?

Rich Horning

Peachtree City

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