Wednesday, April 16, 2003

I can emphasize with Cal's desire not to see the beautiful vista between Fayetteville and Peachtree City disappear [The Citizen, April 9]. However, the rights of the owners of that 2,000 acres must be respected.

It is not right for the majority to impose, through government coercion, a use on a piece of land that reduces its market value without compensation. Reasons of public safety would be the one exception to this. If this land is uncommonly beautiful the county or state should offer to buy it and create a park.

Additionally, Cal's idea that it should be developed as 5- to 10-acre mini-farms is not in my view very palatable. First, most people do not want a yard that big (it is a mowing headache). Second, a pasture with a house every 200 yards surrounded by a chain-link fence and semi-landscaped fescue yard is not that attractive. Third, 5-acre lots waste land (this is sprawl on steroids).

Can't this land be developed neo-traditionally with higher density housing, local shopping and work space, and ample parkland? It would look better than mini-farms, and you would not have to screw the property owners out of millions of dollars in the process.

Bill Gilmer

wmgilmer@mindspring.com