Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Limited annexation benefits PTC citizens

A lot of attention has been focused on a single discussion concerning a group of citizens that represented the Westside subdivisions and others that have expertise in land planning, transportation, and environmental issues a while back.

Wonderful, let’s have a common sense, intellectually honest discussion on issue. The time is now upon us to discuss the vital road connection between MacDuff Parkway and Ga. Highway 74 in order to offset the current and future strains on Ga. Highway 54-W and the intersection at hwys. 54 and 74.

Some of the old guard opposition has frowned upon my initiating such a discussion outside of the tied-down, locked-up and shackled process that they left us. Common sense dictates that we need to have some sort of discussion prior to an unpleasant type of development taking place that forever precludes us from making the critical road connection. Let’s not end up like the group that waited to find the evidence that proved the innocence of prisoner three minutes after his execution.

The DIRECT PAC (Political Action Committee) group that claims to have council members Kourajian and Rutherford under their wing is trying to throw out as much interference as possible on the annexation issue.

This is the same bunch of hooligans that stated in writing some time back that the Development Authority was doing a marvelous job of managing the Tennis Center. They actually lobbied our state elected officials to ruin our attempts to make corrections.

Lately, they stated that I campaigned for referendums on annexations, and that part is true. However, they are neglecting to tell you that there would have to be a change in state law to allow for a referendum on annexation.

Currently, our state lawmakers cannot even pass ethics reforms to control their own behavior.

I believe that referendums on annexation would force better development projects that benefit the city, but when you look at who is funding many of our state elected officials, you can see why referendums are still not allowed.

The DIRECT PAC crew appears to be a bit befuddled. They demanded to be on the April 1 City Council agenda and then went mute at the meeting. We were presented with a couple of DIRECT PAC documents. One stated that my dialog “appears to be in violation of the city’s annexation moratorium” while their other document stated, “Arguably, the mayor is not city staff so he can do this without violating the law.”

The committee stated that they did not like the off-site discussion that I orchestrated. They forget to mention that I also invited the news media so that our discussion could be made public and the news stories soon followed.

My purpose for having the local experts and affected subdivision representatives gather was to see if such an annexation had any merit. The consensus opinion (of the average citizens) was that we should continue.

DIRECT PAC is not opposed to the annexation. They want to annex all of the nearly 900 acres on the Westside.

For the record, I only want to annex the single piece of property behind the ComCast tower because it has strategic value to the city and will enable the critical road connection to lessen future gridlock and add some recreational field capacity.

This particular site can provide long-term planning value to the city. The developer-influenced political action committee wants the remainder of the properties included as a way to line some deep pockets.

Please look at the annexations of the past (that occurred during the moratorium) and see what the city got out of it: Virtually nothing with most of them. More on that later.

Since the political action committee called for the item to be placed on the agenda but did not have much to say, I offered my four essential beliefs on annexation in our city.

1. The annexation moratorium has historically been a PCDC/Pathway protection mechanism. They reaped a lot of benefits from the moratorium by keeping their competition out. We are no longer a company town.

2. It is time to ask the developers to assist the city with providing vital infrastructure instead of the other way around with the improvements coming out of the taxpayers’ pockets.

The previous 900-acre Westside plan that failed in 2000 was going to use impact fees for recreation land, green space enhancements, parkway buffering and landscaping, and planning (not building) a community center.

I am calling for a road connection to be constructed and landscaped, four badly needed soccer fields (lighted, irrigated and restrooms), and a senior center to occur at developer expense. The impact fees would be used to make further improvements for public safety, traffic, etc.

3. Let’s set the bar high! If a developer is not coming to our city with the best design, the best architecture, the best landscaping and top-notch amenities, then we ought to send them packing. Whether you have a moratorium or not, our state law allows us to be totally arbitrary on annexation decisions. The real question is whether or not you have elected officials that do not have any financial ties to the development community and are willing to do what is best for the entire population.

4. We need to look for and take advantage of planning opportunities that aid us in the long term. We need to be proactive and go to the landowners and developers with how we want to see our future instead of being reactive to poorly designed plans that are devoid of community character whose sole purpose is only to create a profit.

It is quite obvious why the DIRECT PAC wants to go back to the failed 2000 Lenox plan and why they want to include the entire 900 acres: The tremendous profit potential for their comrades.

I opposed the 2000 plan because it disregarded the community and detracted from the city rather than improving it.

On the other hand, I did not oppose the 80-acre Katz property annexation (where Centennial is located) because the city gained a fire station site and a 20-acre school/nature preserve area and some nice development.

In fact, the road connection from MacDuff Parkway to Hwy. 74 is what will make the school site work. That particular site was also zoned industrial, a use that would not work in that location today. It was a solid move for our future and I commend my predecessors for taking the action.

John Wieland did not come to the city asking for an annexation and he was content to develop in the county. Instead, I went to his people and begged them to consider changing their plan so that our city could benefit.

In the 1980s we had a group with some vision called the McIntosh Trail Area Planning and Development Commission. They developed some magnificent thoroughfare plans for the Westside.

The commission’s plan shows an intersection at South Kedron Drive on Hwy. 74 just like the concept that I presented. They also show a fascinating extension of Wynnmeade Parkway that is no longer possible today due to existing development.

The TDK extension is also shown on their plan as a “collector road” running down Crosstown Road into Fayette County, which is much more accurate than the “moving employees into the industrial area” myth that is being used to justify the project today.

In 1990, the PTC Planning Commission approved a “Highway 74 traffic study” that gave priority “to secure approval for the intersection at the South Kedron Collector which will include a grade crossing of the railroad tracks for the proposed new access road to the Westside area.”

Recently, both CSX and GDOT have stated that the grade crossing will work but it will be expensive for the developer.

It is my sincere hope that the City Council will allow for the city staff to become involved in the planning process.

In addition, I would like to have a cross-section of citizen participation in planning this area (this group process is called a “charette”). Let the people and the adjacent subdivisions decide what is best and I’ll bet you that it will come out a heck of a lot better.

The only financial interest that I have in Peachtree City is my home. The political action committee members have real estate investments and “for sale,” “for lease,” and “will build to suit” signs all over town. Whose motives do you agree with the most?

If you think that the City Council and city staff should just look at the single parcel of land behind the ComCast tower on Hwy. 74 for the vital road connection, the soccer fields and the senior center, then please let us know at council@peachtree-city.org or send a letter to City Hall at 151 Willowbend Road.

Your local government has never been so open. Your input is welcome and your help in designing the project for the best interests of the city would be valuable.

The growth projections for eastern Coweta County show us that we cannot afford to ignore the road connection. Annexation without a purpose stinks, but annexation that includes thoughtful planning and the best interests of the city can be a wonderful thing. This is your opportunity to see that it is done right. I love you all.

Steve Brown

Mayor, Peachtree City

sbrown@peachtree-city.org