Kudos for Kourajian: a real leader for PTC

I was just reading the City Council minutes from the recent meeting when the TDK right-of-way was accepted under shady circumstances. Mr. Kourajian stated (as recorded in the minutes) that "if Pathway wanted to hold a gun to the City's head in order to get the right-of-way it was their prerogative, he (Kourajian) was not prepared to make a decision on an 11th hour conundrum."

Mr. Kourajian said, concerning the hastily called council meeting to accept the right-of-way because of a heretofore unknown key reversion clause, that he did not believe in "coincidence" or that "it just happened to come up." Kourajian said he did not feel he had to make a quick decision on the right-of-way acceptance.

Kourajian's motion to table the acceptance was defeated 2-3, with Kourajian and Plunkett standing up for the fine citizens of Peachtree City, and Logsdon, Boone, and Rutherford (de facto) voting for the Coweta property owners and developers.

The manner that this right-of-way acceptance transpired has left Peachtree City "exposed" - - read the minutes and see what I mean.

PTCGA1's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
We Don't Want It Either!!!
Submitted by GreyGfS on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 10:26pm.

Maybe we can team up and at least slow the progress. We, here in the Town of Sharpsburg are being overpowered by the Town Council and our problem is also with Pathways Project annexation. We believe that TDK extension is not to our advantage either since traffic will also pour into our small Town as it will pour into PTC. The Pathways Project is located at McIntosh Trail which will connect with TDKpg

login to post comments
Kudos or ash can for Kourajian?
CCB's picture
Submitted by CCB on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 8:29pm.

What does Stuart Kourajian really know about TDK anyway? If he was so concerned about the clause in the land deed, why did he wait to ask for a copy of it until a day before the council meeting?


login to post comments
CCB, good question. I think that the clause was a surprise.
Submitted by PTCGA1 on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 9:40pm.

The paper reported that even the city attorney did not know about the Dec. 15 dedication clause until 2 days (learned of it on Dec 12, 2006 at 10 am) before the Special Called Meeting. BUT, if this was not a surprise, and the December 15th requirement was inserted and then "discovered" at the last minute on purpose, then there would be a presumption that certain people wanted to get the right-of-way accepted quickly - - without any public debate. Notice that all of this happened during the mad rush Christmas season (e.g., maximum citizen distraction) and the meeting was called at the last minute. The fact that it was held at 6pm and not 7pm (when many are still on the road home, etc.) certainly gives the appearance that it was intended to be consummated without any (or much) public attendance/debate.

Could this be headed for a citizens' lawsuit at some point? It may turn on lack of adequate public notice, possible deception about the December 15th dedication requirement, or a number of other related issues. There is also the issue that Peachtree City did not have a copy of a very important legal "final" document (that affected us in a substantial way) until the 11th hour. Our city attorney is supposed to look after these things. I don't know why PTC did not have a copy. All we were given was a draft copy, not the final. The final copy reportedly had the December 15th dedication requirement, and the draft did not. Hence the hastily called meeting.

By the way, the TDK right-of-way can be vacated. There is no reason that the new council cannot do so.

login to post comments
TDK right-of-way can be vacated.
bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 10:07pm.

If that were to happen then the Airport Authority would have to repay the grant from the FAA.

The old PCDC folks would find some way to stick it to the city for a road to their island of property. Most likely there is some HUGE penalty for NOT following through with the deal.

PCDC would tell a judge that they had a buyer for the property that was willing to pay millions for it and the city cost them the deal.

What did that undeveloped spit of land cost us just behind City Hall next to the lake?

I've never done a commercial land purchase before but a 140 page contract seems a little long to me.


login to post comments
140 pages is about right
mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 9:17am.

It discourages the reading impaired from getting all the way through it and you can snak in some realy good stuff that city attorneys will not catch. Good old PCDC zapping the city. Somebody please say this wouldn't happen under Brown or Lenox and then prove it.
meow


login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.