idontknow, how about widing the issue and asking both candidates to answer all our questions?

Seems like the greater burden here should be on the unknown, Logsdon.

John Munford and I have been round and round on the repayment of the illegal debt issue. Munford is a nice guy but he cannot give significant reason as to why the city should purposefully disobey state law and repay the loans. As Jim Finch of the State Department of Community Affairs teaches in the mandatory Development Authority Members Training Course, “the debt of the authority is not the debt of the municipality.” The State Legislature created the system with distinct separation for good reason.

The first attempt at a valid reason was that the authority used the illegally borrowed funds to construct the tennis center and amphitheater. Only $300,000 of the entire $1.5 million can be traced to capital building expenses (and it was done in violation of the 1993 intergovernmental agreement).

The second attempt was the poor unsuspecting bank scenario. Well, when some of the authority members are also on the bank’s Board of Directors that argument kind of dries up and blows away. Besides, one of the bank officials handling the loan arrangements was an authority member. The bank also has attorneys.

The third attempt was that the city is going to pay exceedingly high legal fees and that is justification for repaying the authority’s illegal debt. The legal fees at most would be $200,000 which is a far cry from a $1.5 million payoff. Again, is there any true justification, including cost, for defying state law?

Dan Tennant is an interesting case indeed. First, he said in 2001 that we absolutely need to build the $2.5 million tennis center expansion (note: the city taxpayers are paying the debt service on the expansion, not the authority). Second, in 2002, he declared that the Development Authority was doing nothing wrong – “It’s not broken.” He and Councilwoman McMenamin proceeded to block every vote to stop the authority and their misdeeds. Third, when the ugly truth had finally come to light and the authority was halted in 2003, the authority debt had grown from $600,000 in 2001 to $1.5 million in 2003. John Munford, I think that Mr. Tennant has a moral obligation to repay the $900,000 of illegal debt that he personally allowed the authority to run up. Fourth, Tennant decides during this current mayoral campaign that his extraordinary idea of expanding the tennis center now makes no sense and his solution is to sell the tennis center (never mind that all the homeowners in Planterra Ridge paid for the original tennis facility through their impact fees).

John, the law is there for a reason. You are bright man and the taxpayers deserve to hear a more substantial argument than it feels like the right thing to do. Think about it, all of the other proposed hacks that you made on the city’s budget at taxpayer expense are worthless because you would consume all of the savings by paying off a debt that legally does not belong to the taxpayers and never benefited the taxpayers. Remember, we do not know where a lot of the money went.

I would be dishonoring Mr. Munford if I did not expect more from him on this issue. There is weigh attached to the duties of the press. Tennant is not our moral compass by a long shot, and he has torn his trousers many times jumping from one side of the fence to the other.

Mr. Brown, you're telling us the Development Authority ran up $900K under your watch (2001-2003) and you didn't know it? Don't you think you should've checked into that?

Are you going to take responsibility for failing to properly oversee the DAPC?

I argued the city should repay the bank with the hotel-motel tax revenues which have somehow disappeared into the city budget. I believe you've said we're using those for cart path paving, but is that coming out of a special fund or what so it can be accounted for as being spent on "tourism related" functions? If not, doesn't the law require it to be tracked in such a manner?

There's no need to pay all the money back at once if you negotiate a settlement with the bank. They'll be glad to get back their principle and maybe a little interest.

BUT if the court rules against PTC, it will all come due immediately and WILL necessitate a significant tax increase, maybe a mill or two (cause you'll have to pay the attorneys too!). Think of all those poor senior citizens scraping to get by and all of a sudden WHAMMO! a 2-mill incrase. Would wipe out the homestead exemption and then some.

It should be very interesting to see how Cal will attempt to spin the clash between John and Steve.

John has the facts and Steve never seems too.

No spin necessary. Just a reporter bringing up a few issues, like most good reporters do.

The nice thing is I know Steve won't hold it against me. He knows the value of agreeing to disagree. The DAPC loan and the Wynnmeade bridge are two areas where we obviously don't agree.

Despite how things may appear online, Steve Brown and I do have a mutual respect for each other.

To be sure, Logsdon's post-general election avoidance has made a Brown comeback all the tougher. Brown justifiably points out, time and again, that Logsdon hasn't come up with specific solutions for the city's ills.

The sad part is, neither has Brown. He's running on his record and I've heard very little info from him on what he wants to do in the next four years beyond continuing to work with senior citizens and the youths (another feather in his cap compared to Logsdon).

Logsdon, then again, may realize the benefit of coming into office with a blank slate, particularly when there are two brand-spanking new council members coming on board at the same time. The mayor runs the meeting and hands out proclamations, but it takes three votes to get anything done of consequence.

Brown is a great community ambassador. But judging by some of the comments I've seen here in cyberspace, the letter to the editor writing and corralling of TV cameras has gotten a little tiresome to quite a few.

I can't say definitively whether Brown or Logsdon will be the better mayor. I know Brown savors challenges and is deeply involved in city affairs, and I think Logsdon will be the opposite and be the "git-r-done" mayor.

I'm no political consultant, but I think that issue will be the one that decides the election.

John, you hit the nail on the head, again. The end of your commentary basically states that Brown is a micro-manager that won't let city staff do the job they are supposed to do and he refuses to follow the city charter (probably 10,000 more ethics violations there ) and sticks his nose where it doesn't belong.

Harold Logsdon understands the role of the mayor, the role of the city manager and staff and will at long last allow the city to be run the way it was intended to be run.

Certainly Harold will be able to "git-r-done". We'll no longer be in that Brown Quagmire of Meddling (BQM) and you will actually see for the first time in years a far more efficient and far less antagonisic management of our great city.

The only thing you are all wet on is that "Brown is a great community ambassador" for the very reasons you gave right after you wrote that, but I'll give you a press pass there.

Bottom line is that your observation is correct; voters will be looking for a new style, new leadership and a chance to regain our collective dignity. Just a tad more important than stormwater, wouldn't you say?
Dan Tennant

Certainly Harold will be able to "git-r-done".

You don't have a clue if that is true or not.

Even on issues that are in work now or ready to go on line Logsdon is talking as if they are new issues to be researched.

You think people anticipating some much needed fixes are going to just say, "Oh, Well," when Logsdon want to take it all back to the drawing board and start over? From finalizing and going on line in a couple of months to years away again? In work but stop and don't do more?

You seriously need to rethink that if you believe that.

And do not projects already in work constitute declarations of how Brown will handle those issues in the future?

I am not promoting micro management. But I sure am not promoting blank sheet start over no indication where he will go thinking either.

If you cannot see the formula for anger from citizens in that thinking then that is a pie in the sky closed eyed approach to electing a mayor.

If Logsdon gets elected I sure hope he does not govern as he campaigns.

Has anyone actually asked the Bank if they would cut a deal of only the principle actually spent on the Tennis Center?

Yes, something needs to be done. But this blind eye to the Bank's errors and responsibilities in this are troublesome.

Has the Bank stepped forward and offered to reduce the numbers due to their role in this over time?

Does anybody know for fact on these issues or has the court issue removed this from legal discussion by all parties?

I would like to see all the facts. ALL the facts from both sides.

But now that it is court we are not. So the court is going to have to decide and we are going to have to wait.

John - great opinions and insights, as usual.

Can I ask you if you believe that the questions I am asking to the mayor 1)are valid concerns and 2)will be answered by the Mayor? I'd love to have him actually respond, but I doubt he will, as I'm just not quoteworthy enough to be a combatant in his war.

I'm wondering if I have to have a byline or a campaign sign in order to get the mayor's attention.

Here are the questions for the mayor:

-Do you plan to lower taxes?

-Dana Kinser asked why your stand on senior housing in the West Vilage proposal changed between what you told the Centennial HOA and your latest positions? You seem to be telling two stories.

-What is your contingency if a judge requires the City to pay back the DAPC loans? Do you plan to appeal?

-How can you overcome the perceived notion of several in both the media and the candidacy that you are not "good for business"?

-Did you unilaterally approach one of your mayoral interns to assist in the creation of the "McIntosh Debate"? If so, do you believe this to be a conflict of interest in the campaign?

-How many of the 900 "new businesses" that were started in Peachtree City during your administration were manufacturing facilities? How many of them could you classify as significant revenue generators? How many of them might be extremely small businesses or home-based businesses (I remember seeing a letter to the editor regarding a piano teacher having to register for occupational taxes...I have also driven through the variety of business developments in the City and haven't seen 900 businesses there).

The answers to these questions would greatly clarify many of the important discussions many members of the community are having. If you wouldn't mind posting your answer to the blogs here, I think a great deal of people would appreciate it.

Sure these are valid questions. I'm surprised the mayor hasn't answered them head-on already.

He might not be answering them for the same reason Harold Logsdon didn't participate in the McIntosh H.S. debate: it's more politically convenient not to answer certain questions.

You should e-mail them to him directly at mayorstevebrown@hotmail.com and see if he replies. I myself am having some difficulty navigating our new blogosphere or whatever this is technically called.

Can you get him to answer as well?

Why is he getting a pass on valid questins? Because he is not Brown?

Mayor Brown:
I won't address anything Mr. Tennant did or did not do in this, as he is capable of taking care of himself. However, your assertion above, that "never mind that all the homeowners in Planterra Ridge paid for the original tennis facility through their impact fees" is blatantly incorrect. The City's Land Development Ordinance (available on the web site www.peachtree-city.org) section on Impact Fees does not mention the Tennis Center. If it is included in the citywide service area, then everyone has paid it. Please try to fact check your statements. I've included the relevant sections below to assist you in correcting your statement.

307.5. Schedule of fees.
(a) Current fees.
(1) The fee schedule per dwelling unit of development on a service area by service area basis:

a. Is $1,083.00 per dwelling unit for the citywide service area. This fee includes $1,040.00 for recreational system improvements and $43.00 for library expansion, police department expansions, and a recreation administration building.

g. Is $1,202.00 per dwelling unit for the Planterra service area (Lake McIntosh Neighborhood). This fee includes $1,083.00 for the citywide service area and $119.00 for underpass access across Georgia Highway 54 West.

Hey John, I'll take a stab at it. Was it the smoking ordinance?

Dan Tennant

Congratulations, Dan, on answering a local government trivia question because it involved the one constitutency you paid attention to --- bars.

Gee Bob, I guess this is another one of your sore loser comments...from a very sore loser. Too bad you didn't get this one right Bob, but keep sticking your nose into our business, and I'm sure you're bound to break your arm patting yourself on the back sooner or later.

Kind of ironic you would mention bars Bob Kraft. Seems I recall hearing about a certain retired Delta pilot who got into a bit of trouble on the job for drinking too much. Of course, I don't know the details or if there is any truth to that rumor, but maybe that's a trivia question you could actually answer. Help us out on that one if you can, would you Bob?

Dan Tennant

Ding ding ding!!!

Mr. Tennant is correct. Harold Logsdon spoke several times at the sometimes-contentious public hearing workshops on Peachtree City's smoking ordinance. Mayor Brown moderated those workshop sessions, keeping the rhetoric on both sides in check as best he could. Actually, I consider his handling of those sessions a highlight of his mayoral career. He handled them well.

David, I know exactly what you are saying, but the last thing Brown did to mutilate Munford was "amazing". It was right on cue. It was wholly predictable. As you say, anyone who disagrees with Brown is fed to the wood chipper by the not so noble I love being your mayor Brown.

For the record, I have known Munford for many years, and I know him to be trustworthy and honest (2 attributes Brown sorely lacks). He is fair, he gets his facts straight, and he is a first class reporter. When you read Munford, you get the truth. In this case, the truth hurt Brown, so it was time to attack Munford.

Munford is smart enough to know all this, but he's too much of a professional to state what I have, so I wanted to set the record straight.

Dan Tennant

Dan,

You are the pot calling the kettle black aren't you?

Your little ditties in the newspaper are pretty inconsistent with the truth. You got us into most of this mess.

First, you said in 2001 that we absolutely need to build the tennis center expansion. Second, in 2002, you declared that the Development Authority was doing nothing wrong – “It’s not broken.” Both you and Councilwoman McMenamin proceeded to block every vote to stop the authority and their misdeeds. Third, when the ugly truth had finally come to light and the authority was halted in 2003, the authority debt had grown from $600,000 in 2001 to $1.5 million in 2003. John Munford, I think that Dan Tennant has a moral obligation to repay the $900,000 of illegal debt that he personally allowed the authority to run up. Fourth, you decided during this current mayoral campaign that your extraordinary idea of expanding the tennis center now makes no sense and your solution is to sell the tennis center (never mind that all the homeowners in Planterra Ridge paid for the original tennis facility through their impact fees).

John knows the law is there for a reason, do you know? I would be dishonoring Mr. Munford if I did not expect more from him on this issue. There is weigh attached to the duties of the press. Dan Tennant is not our moral compass by a long shot, and he has torn his trousers many times jumping from one side of the fence to the other.

Forgot to hit this one. Brown got elected as an anti-annexation supporter. He wants to talk about jumping from one side of the fence to the other? Not only has he done a 180 on annexation, he met privately with Wieland reps to try to get his way with senior housing in the deal. Let's see...he lied about fighting annexation attempts, he tried to pull this back room deal in a closed meeting, and it probably represented yet another ethics violation.

If I had the moral compass of Steve Brown I'd be marooned on the ethics planet of Uranus.

Oh, and here is the other post after I fixed the typos. I think PTC Guy deliberately posted four consecutive meaningless comments just to move this one down the list because it hurt his boy Brown, but guess what? It's back!!!

Man, this is getting more fun every minute.

So, Brown’s blog title is that I’m not “our moral compass” and he goes on to criticize my “little ditties” in the newspaper. You mean the “ditty” that exposed you for the fake phony fraud that you are Steve? The one that exposed you for being a dishonest self serving imposter? The one that shone the light of day on your little secret about underhandedly nominating yourself as an up and coming move and shaker in Georgia Trend Magazine? I noticed you didn’t deny anything I wrote, because you can’t, because we both know it’s true and I can prove it.

Ah, there is nothing like catching somebody in the act!

Now then, about the moral compass. Besides the above mentioned lack of integrity, character and morality, if memory serves me correctly, you were convicted of violating our ethics ordinance, right Steve-o? And Gee, there is yet another ethics charge against you pending, but don’t worry, that one will go away after you are swept from office in a landslide in ten days.

OK, as for the DAPC. Steve Brown was hell bent from Day One to destroy the Development Authority. How soon people forget. The DAPC was a major instrument of outstanding service and accomplishments for decades before Brown came along. Countless numbers of men and women gave of their time and talents to help bring business to this city, to see it developed into the jewel we have today, and to manage the tennis center and amphitheater. And I stand by what I said a long time ago, the DAPC was not broken. Brown insisted upon destruction of that entity because it represented what he loves to call the Old Guard, which is nothing more than people who lived here a long time and gave to their community for the betterment of the community. My, how sinister.

Scott Bradshaw’s revelations did in fact make it clear that there were some financial irregularities that needed addressing, but I was of the opinion then and still am that you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Closer monitoring and audit modifications could have stopped the problem in its tracks, but no, Brown had to destroy.

As to the specifics of Brown’s comments:

1. The DAPC was always a separate legal entity of the city, as Brown has alluded to a zillion times. You can’t have it both ways, Steve. You know as well as I do that actions taken by the authority were independent of the Council, so to hold me responsible for DAPC finances is irrational. Imagine that---Brown being irrational. What I want to avoid, which is what Brown eventually did, was to rush into a major change of legal restructuring into a 501-C-6. Time proved me correct because the city has to spend many tens of thousands of dollars fixing the legal problems that were caused by rushing into the creation of the Tourism Association.
2. I never stated that we “absolutely need to build the tennis center expansion”. Hell, I don’t even play tennis. But I voted for the expansion because I thought it would bring in bigger tournaments and the economic multiplier effect on local businesses made it a prudent investment.
3. As to the sale of the tennis center, absolutely I think we should have the land appraised, see if we can find a buyer, and get the hell out of the tennis center business altogether and allow private enterprise to run it. Gee, imagine that---thinking that private business can run anything more effectively and efficiently than government. The only reason not to is to maintain power and control and being simply hard headed and arrogant. There is no down side to exploring other options, Mr. Brown. Once again, because it wasn’t your idea, Steve, you feel compelled to throw up on the idea.
4. The Homeowners of Planterra, of which you are a member, were promised a tennis center. There was never any provision that it would remain city owned for all time, so your argument is irrelevant.

In conclusion, then, Brown is a lying, phony hypocrite who is bent on destruction of people, places, and institutions. Those are the facts. He fooled me and a lot of other people back in 2001, but we’ve all seen for these four years that Brown’s slash and burn politics have worn ultra thin. December 6 will be a most glorious day for this wonderful city when the not so noble fake phony I love being your Mayor Steve Brown is booted for good.

Dan Tennant

Cheers, Dan. You were the big cheerleader for the tennis center. Have a good time, drink up, enjoy your "campaign experience" (whoa, buddy, with a showing like that I would be chugging the Prozac). When you're good and done, give it a rest and get off line. Give Paul S a break from the child rearing.

I think I've gotten under the skin of Joey Steve Brown Jamokes to the point he is now begging me to go away. Sorry Stevie, this is way too much fun.

Here's a prediction for you. When Brown gets sent packing in 10 days, what do you think he will do to occupy his time? I mean, even Brown can write only so many letters to the editor while he is milking the income of his doctor-wife. You think the guy might actually get a real job? No way. Who would hire him?

Eureka!!! When you are a liberal democrat in heavily conservative and Republican Peachtree City, you have only so many options. My guess is that he will go begging to his soon to be former "colleague" (Got it makes me sick when he uses that line) Shirley Franklin for a job! Maybe old Shirley can find a spot for MAMA Steve---let's have some fun and throw out some possible appointments. I'll throw one out---Fox 5 News coordinator!
No? OK, dogcather then. Any other ideas out there?

Dan Tennant

I'm sure the NAACP would have something for Brown to do. They always have room for a politically liberal whitey like Steve.

Probably political consultant would be a good fit: he is a perfect illustration of how to end your political career through grandstanding and back-patting of one's self.

How about psychic? No, not PSYCHO, but psychic:) He seems to *see* things that no one else does like mass conspiracies against the PTC residents, self-enrichment that is never proven, *closed governemnt* that has never been closed, etc. Perfect!
NUK

Dan, I've got the answer. Public Relations (tongue in cheek). Due to his about face on the Wieland Annexation, I'm sure he could put a spin on any PR problem. What do you say Shirley?

I understand things change in the political world, but Mayor Brown could have contacted me to advise me of the need to change his stance. He has called me at home and work before and he has both home email and work email addresses. Heck, I'm even on his email list.

But this silence does nothing but infuriate me. Between the 2 candidates, I am wavering and his silence is blowing me the other way.

How about an answer Mayor Brown regarding your sudden change in position with regards to the senior component? The silence is deafening.

Dana Kinser

Good suggestion Dana! He could star in the Atlanta City Hall version of Spin City!

The reason Steve hasn't responded Dana, is that he knows he's been exposed for being a liar, and there is no way out.

Hey buddy, remember that Bloody Mary from several weeks ago? Forget it, you and I are gonna go have a cold beer at Parners when this election is over. Hope you go with the winner, Mr. Logsdon.

Dan Tennant

The sound of silence is rolling from him as well on issues.

And he has been caught in lies as well. As in freezing or lowering taxes. Or needing to study and plan for things studied and planned for already.

Please, it is kind of nauseating to try to wage this campaign on saying one candidate dominates the moral high ground.

You can feel one is better. But please, not one is actually clean.

PTC, your right. Logsdon has failed to respond as well. We all know why. It can't be done but he knows that people generally don't care. I do and that is why I have been swaying between the two. Their inactions though will eventually make up my mind.

But for a Mayor that loves to use "I love being your Mayor", to not respond tells me that he loves being some of ours Mayor, just not all of us.

Dana Kinser

It does stink all the way around. You know I feel that way.

But honestly, I don't see the difference between Brown saying he loves being mayor and Logsdon doing whatever it takes to be mayor even when short changing the citizens.

To me that says his being mayor is more important than being our mayor.

There are some very important issues. The annexation being one, Stormwater another and so on including the cart paths.

I know where Brown stands on all of those, even if the getting there was convoluted.

With Logsdon his answer on the Stormwater is he needs to look into it. Unacceptable answer. Brown wins.

On the annexation just he wants to control it. Again no answers on composition and density. Brown wins.

Cart path? We know where Brown stands. Same vaporous statements from Logsdon. Brown wins.

Brown may not be a dream but on these key issues he is where I want the issues to go. So whey in the world would I vote for a dice roll like Logsdon?

Why should you?

I know a lot of people think I am over hyping the Stormwater. But I warn them to neglect this at their own peril.

If this issue gets tabled or canned they will be facing whole HOAs, the Feds and the State.

So why cannot Logsdon just tell us his view? Because he does not understand the issues or their implications is what I fear.

And if that is the case the Tennis Center will be a picnic compared to what is ahead.

Hate fests like Tennant's against Brown just do not tell me what Logsdon will do.

PTC, I understand your concern about storm water better than most. The company that I work for is involved in the water/waste water industry.

Stormwater runoff is not a local issue. The city is only reacting to it now because there are state and federal mandates that are making this happen across the nation. But I cannot give credit to Mayor Brown for the response. He has had 3 years as Mayor to address this and has waited until a looming deadline to decide to react. Conveniently, it also happens to be an election year and now he can "champion" the cause of storm water runoff.

Logsdon's silence does not surprise me. Not only has he been as silent as Brown with regards to my question's, he probably doesn't understand the real issue surrounding storm water runoff. Knowing what I do, I don't hold that against him. This mandate is a fairly new and complex one and municipalities across the nation are trying to figure the whole thing out too.

To be fair to Mr. Logsdon, I'm not entirely convinced that Mayor Brown understands all of the issues as well. He has made reference to the storm drains being in disrepair. The storm water runoff issue deals with far more than that. People in new developments can attest as they have to look at retention ponds in their back yards. New commercial developments have to do the same.

The issue is dealing with the herbicides and pesticides being applied and not making it into our fresh water sources. Jet fuel and automotive oil residue run into the storm drains which again needs to be seperated from our fresh water sources. The list goes on and on.

Ultimately, I cannot give kudos to Mayor Brown for addressing something that he, and others before him; should have been addressing all along.

Logsdon's answer.....we'll have to wait and see, because I don't anticipate an answer from him. He hasn't answered other questions, why start now?

Dana Kinser

Dana, I cannot give an exact time when the issue became a city issue. But I can say the initial formal study vote was on July 3, 2004. And there are notes of discussion I found dating back to January 2004.

The City Engineer recommended this process. But obviously there had been multi-level discussions and such on this issue prior for the vote and other discussions to have taken.

As for a looming deadline that really isn't accurate. There was a permit deadline but the implementation deadline is currently 2008.

I have not dug deep but it appears Lenox and Tennant did the minimums back in 2001 to get past some permits and such then let the rest die.

Under Brown the process had to started over.

Please note Tennant has stated on the Citizen he still does not want the issue to proceed to reality. Thanks Dan from all those folk with flooding issues.

Therefore, Brown has been very proactive in pursuing this. It has not been, from anything I see, deadline driven.

So, I believe your conclusions on Brown on this issue are wrong. This whole issue could have been left to the next administration.

I lost track of the date but I believe it was in 2001 that stormwater related complaints were coming in at a rate of 80 per week when it rained.

Not a trivial number or issue.

And does Brown understand the issues? I am convinced he does. He has visited a large number of problem sites and discussed it with affected owners and HOAs.

The issue is dealing with the herbicides and pesticides being applied and not making it into our fresh water sources. Jet fuel and automotive oil residue run into the storm drains which again needs to be separated from our fresh water sources. The list goes on and on.

With all respect, you do not understand the issue either, then, as regards PTC.

While those are issues, for PTC the big issues are the literal flooding of homes and streets. The water is literally getting under, onto and into homes. It is making sections of roads dangerous and sometimes unusable. It is threatening the integrity of roads and even homes as concerns old pipes in the ground.

How strong is the flooding? How about strong enough to uproot and transport things like rail road ties and such until the catch, ram and wedge on something. Sometimes hundreds of feet.

Agree. Logsdon isn't going to answer. Either openly or via private communications.

Brown's positions are far more well known than Logsdon's. None are known on Logsdon.

While I respect much of what you have said, on this issue I feel that you have missed the target. The Federal Government and State Government don't care about houses flooding or the number of complaints after a storm. What they do care about, and this is the driving force behind ANY municipality tackling this issue is pollutants in the water system.

That is all they care about and that is what they monitor. Not whether or not a house in Peachtree City flooded due to clogged storm pipes.

If these bodies were not pushing this issue, then there is not a city in the US that would put the money into the program that they are being required. After all, if they can wait 30 years to even begin maintenance, what makes you think they wouldn't wait another 30 years as the City of Atlanta did.

As for the City of Atlanta, what has driven them to fix the sewage/storm water issue, is the amount of pollutants going into the Chattahoochee. Not the number of homes flooded. It is the same here in Peachtree City.

Dana Kinser

I came from the Mid West and am aware of cities that have had flood control programs since before I was born. Even way out in the counties where almost no one lives there is stormwater control to protect roads and fields.

And other cities don't call the system Stormwater but other names that add up to the same thing.

To say PTC would have been able to just keep turning a blind eye is naive I believe. There are serious issues that are PTC direct responsibilities as infrastructure, that citizens are demanding corrective actions upon. Some to the stage of threats of lawsuits, which they would win.

As for the laws only being concerned with pollutants this descends into a semantical argument.

Pollutant control demands water flow control to ensure maximum filtration and non entry. Water flow control demands flood control.

To say you can have one without the other is illogical. In other words, flood control is simply a given in the equation, whether stated or not.

As for Atlanta, this is not Atlanta. We have at least some citizens that will not simply sit back and wait for the government to take care of their legitimate needs.

Bottom line here is that there is no excuse for PTC not taking care of these issues, whether required by Federal or State mandate.

And citizens who perceive themselves unaffected because they are not having issues currently or live in newer areas where the system is yet to start dying is a poor excuse for turning a blind eye on those in need now and which represent their future needs.

This even needing to be brought up and debated does not speak well of many in PTC.

I understand the points that you are trying to make, but the fact remains, that many of these same citizens sat here for 30 plus years and never worried about the storm drains.

If the State and Federal government were not forcing municipalities to deal with this, then Mayor Brown would not be doing it today either. After all, he hasn't done anything about it for the past 3 years.

Don't get me wrong, this is not one of the topics that I feel Brown should bear the brunt on. The storm drain issue is simply one that he inherited, but at the same time; he had also turned a blind eye to.

One fact remains though and that is the State and Federal Government are pushing this based upon pollutants entering into the fresh water sources. Water and Land are commodities that are dwindling in supply. They are at least moving to protect the water systems for the future.

Dana Kinser

Dana, what was true in the past is no longer true. Believe me, they are not turning a blind eye to stormwater issues any longer and ceased doing so a few years ago.

Assuming it is safe to continue on the old path here, by any politician, is a fool's game one is going regret.

I have seen the issues rise and fall over the last 19 years. They have never been stronger and will not get weaker.

If the State and Federal government were not forcing municipalities to deal with this, then Mayor Brown would not be doing it today either. After all, he hasn't done anything about it for the past 3 years.

You are simply wrong. I don't have a clue why you keep repeating this claim of nothing over 3 years. There has been work done over the last 3 years and the Stormwater Utility plan didn't just appear over night. It has been in development for at least 2.5 years now.

Problem is with the concept of getting funds out of a strained General Tax fund. And thus the reason of the dedicated Utility where those funds cannot get diverted again as they have in the past.

So I see your repeated statements that Brown has done nothing on this issue as misinformed at best.

Politically speaking it would have been to Brown's advantage to have had this in place and functioning now to have bragging rights of completed programs.

I agree Brown inherited it from the likes of Lenox and Tennant. But I disagree he has turned a blind eye. There has been work on the Utility for over 2 years. There has been some repairs, hampered by funding issues. And the deadline is in 2008, so the efforts to date have not been beating dealine issues.

Brown deserves credit as do those unsung city workers and administrators who did the heavy leg work on this to begin with. And the Council members who voted affirmative.

We would be remiss to not recognize them in any success of PTC in these kinds of issues.

Yes, the Feds and State are moving in needed ways. I agree. But the flooding and aging and collapsing stormwater systems of today in PTC would have been issues on the table anyway. They are problems growing in frequency and severity.

To say this is only driven by the Feds and State simply is an untenable positions in the light of all the facts.

Those 80 complaints a week a few years ago were not about pollutants. They were about flooding. Wonder what the stats are now?

I am not saying you dismiss these issues as important. But I believe you may be greatly undervaluing them. Even more so I fear Logsdon is as well.

Man, this is getting more fun every minute.

So, Brown’s blog title is that I’m not “our moral compass” and he goes on to criticize my “little ditties” in the newspaper. You mean the “ditty” that exposed you for the fake phony fraud that you are Steve? The one that exposed you for being a dishonest self serving imposter? The one that shone the light of day on your little secret about underhandedly nominating yourself as an up and coming mover and shaker in Georgia Trend Magazine? I noticed you didn’t deny anything I wrote, because you can’t, because we both know it’s true and I can prove it.

Ah, there is nothing like catching somebody in the act!

Now then, about the moral compass. Besides the above mentioned lack of integrity, character and morality, if memory serves me correctly, you were convicted of violating our ethics ordinance, right Steve-o? And Gee, there is yet another ethics charge against you pending, but don’t worry, that one will go away after you are swept from office in a landslide in ten days.

OK, as for the DAPC. Steve Brown was hell bent from Day One to destroy the Development Authority. How soon people forget. The DAPC was a major instrument of outstanding service and accomplishments for decades before Brown came along. Countless numbers of men and women gave of their time and talents to help bring business to this city, to see it developed into the jewel we have today, and to manage the tennis center and amphitheater. And I stand by what I said a long time ago, the DAPC was not broken. Brown insisted upon destruction of that entity because it represented what he loves to call the Old Guard, which is nothing more than people who lived here a long time and gave to their community for the betterment of the community. My, how sinister.

Scott Bradshaw’s revelations did in fact make it clear that there were some financial irregularities that needed addressing, but I was of the opinion then and still am that you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Closer monitoring and audit modifications could have stopped the problem in its tracks, but no, Brown had to destroy.

As to the specifics of Brown’s comments:

1. The DAPC was always a separate legal entity of the city, as Brown has alluded to a zillion times. You can’t have it both ways, Steve. You know as well as I do that actions taken by the authority were independent of the Council, so to hold me responsible for DAPC finances is irrational. Imagine that---Brown being irrational. What I wanted to avoid, which is what Brown eventually did, was to rush into a major change of legal restructuring into a 501-C-6. Time proved me correct because the city had to spend many tens of thousands of dollars fixing the legal problems that were caused by rushing into the creation of the Tourism Association.
2. I never stated that we “absolutely need to build the tennis center expansion”. Hell, I don’t even play tennis. But I voted for the expansion because I thought it would bring in bigger tournaments and the economic multiplier effect on local businesses made it a prudent investment.
3. As to the sale of the tennis center, absolutely I think we should have the land appraised, see if we can find a buyer, and get the hell out of the tennis center business altogether and allow private enterprise to run it. Gee, imagine that---thinking that private business can run anything more effectively and efficiently than government. The only reason not to is to maintain power and control and being simply hard headed and arrogant. There is no down side to exploring other options, Mr. Brown. Once again, because it wasn’t your idea, Steve, you feel compelled to throw up on the idea.
4. The Homeowners of Planterra, of which you are a member, were promised a tennis center. There was never any provision that it would remain city owned for all time, so your argument is irrelevant.

In conclusion, then, Brown is a lying, phony hypocrite who is bent on destruction of people, places, and institutions. Those are the facts. He fooled me and a lot of other people back in 2001, but we’ve all seen for these four years that Brown’s slash and burn politics have worn ultra thin. December 6 will be a most glorious day for this wonderful city when the not so noble fake phony I love being your Mayor Steve Brown is booted for good.

Dan Tennant

Mayor Brown:
Here, as above, you incorrectly state that "all the homeowners in Planterra Ridge paid for the original tennis facility through their impact fees". I've again included the relevant sections of the Land Development Ordinance on Impact Fees below to assist you in correcting your statement.

307.5. Schedule of fees.
(a) Current fees.
(1) The fee schedule per dwelling unit of development on a service area by service area basis:

a. Is $1,083.00 per dwelling unit for the citywide service area. This fee includes $1,040.00 for recreational system improvements and $43.00 for library expansion, police department expansions, and a recreation administration building.

g. Is $1,202.00 per dwelling unit for the Planterra service area (Lake McIntosh Neighborhood). This fee includes $1,083.00 for the citywide service area and $119.00 for underpass access across Georgia Highway 54 West.