By MAYOR HAROLD LOGSDON

Cal: Thank you for the thoughtful and thought-provoking column on dreamers and dreams in last week’s Citizen. I hope every resident of Peachtree City takes the time to read it because it gives some outstanding perspective on Peachtree City’s history when it comes to growth.

I, too, moved to Peachtree City with a dream of finding a wonderful place for my family to live. I also found it, although it was a different Peachtree City in 1996 than the one you found in 1977. We didn’t have the open fields and livestock that your family saw, but we found good golf courses and enjoyed many miles of paved paths winding through the woods. We could eat at a variety of restaurants without driving for miles.

All in all, I also think I found just about the best place on earth for my family. I also think that the trade-offs of what your family had for what mine did were acceptable.

Interestingly, I think the trade-offs made for the growth of Peachtree City were also part of the dream — that growth up to a point could come and Peachtree City would still keep a unique sense of home for its residents, old and new. Balance in the growth and the decisions made between protecting what was good and building what was needed was the most important element. It still is.

We are now living in a Peachtree City that differs from the one either of us moved to. We are actually very near the end of the residential growth phase. In 2006, Peachtree City issued permits for 112 new residential units. That is a far cry from the hundreds of homes per year built in the 1980s and the 1990s — as many as 500 to 800 new homes a year in some of those years.

Instead, we are now faced with how to deal with the growth coming to the areas around us in Fayette and Coweta counties, growth that Peachtree City, in part, started by proving how desirable this part of Metro Atlanta could be.

We’re also faced with meeting a lot of expectations of Peachtree City’s residents, old and new. Residents who moved here liking the safety, the paths, the huge variety in recreation, and the trees that line our streets, paths, and neighborhoods. Residents who don’t like the traffic on our highways.

You made several good points in the column, many of which I agree with and some I do not. Interestingly, many of them influence each other, starting with the changes over the years made to our “plan.”

As you noted, the population figures decreased drastically over the years. The plan for huge numbers of apartments was scrapped.

These are good things. But there was a trade-off. As we reduced our total population and the lower-priced homes and apartments, we also reduced the availability of labor for our industrial park, which is an important tax base for the community. As a result, many of our employees must commute to Peachtree City from other places, especially Coweta County.

This brings us to TDK Boulevard. I agree with you, Cal, that we need a two-lane connection to Coweta in this area. It will help employees reach our industrial park. I also think it is important to have an alternate route as the surrounding areas (Fayette and Coweta) grow so that Highway 54 does not become gridlocked. A two-lane road will accomplish this without over-burdening Highway 74.

Where I disagree with you is the part about the state paying for anything more than two lanes. The state has dictated that there must be a four-lane bridge, and the Coweta County developer has volunteered to pay the difference. However, I believe GRTA has exceeded its authority in placing the burden on us to install it when we have no say in the projects that are helping to fuel the need.

In my conversation with [Citizen reporter John] Munford last week, I stressed that my position was two lanes or no lanes — anything more will bring too much traffic to Hwy. 74.

You also mentioned the dead-end, two-lane MacDuff Parkway, and I see that as a real problem for the residents who live there, and lived there before I took office. I feel that connecting MacDuff Parkway to Hwy. 74 is important, but I do not believe Peachtree City’s current residents should have to pay for the road or the necessary bridge over the railroad.

That is where the annexation question comes into play. The developers should pay for the project, but the developers must be able to build enough homes to cover the costs.

This does not mean unlimited numbers of homes — the Council and I have already turned down the request to include multi-family townhomes in the area. Having half of the proposed homes geared toward retirees, who will not burden our school system, is an important element that will help to balance the impact of the growth.

I also maintain that, even with the annexation, we should remain at the 40,000 figure for Peachtree City’s build-out population, and as we work with the developers, I think this is achievable.

Finally, we are facing the question of big boxes in additional commercial development. I confess I am still not fully decided on this issue. We have some big box stores in this town that fit well into the developments they occupy. We have others that do not.

We collect significant tax revenues from commercial developments, both in property taxes and in sales taxes, that help to fund programs and service our residents expect, including recreation programs and facilities and public safety staff and equipment. The sales tax revenue increases based on the success of the businesses and centers with anchor stores generally perform better than those without them.

Finally, we now have a population that will support certain levels of retail, and many of these stores are determined to come to the area. We could certainly give a blanket refusal, but there is a large retail development planned on Highway 34 just outside our city limits.

If they locate there instead, we still get the traffic and problems associated with large commercial developments, but we receive none of the tax revenue.

I will ultimately wait until I see exactly what is being proposed — it is still at the Planning Commission level but the process is moving forward and should be before the Council and me in the next couple of months.

On a final note, I would like to again like to invite you to call or e-mail me to discuss these issues in more detail. Any citizen is welcome to do the same.

I know we will not agree on every element that makes and will keep Peachtree City as our dream city. However, I think we both agree that what we have is worth fighting to preserve, and that will require planning into the future long past when the development within our borders is complete.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.

Harold Logsdon was elected mayor of Peachtree City in the fall of 2005 and has served since January 2006.

login to post comments