It seems that many of the issues in this campaign have become clear. Brown has been abrasive; Logsdon has been evasive. Brown won't shut his mouth; Logsdon won't open his. Brown has been involved in many issues; Logsdon has been involved in one (getting his Developer buddies/contributors' illegal DAPC debts paid).

Logsdon's silence on any issues and refusal to debate is due to one or both of the following factors: (1) he is ignorant of the issues (2) he is arrogant and dismisses any public input or involvement (3) he is afraid to be embarrassed.

On the one issue that he has spoken about, he says that we should pay the illegal DAPC debts. Interesting, though, is his very weak and shallow thought process. First, he disregards the fact that the vote was 5-0 not to pay. The other four members of council agreed not to pay. Most troubling however was his quote in the paper. He said that he would need to "get with the city attorneys and get their take on this." WOW--- the city attorneys' take on this has been clear. They have produced reports now years old and have filed papers with the court setting forth the city's position.

On the one issue that Logsdon has spoken on, he appears no more sophisticated than an average show dog being led around the arena by his good ole boy cohorts.

This is no way to spend our tax money.

PTC Taxpayer:

We can only speculate as to his reasons for being silent. Fear, ignorance, and arrogance are possibilities. Another could be simple pragmatism. If he says nothing, he may stand a better chance of winning election than by attempting to defend himself against critics, who would never be satisified with any explanation of his relations or lack thereof with the DAPC.

Sometimes, it's just better to keep your mouth shut and wager that the other guy will prove your point for you. Again, all we can do is speculate. I certainly have no reason to favor one assumption over another at this point.

The fact he is silent leaves us no real reason to vote for him.

I agree with PTC Taxpayer. Mayor Brown has certainly been an eyesore at times. But most of the ruckus comes from the fact that he is the only person who has stood up to the developers. In times past, threats of lawsuits were enough to make most people cower and slither away.

With Brown, we know that he can't do much damage, he will do some good and maybe he will learn a little more diplomacy before January. The unknown factor created by Logsdon's saying nothing, nothing, nothing concerns me. Except that he favors the DAPC government bailout.

I intend to go with the evil I know rather than the evil I don't know.

In my opinion, Brown has been an obstructionist as it relates to community infrastructure matters and too distracted by his pet projects and pissing matches. We disagree in our preferences; I have little desire to willingly accept the devil I already know.

That is absurd!

The Golf Cart Paths are getting repaired and widened. There is a well developed Stormwater Utility ready to go on line.

Roads are under construction and efforts are in work to add connectors to relieve traffic.

And he is obstructionist?

If that is obstructing then we need a lot more obstructing going on.

Just a point of opinion, Brown can't really take credit for a lot of the road construction. That has been on the books for years. In fact his efforts to defeat the SPLOST was obstructionist. It would have cost us millions. Now he is taking credit for obtaining the money he violated ethics laws to try and defeat! He has also been a major obstructionist in relations with other communities. Just ask their leadership how they like him. He would go to meetings and if he didn't get his way would yell and scream in the Citizen. All he accomplised was ticking off other community leaders and putting PTC low on the priority list. So Yes, he is an obstructionist.

I agree Brown cannot take credit for some of the infrastructure things going on.

But, regarding the issue of total obstruction he has not done that either.

On defeating SPLOST I have heard multiple arguments. But I do not understand the issues fully enough there to comment. Too much research needed.

As far as other communities go I have seen issues arise many supported I would also be obstructionist on. Although I would call it sound resistance.

But the blanket accusation of obstructionist cannot be laid on Brown. Just isn't true.

I agree that the blanket accusation is not reasonable. As for the SPLOST, Brown worked hard to defeat it. It is simply a 1 cent sales tax to fund many county road projects. PTC got a good share but not the share Brown wanted. What he didn't tell the citizens is that many of our road projects had already been funded, some by county funds. But his "obstrucionist" methods actually resulted in a direct violation of the Ethics Laws. It is a violation for an elected official to politic for a referendum like that. He went on Comcast and did a telecast asking PTC voters to vote no. That is clearly illegal. When confronted, he claimed that he only did it as a "citizen." However if a citizen takes donations, and airtime is a huge in kind donation, then he must register as a PAC. So eitherway Brown clearly violted the ethics laws. And truthfully it would have severely hurt the city if the SPLOST was defeated. It showed a truly selfish and arrogant attitude of our elected "leader" towards the rest of the county. Doubt the county would ever help us again. Fortunately the citizens were smarter and we passed the SPLOST.

Sorry, I know what SPLOST is. It is a component of my Sales Tax reporting to Georgia.

I meant I do not understand all the angles and such of the arguments back then.

The issue revolved around Brown claiming that since PTC produces a significant share of "sales" (say for example 60%) in Fayette County, then PTC should get 60% of the SPLOST revenue (I'm not really sure of the actual percentage). And there is certainly some merit to the arguement. However the SPLOST was specifically for road improvements. PTC had already received a good amount of funds for road improvements and would receive less than the amount of SPLOST revenue specifically produced by PTC due to the Avenue, etc. Brown politicked hard for the SPLOST defeat and went on Comcast to call for all PTC voters to vote "no." That was his ethics violation. But quite specifically we did get a significant number of millions of dollars from the SPLOST. Brown wanted more and if he couldn't have it his way, then by God no one would get any. Fortunately the PTC voters voted in favor of the SPLOST so Brown lost. My point was his actions were "obstructionist." He also displayed total lack of regard to the rest of the county. Imagine if Brooks or Tyrone could only get a small portion of SPLOST money because we and Fayetteville have so much of the business. You can agree with that attitude if you want, but PTC is not an island, it is part of a larger community. As such we need to be leaders of the larger community and not "spoiled children." We fight a negative attitude by the rest of the county against us as it is. His whining (and he did whine about it) only reinforced the opinion of the rest of the county towards us.
I don't mean to be redundant, and hope I understood your blog. But that was the basic arguement.

....you little online devil you!

Now we can tell how many people are online (400 "guests" - wow, we're getting popular), and who they are.

Let's see who blinks first, PTC Guy!

(oops, I replied to a POST! I'm a liar! Vote for me!)

....you little online devil you!

Who me?

Now we can tell how many people are online (400 "guests" - wow, we're
we're getting popular), and who they are.

As I said. Never discount the lurkers.

Let's see who blinks first, PTC Guy!

(oops, I replied to a POST! I'm a liar! Vote for me!)

Not until you say something of substance!

Brown:
1. Annex to control development with 1/3 senior reserves.
2. Repair and widen the Golf Cart Path system. Work already begun in repairs.
3. Place the Stormwater Utility in place with financing beginning February 2006. All that is needed is the final approval vote from Council. All initial work is completed.

Those are 3 biggies right there.

Logsdon's answers on all the above is will begin looking into and developing plans. Begin? When already in work and fully researched he will "begin?"

Challenge accepted. Challenge answered.

Now, your turn to answer my initial challenge as regards Logsdon.

Cannot list anything, can you?

As far as giving in on the Tennis Court.

Remember the vote was 5 - 0 not to pay. Now surely that means, as Brown claims, the legal advice was to not pay.

Or does anyone believe all 4 Council members were wrong as well? Just 4 idiots sitting up there?