has said nothing.
has said nothing.
has said nothing.

NOTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR. For you - that's your vote.

I have heard what I want to hear. I have heard sufficient substance in my "key issues".

Your issues are what you find dear. The person on Cedar Drive might care about senior tax breaks. The firefighter in Centennial might care about adequate staffing for public safety. The nurse in Southern Shore might care about how the City is resolving pesticides on sports fields. You care about stormwater and cart paths. The real estate agent in Chestnut Field might care about how new home sales are affected by traffic.

Everyone has an agenda. Please cease assuming my agenda; I have stated it and will state it again - I do not agree with the leadership style, the confrontational approach that the incumbent uses to drive his agenda. Personalities drive substance (perception is reality, oftentimes), in my opinion, so I vote for both. To go back on your doctor example, when you're having a heart attack any cardiac doctor will do, but I'd prefer one that can make my family feel at ease.

The key issues are what you consider them to be. Use them when you go vote. If the candidate doesn't answer you on your specific issues, then vote for the one you think will do better.

My issue, one I hope others share, is that the incumbent has done far more damage that will be felt in the long term in the name of doing good than he has in helping the City. When have we ever had such a level of antagonism in this City? I have been here for 25 years, and I fail to recall it ever being this bad and quite this public, but I might be wrong.

Enough is enough! No more games - you go to your polling place, I'll go to mine. I hope there are more who choose Logsdon than choose Brown.

Hmmm. Don't assume you have an anyone but Brown agenda and then you launch right into Brown this and Brown that.

And you keep claiming Logsdon has said something. So then you must be able to answer these questions.

1. Where does Logsdon stand on the Tennis Court debt issue? SPECIFICALLY, not with platitudes. This impacts all of PTC.

2. Where does Logsdon stand on the Stormwater Utility? SPECIFICALLY, not with platitudes. This impacts all of PTC to the tune of over 9 million dollars.

Just two non secret and been there for a long time issues.

Don't want to hear call him. Don't want to hear he will look into it. You said he has answered therefore you know his positions.

You are getting all riled up when I keep saying the truth, that he has said nothing.

Tell me his position if he has said something. Blow my mind and prove me wrong.

...go ahead and vote for Steve Brown. You'll get nothing but crap like PTC Guy's analysis for another four years. It appears some would argue with a dog just to make him sit (sure, I'll take some ownership on that too).

1. It's a Tennis Center, not a Tennis Court. Logsdon has stated, specifically:
Q: If you're elected, what will you do about the delinquent Peachtree National Bank loan? (Peachtree National sued the city to recover a $1 million-plus loan made to the development authority.)

A: We've just got to look at it. We've got to talk to the city lawyers and get their take on it. It is a fair and just debt of the city. Some people say that there's a legal interpretation, that the city can't pay that. I have never known the law and ethics to really conflict. Let's look at the ethics and the moral obligation of this loan. I just don't believe the law will keep you from doing the right thing. There may have been some bad management and bad judgments made. But there was nothing illegal done.

2. On the stormwater utility, Logsdon specifically states:
There are three infrastructure systems and services that I believe should be a priority: roads, storm water runoff, and golf cart paths. We have already covered the need for leadership and cooperative planning between City and County officials in addressing road improvements, and this will be my first priority. Storm water runoff is a serious problem for our city. There are federal and state regulations that are requiring us to correct this problem. Therefore,
we must begin to take a serious look at this problem and develop a plan of action that will address the issues over the next few years. Also, there will be federal and state money to assist in correcting these problems. I will use my leadership and cooperative spirit to leverage as much for our city as possible. Our golf cart
paths have deteriorated to a point that many portions of the network are difficult, if not dangerous, to drive on. It is my intent to review City Government for efficiency and effectiveness to determine if there are any funds available in the current budget to apply toward maintenance of our paths. We must begin immediately to bring the condition of our cart paths to a level that compliments our city. After all, the golf cart path network is a signature item of
this city.

This is what he has specifically stated. You wish for him to say more, but he believes he has said enough. You will call it trite and cliche. I will call it what must happen. And everyone else will call it what they will.

We can repeat the same points again and again and again. We can twist our words around to come back to the same concepts. You gloss over the inadequacies of the incumbent to point out the inadequacies you see in someone who is not currently performing the job. You say, yeah, Steve Brown has done some bad things, but....

STOP AT THE BUT. Steve Brown has done some bad things. That's enough. Promises, platitudes, missions, agenda, none of that matters. Performance is the key. You and others say that you prefer someone with experience. The only way to get experience as a mayor is to be a mayor.

Would you say Stephen Boone has experience? How about Stuart Kourajian? Were either one of them in government before?

I'm not "shifting the subject", as I'm sure you're ready to type. I'm providing parallels to show a differing view from your argument.

Again, you're welcome to your opinion, and I'm glad you have such fervor in stating it. I look forward to seeing you at every City Council meeting I attend from this point on. Please sit in the front and ask questions every chance you get. In fact, run for Council in two years. See how many votes you get. Remind everyone how you got your start, as an online pundit who made sure to get his point every chance he got.

I'd stop posting, but every time you repeat something that is just not right, I have to retort it. I think we'll just render ourselves both ineffective. But at least I'm getting to practice my typing.

Go away. I will too. If you continue, we're just going to make everyone stop reading, which kills the effectiveness of both our positions. But if you continue to spew your propaganda and sway, I'll have to keep on, I guess.

Can't we both just stop?

Problem is you don't answer questions, then try to claim you answer and then want to stop.

I specifically asked pointed questions and said, "I will look into it" is not an answer. It is a platitude. And I wanted specific how to's.

What do you do? Say Logsdon has specifically stated he will look into it.

That is semantical game playing and a non answer.

Now regarding the Stormwater Utility here is what Logsdon says.

Storm water runoff is a serious problem for our city. There are federal and state regulations that are requiring us to correct this problem. Therefore,
we must begin to take a serious look at this problem and develop a plan of action that will address the issues over the next few years.

First problem. This has been seriously looked into for over two years. A well developed and good plan is in place.

Either Logsdon lied or is totally ignorant on this issue. Which is it?

If he lied how do you defend him? If ignorant after all this time how can you vote for him?

Second problem. Develop a plan over the next few years? Hello! Stalling! Dodging the bullet.

He does not have years. It must be on line operating within 2008.

The work is done. A good plan is in place. It is ready to go. And that has been all holding some back from suing the city over this issue.

This is a critical issue and he wants to stall it.

So much for his so dramatic concern and urgency over infrastructure. So much for peace and harmony the next four years.

That is why I keep repeating it. Because you keep repeating.

You are not doing anything but 'anyone but Brown'. Personality over substance.

So, yea, there is good reason to oppose Logsdon. On substance.

Am I missing something, or what is your point? Stormwater. If the plan is done, been done, in place, must be operational, then what's the beef?

If you were taking over the City as the new Mayor, and the plan was done, but not yet implemented, then wouldn't you want to take a serious look at it before you implemented it? Maybe you'd find it is fine, and maybe it isn't but don't throw out the work already done. Sounds fine, so what's the beef?? This is the biggest non-issue of the campaign.

Please tell me how any arguing about the plan is pertinent.

I think you may be missing my point. But let me clarify.

The Stormwater Utility plan has been fully researched, developed and is ready to go on line with billing in February IF it it gets the final vote approval from the Council.

It is developed from the successful model based on utilities such as water and sewage. It has already been legally tested in Georgia and found legal.

There are two new Council Member coming on, and maybe a new Mayor.

So approval is anything but approved yet.

If you go to his issues page it is not even mentioned.
http://www.haroldlogsdon.org/issues.html

The Chamber of Commerce directly asked on the infrastructure issues. On stormwater he said:
Storm water runoff is a serious problem for our city. There are federal and state regulations that are requiring us to correct this problem. Therefore,
we must begin to take a serious look at this problem and develop a plan of action that will address the issues over the next few years.

Every indication is he wants to delay this issue.

He said years and starting from scratch. Not get in office and look over the plan.

Further, he has had a full years to look into this. The materials are not hidden. He has no excuse.

I have a bad feeling he wants to dump this in the General Fund where the work will not get done.

Water and Sewage are utilities and not general tax revenue for some very good reason. As in preventing funds from getting diverted to other uses and has specialized workers dedicated to ongoing daily maintenance.

Not when I can afford to pull someone off more popular projects to take a look.

He is undervaluing the importance of this issue and that is not worth risking with him.

Even if the others voted it in the Mayor can be a big stumbling block on financing and such over time.

Seriously, you have a FEELING he wants to dump this in the General Fund? OK, I have a FEELING he won't.

Let's see, a Military Man says "There are federal and state regulations that are requiring us to correct this problem." That says a lot and it's not a FEELING. How could you possibly read defiance of Regulations into that statement? Do you understand the Military Mindset?

I understand you have passionate feelings about this issue, and I respect that, but I think you worry unnecessarily.

I certainly agree with you however on the issue of the Mayor can be a big stumbling block on financing and such over time. Case in Point is the TDK extension and Brown's effective stalling of the project. It was a masterful stroke, and one that I disagree with, and one he will deny.

What do the terms BEGIN and YEARS imply to you on an issue ready to go on line? Proceed or stall?

Do you see any hint of an attitude of take a look at the Utility and proceed in those words?

This speaks anti-Utility and pro General Fund. And General Fund is a recipe for law suits.

The ONLY reason one would back the General Fund is to be able to meet legal minimums and then restrain spending money on the issue.

A Utility also has access to funding and lower rate loans to lesson the financial hit and get the work underway more quickly.

Even under the Utility there are years of work ahead. It does not need to be restrained and retarded even more.

The evidence point heavily to being against. And that means a lot of problems for PTC.

Yes I understand the Utility benefits, the Unfunded Mandates that must be complied with, and I don't argue your emphasis on the need for the Stormwater Solution.

I guess I'm not worried that 5 responsible Council Members along with the City will halt this. This has been in the works for YEARS. It certainly didn't start on Brown's watch if that is your impression. It's not is it??

Actually, the minutes show for phase I that was done under Lenox in 2001 I believe.

But they stopped once the mandatory filings and such were completed.

Phase II did not begin until 2003 under Brown and that Council. But instead of just doing the mandatory applications they continued on and it is currently Phase IV, which is not mandatory until 2008.

So yes, Brown and this Council deserve the credit for getting it going with a goal of completion.

But I did not hear a comment from you on the issues of 'begin looking into it' and 'taking years to get it going'.

If you don't want to credit Brown and that Council what do you have to say about Logsdon's non admittance and recognition of facts? His position is he would be getting the ball rolling to take care of this issue.

Logsdon's words are words of stone walling the issue, are they not?

Promises of no tax increases and even lowering them against a new fee, howbeit a very small one for most, charged in February.

Logsdon isn't what many want him to believe he is.

That one confuses me. I see so much conflicting information flying around I am not sure what to believe about it.

But I sure know the 54 is a mess that is going to get worse. We need more main roadways somehow to take away traffic burdens.