I find it interesting that Mr King is running for council and is ready to speak about an issue after pointing his finger into the wind to see which way it's blowing. How about researching some facts or speaking with people who know more than what has been written by Cal "The Witchdoctor" Beverly, whom by the way, has yet to attend a City Council meeting or Planning Commission meeting where this issue has been discussed? For starters, the developer never spoke to the Hooters corporation and reference to this restaurant was made in frustration and in reference to the GUC zoning. It was an inappropriate off-hand comment that is a non-issue. With regard to traffic, if Mr King had been half as involved as some ordinary citizens have been in working the TDK battle, listening to Coweta officials, and coming to understand the huge traffic problems we face, he would know that this development represents a minor variable to the increase in traffic coming out of Coweta. We will have big traffic problems until such time that Coweta gets the funds to build an alternate route to I-85. Finally, Mr King represents that Monday morning QB who comes in acting like the Cavalry on his white horse, as if the present Council and Mayor are totally unaware of what is going on. He wants us to believe that they have done nothing to solve the major problems, most of which go way beyond this Kohls development in their complexity, inter-agency cooperation, planning, and controversy. Governing is very hard Mr King and you just don't have a clue. Please don't patronize us.

I did not know my years spent in the US Army's Air Cavalry was that well known, but sir, you are not being patronized. I simply state my opposition to the Kohls proposal with the following rationale:
First--Peachtree City has an ordinance on the size of retail buildings it will allow commonly referred to as the Big Box Ordinance and I do not see this as a good enough reason to approve an exception.
Second--The developer requires city property to go forward with his proposal as his current tract is simply not large enough to accommodate the space required by Kohls and again, I do not see this as good enough reason to sell, swap or cede city property.
Third--Should some ten years down the road the corporate headquarters of Kohls realize that of the three stores they have (Fayetteville, Newnan, and Peachtree City) are not meeting profit standards they will close one or more of them. That gives Peachtree City a one-third probability of having an empty 90,000 square foot empty space that the city will have to maintain without the revenue that the department store would bring.
You are right,sir, governance is indeed no simple matter. My standards of development are in keeping with what those of us who have resided in our fair city for fifteen to twenty years. Peachtree City can and will survive without Kohls. The time and effort placed into this project while well intentioned is, in my opinion, not supported by our residents.

Michael L "Mike" King
Candidate for City Council Post 2

The "west village" walley-drug-sting, home-no-customer-service, and the cluster homes by the railroad tracks look like rivercrimedale or any other ORDINARY town.

The value of our city and homes went down with these additions to our "planned" city.

The only time you can demand and get a high price for property is when it is unique and upscale. Ordinary, and crime don't sell. They don't sell well. I guess we need to face the fact that we are an "ORDINARY" river-crimedale. If we had stayed on track with our "plan" and stayed with first class or upscale buisnesses things would be better. More "upscale" buisnesses, fewer foreclosures. How different our city would be if Restoration Hardware, Trader Joes, and Frontgate were in place of walley and home-no-customer-service.

Mr. Lynden and Mr. Haddix that is. McDonoughdawg is 100% correct about the generic look of 54 west.

My disagreement with you two is that it is obvious that neither of you has any practical experience in managing growth. Think tank philosophy and citizen focus groups are two techniques at completely opposite ends of the growth management spectrum. The think tank nonsense is feel-good socialism which like all socialism is not practical - or legal. The citizen focus group starts with the flawed premise that the developer is already approved and the citizens are there to help him tweak the final design.

The real solution is nowhere near any of these extreme positions. Those that actually get elected are invited to Athens for a practical course in what you can and can't do as an elected official. Obviously it would be better if all candidates had to take this course before they started spouting off about what they would do. In every election I have seen here in almost 30 years, the same thing happens - specifically the newly elected candidate comes back from Athens with his tail between his legs having found out that 90% of his feel-good campaign rhetoric is not operable. Sad, but true. We are a nation of laws, one of which is the right to own property and to improve it within the existing laws and regulations. The city is about to learn about that once again courtesy of Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lindsey. Yes there will be a Lowe's in the industrial park and it will be shown that unwritten laws and fuzzy interpretations are not big enough to hide behind.

No simple solutions exist for Kohl's except to stick to the land use plan for the area, which is unfortunately very poorly done. Micromanaging and tweaking after the fact is patchwork planning and the results are usually poor.

And the moratorium idea, Mr. Haddix is legal under certain circumstances for a short period of time. Please review the Brown, Rapson, Weed campaign promise/moratorium of 2001 and its demise 2 months later. Noteworthy in that it was enacted over the objections of the city attorney who later quit because of the immature leadership exhibited by those three. Let's see if we can remember who that was - oh yea, Rick Lindsey.

Sorry, Bob...that sounded too much like your old "I know more about planning than you" schtick. Don Haddix is right about the moratoriums. And just because you went to a government affairs seminars in Athens does not make you the expert. The Big Box situation worse was made legally worse by the city by allowing it to be installed in the worst location traffic wise in the city. The inadequate infrastruture would have justified a moratorium but you and others wanted to "RAM" it through and now you have given the Kohl's development legal precedent that did not exist.

I suggest you do some research.

Yes, a moratorium for discriminatory or otherwise illegal purposes will fail.

Cobb County currently has a development moratorium that has been extended to one year, and may go longer.

One year, 18 months and such are factual moratoriums that have happened or in process.

All have the common element of giving the municipality a chance to revise, update and review its development ordinances for the purposes of protecting their cities against damaging development and delaying developers from attempting to jump in to build before their work is complete.

Note the crucial point. Delay, not denial, of a developer until the work is done. Thus the developer proposal will legally be made under the revised standards with no legal claim to grandfathered or past practice.

There are community standard type ordinances in place that define the nature and goal of a city. They work in conjunction with the Master Plan and are working. They were enacted for precisely the reasons happening in PTC, that being the vision and nature of the community was being destroyed by developers forcing unwanted development based on claims of property rights.

I am talking revising the city laws and ordinances for future development. I didn't say a word about the Lowe's situation because it would, unfortunately, be grandfathered under the old laws when the proposals were made.

That was a bad assumption on your part.

No owner has a right to total self determining properly usage. Their rights can and should be balanced against the rights of other property owners within the legal jurisdictions their property rights reside within.

Your positions ultimately boils down to any developer can and will build about anything they want and all we can do is seek compromise.

That sums up to mean 'Good bye PTC and hello Riverdale/Northside.'

It will be neither smooth or easy.

Don Haddix
Candidate for PTC Council, Post 1
donhaddix.com

You have my vote.