In response to Mr. John Lyden’s letter to the editor, “Realistic view of Kohl’s: It’s the best we can get”

It may be “the best you could get,” the rest of us know better!

Let me start off by stating the “facts” correctly.

Your point 1, “a great number of Peachtree City citizens, including myself, would prefer to see that land remain covered in trees,” is naive at best.

Nobody thinks that all land that is currently owned by a private citizen should remain tree covered. An individual’s right to use their property in accordance with applicable laws is the norm.

Your point 3, “Peachtree City cannot enforce a law which says no big boxes allowed. Such a law would be fought in court by developers and they would win. Once that developer won, we would have virtually no means to keep out the truly ugly big box stores.” is an absolute lie!

See “Court backs local control over big-box sites Cities, counties can decide type of stores they prefer,” http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/08/BAGS0QBUNT1.DTL

“The state Supreme Court gave a boost Thursday to local efforts to ban big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart, ruling that cities and counties have broad authority to decide where stores can be located.”

“Anti-Supercenter Ordinance Upheld,” http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_slug.php?slugid=333

“A California appeals court upheld an ordinance enacted by the city of Turlock that prohibits the construction of supercenters, defined as stores larger than 100,000 square feet that devote more than 5 percent of their sales floor to groceries.“

“Sizing Up "Big Box" Development: The Constitutionality of Size-Based Zoning Ordinances”, http://www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/update02219.html

“The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision, concluding that the city’s superstore restrictions are a valid exercise of the city’s police power to prevent economic harm to its local economy. The court explained that a land-use restriction is valid if it is fairly debatable that the restriction in fact bears a reasonable relation to the general welfare."

I’ve just listed three news articles that show that your statement is an out-right lie intended to deceive the citizens of PTC.

Google, "big box" + ordinance + upheld”, for several additional pages of the truth to your lies.

The entire, “committee of citizens,” involved with this development has been lying to everyone they’ve had the opportunity to come in contact with.

You say that, “I believe this developer began the process in the right way.” Is threatening the citizens of PTC the “right way”? If that’s what you believe, please take your followers and yourself and move somewhere else. We don’t need people that feel comfortable lying to their neighbors.

You state, “Cardiff Park and Planterra Ridge would receive a 90-foot minimum buffer plus a substantial addition of trees between their community and this retail area. Without the special use permit that buffer would only be 50 feet.”

Another lie. Please reference code 1006.5, Other requirements: (e) Minimum rear setback depth: 20 feet. If adjoining a residential zoning lot, the building setback shall be 75 feet.

Why didn’t you include the information that the developer has agreed to lower the Kohl’s shopping center, at great expense, so that the Cardiff Park residents wouldn’t have to look at it?

The fact is the elevation of the area where the Kohl’s is to be located is at 935 feet. The Store “B” is at an elevation of 885 feet. That’s a 50 foot difference!

The developer has no choice but to dig out all that material so that the foundation can be leveled. You and the rest of the developer’s followers need to quit lying to the rest of us.

Mr. Lyden, you have been misled by the developer and are now attempting to mislead the other citizens of PTC.

I find it difficult to understand how you and the other “concerned citizens” have been working on this development for almost a year and never bothered to check the information the developer provided you. As a result of your ignorance or naiveté, we are now in this position.

The larger issue, that you skipped completely, is the fact that the city attorney can’t provide any case law that clearly shows that if a community sells property to a developer other developers can’t demand the same opportunity.

Do us a favor and please don’t volunteer in our behalf ever again. We truly don’t need your kind of “assistance”.

Brian Dingivan

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments