Thank you, Peachtree City! I am honored to be your next Post 1 councilman.

Five of the candidates for council, with their wives, met at Mike and C’s on Nov. 6 to eat, chat and share the election results throughout the evening. It was a pleasant and enjoyable event.

Tom O’Toole was a gracious opponent and most gracious in my win. I hope we can remain friends for a long time.

I would like to state, again, my determination to keep my campaign promises, and [my] agenda will remain firm. I believe in doing what I promise to do.

The election is not over. Seat 2 is critical, as well.

Many citizens do not realize nothing binds the Planning Commission or council to actually obeying and following the Comprehensive Plan. It is not a law, it is a plan, which Planning Commission and the Council, past and present, have violated many times.

Nor do many citizens realize that if development proposals meet the current zoning and existing ordinances, they do not have to always come to council for approval and building. They are already legal so Planning can give final approval.

I believe it is time for change. The Big Box ordinance was a beginning, not an end. There are a number of other ordinances within that family of laws which will further bind Planning and Council to actually obeying the Comprehensive Plan.

The more the Comprehensive Plan is translated into law, the less room for “flexibility” and personal interpretation is given to Planning and Council. It also makes the months of citizen work and input into the Comprehensive Plan development more binding and more meaningful. The Comprehensive Plan also gains legal standing in courts of law.

The return of the Line Creek abandonment, after the election, was no surprise to many of us. It is a prime example of why we need to enforce the Comprehensive Plan with laws. It shows how being flexible and just say no does not mean no will be said.

The goal is to build the Kohl’s, in spite of what the PTC citizens say. It shows there will be a parade of proposal after proposal that PTC will constantly have to worry about being built in spite of the Comprehensive Plan or the will of the citizens. Further, it shows there will be a parade of developer-backed candidates, election after election.

Time to end this cycle. Make the council a place where citizens who want to preserve the PTC vision and way of life will be who runs and is elected.

So please, look for the Seat 2 candidate who is not business as usual, who does not want the Comprehensive Plan to remain “flexible” and subject to his interpretation.

Look for the Seat 2 candidate who wants to give the Comprehensive Plan, which is the vision of PTC on paper, the force of law in Planning, Council and court.

Please vote and vote wisely.

[Editor’s note: Councilman-elect Haddix also emailed the following text of his planned presentation to the City Council this coming Thursday night. We include it as part of his letter to the editor.]

To the Peachtree City Council:

Since this is a lengthy presentation, I am not sure public input will be allowed at the council meeting and i am not yet on council, i will make my presentation ahead of time to give council and the PTC citizens time to consider my points.

I believe the following considerations demonstrate that the proposal to abandon Line Creek is unjustified and for the stated purposes actually illegal, as its purpose is to enable a developer to build upon his land.

A Google search for the following returned about 238,000 hits:

“vacate a public street or highway for the benefit of a private individual”

The following is Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Title 32-7-2, for abandonment:

“When it is determined that a section of the municipal street system has for any reason ceased to be used by the public to the extent that no substantial public purpose is served by it, the municipality, by certification recorded in its minutes, accompanied by a plat or sketch, and after notice to property owners located thereon, may declare that section of street shall no longer be a part of the municipal street system and the rights of the public street shall cease. The property may be disposed of by the municipality as provided in Code 32-7-4.”

At least a 3 to 1 margin of PTC citizens believes that Line Creek serves a substantial public purpose and do not want it abandoned. Mayor Logsdon’s own comment [in the recent printed and city-distributed newsletter] recognizes Line Creek is not totally lacking traffic:

Logsdon: “Why should taxpayers maintain a road serving only one landowner?”

These are more than enough points to say the street cannot be abandoned. Substantial public purpose includes tangible and non tangible definitions, values and usages, which goes beyond meaning being driven upon or being able to attach a dollar value.

Going further, there is case law to back it cannot be abandoned:

“Dec. 1904.] MARIETTA CHAIR Co. v. HENDERSON. 161

Neither the general assembly nor a subordinate public corporation acting under its authority can lawfully vacate a public street or highway for the benefit of a private individual. The street or highway cannot be vacated unless it is for the benefit of the public that such action should be taken. The benefit may be either in relieving the public from the charge of maintaining a street or highway that is no longer useful or convenient to the public, or the laying out a new street or road in its place which will be more useful and convenient to the public in general. If the public interest is not the motive which prompts the vacation of the street whether partial or entire the act of vacation is an abuse of power and especially would it be a gross abuse of power if it is authorized without reference to the rights of the public and merely that the convenience of a private individual might be subserved. As the reason for vacating a highway must therefore 408 always be that the public interest is to be subserved,”

Cal Beverly also had posted:

“A 1952 court case spells out the following: ‘Neither [the] General Assembly nor subordinate public corporation [like Peachtree City] can lawfully vacate public street or highway for benefit of private individual nor unless such action is for public benefit by either relieving public from maintenance of street or highway no longer useful or convenient to public or by laying out new street or road which will be more useful and convenient to public in general. Dunlap v Tift 1952, 209 Ga 201, 71 S.E.2d.’”

This issue didn’t come up until a request for abandonment was made by a developer (private individual). This alone defines the effort as to benefit a private individual.

Mayor Logsdon’s statements demonstrate the driving reason for abandonment as being for a private individual’s benefit.

He is already pleading the case for the development: “The developer withdrew his request for the streets in October, but I believe he will return with a plan that still includes a larger store and requires the abandonment of the streets.”

Logsdon: “However, there is still GC zoned property in the corridor, and the owners have the right to develop the property.”

But only if legal by ordinance and zoning. We have no obligation to enable a development.

Logsdon: “Just saying ‘no’ to any project with a big box can be counter-productive to growth.”

We have a glut of vacant retail space and building more will only increase the numbers.

Logsdon: “Why should taxpayers maintain a road serving only one landowner?”

Because the taxpayers want that road left in place. It serves a convenient and substantial public purpose to the citizens.

Logsdon: “Some of the concessions we could obtain..”

The citizens do not want concessions, they do not want the road abandoned to enable development.

Logsdon: “...(90,000 sq. ft. produces the same traffic whether it is in one big box or 3 smaller boxes).”

This is false. http://www.bigboxtoolkit.com, http://www.newrules.org and http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/are but three sites loaded with studies that explain the difference between traffic impacts of regional versus local stores.

Regional stores and shopping centers produce far more traffic than village shopping stores consuming the same footage.

Why? Local, as in PTC, serves PTC. But regional, like Kohl’s, serves Meriwether, Coweta, Fulton and more. They advertise regionally because their sizes demand a regional customer base. A simple tour of the Wal-Mart’s parking lot, looking at licenses plates, demonstrates this fact.

Further, local stores normally have positive economic impact while regional stores are negative.

Logsdon: “Granting the permit ... It wouldn’t set a prededent...”

Deliberately abandoning Line Creek to enable the Kohl’s development to proceed would most assuredly set precedent. The Lowe’s lawyer would most assuredly present the mayor’s statements, in the “Peachtree City Update” along with the abandonment, as discrimination against Lowe’s.

Logsdon: “The decision on this project will not be easy for me or the other council members, but it must be made in the best interest of the entire city after seeing the specific plan submitted.”

Mayor Logsdon and Councilman Boone have already said they are for Kohl’s.

To summarize, the street serves a public interest, convenient and substantial public purpose; the vast majority of PTC citizens do not want it abandoned; and abandonment is for the benefit of an individual person.

Thus, to abandon Line Creek [Parkway] is illegal.

The developer has stated he cannot make any money on his property unless Line Creek is abandoned and he can build a big box on the property. To deny the abandonment is to take Kohl’s and probably any development off the table.

Don Haddix

Councilman-elect, Post 1

Peachtree City, Ga.