In principle your moratorium sounds fine and with the current drought, perhaps you are to be lauded for your stance. Realistically, however, as recently as Mr Brown's early tenure as our mayor that was tried, but the threat of litigation forced the city to abandon such an idea. The economic impact of your proposal would be felt for some time over and above that of the cost of the litigation it would cause.
Allow me to suggest that you get the state to pass such legislation pertaining to the affected areas of north Georgia so that the threat of Peachtree City amassing substantial legal bills would be eliminated. This surely would be a win-win for all of us. If elected, I would work with you toward this end. A citywide moratorium is not the answer.
Mike King Candidate for City Council Post 2
mkingforcouncil@comcast.net

With respect, if you had been following the news you would know that Forsyth County just extended their Moratorium to a year's length and Duluth has a 6 month one.

Both have already withstood legal challenge.

Further, the Supreme Court, in three cases I know of, have found Moratorium legal for the purposes of formulating restrictive ordinance. Exactly what I am pursuing and Doug Sturbaum would pursue as well.

Lowe's denial was challenged under the ordinance structure you wish to keep. We lost because the Big Box had an exception clause added last year and we have no other ordinances on the books that actually allow the denial of such development, contrary to what you have stated. And Big Box without that exemption have been challenged and won their suits.

The fact is the current ordinance structure invites lawsuits that we will loose. That is because Council's have been operating on personal opinion, Just Say NO or Just Say YES, which is exactly what the court found and I have stated was fact since August.

Therefore, we, without ordinances, were challenged in court, and lost. They, with a moratorium, were challenged in court, and won. So there are lawsuits in either case.

Further, State Law says local municipalities set their own ordinances in these issues. So the State is not going to do anything in this regard. Nor do we want them to be setting our Community Vision for us.

Referring back to Steve Brown and that Council is a moot point. A lack of will on the Council level does not constitute a moratorium being illegal. Nor, if the case, does an improperly worded moratorium bar all moratorium. Please, again, look to Forsyth, Duluth and the hundreds of other quite legal and successful moratoriums across the nation.

Finally, if you have looked at the budget, you would note it states we are operating at a deficit because we are nearing build out and discovering what many other municipalities have found. That being unwise fast development without full proposal analysis results in negative income for PTC. So now the delayed infrastructure and service costs are surpassing the income and we are loosing money.

How does one fix this? Either change directions or start annexing, doing redevelopment, meaning higher density in old areas, or converting industrial to retail to allow more building, just further delaying the end result and making it worse.

Which do you want?

And remember, you cannot demand or deny anything of or from a developer without an actual ordinance in place. Which all we have is zoning, architectural standards and a Big Box ordinance that had a hole punched in it.

I like you, Mike, but we are diametrically opposed on this issue.

With respect, I don't know what else can be said on this issue at this time.

Don Haddix
PTC Council Elect, Post 1
donhaddix.com

Thank you for lending a sane voice to our city council. I guess I will have to stop using my favorite "councilFOOLS" to address all of you now.

Mudcat, get with the times... gone are the days when developers could build without scrutiny. You've seen the recent backlash over proposed developments that are inconsistent with the land use plan, now you're seeing the fulfillment of a mandate to enforce adherence. No way we're going to let a developer clear cut a huge area and slap in a Lowes.

Sure, developers can litigate, but even if they win a technical victory in court there is no way they'll have success at a project if the community and city council are against it.

How about the fact that: WE DON'T HAVE WATER!!! How about that reason?? We have already outgrown out natural resources and our roads. How much further should we grow? Until people die from lack of water, and the poor hygiene lack of water brings??

We not only should have a city wide moratorium, but a state wide moratorium until we see how many people will stay and buy water off of a truck.

mudcat maybe it is time to move on and ruin another, oooppps I mean develop another area.

Got to study the law a little more. Sure, it makes no sense to bring new people in when each family use 100 or more gallons per day of water and our supply is dwindling. But a moratorium won't be legal for that reason alone until we almost run out and Sonny calls for a state-wide emergency - or prays for one.

Fortunately Fayette County is in better shape than most and our recovery will be quicker. When Lake McIntosh is built we will be bulletproof when it comes to water.

And I don't develop things I landscape and remodel things, so I know all about water.

you know it, and I know it. Are you saying that because property that is currently zoned commercial is actually built on the area will be ruined? I've heard of statements that go off the deep end, but this takes the cake.

And for everyone that thinks it won't rain again, I have ocean front property in Moultrie, GA for sale.

are the reasons that Haddix's crazy proposal will fly like a lead balloon.