Developers versus Citizens - some thoughts

I want to present some ideas for the blogosphere to pontificate on.

1. Without a developer, 99% of all Peachtree City "citizens" wouldn't have a place to live. Otherwise you are building your house yourself, connecting it to the sewer and water system yourself, clearing the land yourself, etc. There are few examples of this in this town - most every home in Peachtree City was built by a developer, from Garden Cities to PCDC to John Weiland or Bob Adams or someone else. Should we have stopped those developers from coming in?

2. There is a five-member executive council that makes the decisions affecting zoning in Peachtree City. Decisions are not solely rested in a single mayor or single voice. Trying to insinuate otherwise belittles the value of the other members of Council.

3. As long as a development follows the regulations established by the zoning ordinances (and all other applicable laws and ordinances), any other argument is emotional and not based in either fact or reason.

4. Trying to curtail development without sound rationale will lead to legal actions and, ultimately, the development.

5. Development, in and of itself, is NOT evil. Developers, builders and other businessmen are not morons. They will not come into a market if they do not believe they can make the development economically viable. To make a development viable, you have to give people what they want and will pay for.

6. Levitt and Sons didn't leave the West Village because they didn't want it - they went bankrupt.

6. Why should governments legislate the market? In this case, I'd like to use pizza places as examples. Partners Pizza is in a "bad" location - it's not directly off the main drag (you have to go into the shopping center for it), and it's more expensive than other pizza offerings. Why does it succeed when other places (let's name WK Cafe and Calarusso's as two of the locals who haven't) don't? It could be quality, it could be service, it could be better management, and it could be the market just likes them better. Yes, location does play a role, but would Partner's NOT be as successful if it were in Braelinn? I would suggest to you it might be just as successful.

Hardware stores are also good examples. When Home Depot came in, many signaled the death knells for Ace Hardware and Gil-roy's. And yet they're both here, and will probably still both be here when Lowe's decides to come calling again. Why? Service, quality, management.

The market will determine whether or not a business will stay viable, all other things equal. As we all know, things are never always equal - some have better prices, others better quality, others better service. But the MARKET decides which of those qualities keep a business going, short of mismanagement.

I wish that people on these blogs would give the citizens at large more credit than they seem to, as it appears those who say "no development" and "cronyism" think that most folks are far more malleable then they actually are. Braelinn shopping center is not dying because of other developments specifically; it's dying because businesses in that area can't continue providing quality, price and service with good management. Why have some businesses been able to stay there for years?

Just my two cents - I'm sick of this anti-development whining.

PTC_factchecker's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 8:38am.

that many folks are anti-development as much as they are against having to put up with a government that bows down to the developers rather than "the people". True, developers are people, too (REALLY?), but they seem to have a disproportionate influence over the workings of the elected officials. "Smart" growth would be good, if those advocating growth would take into consideration the impact that growth would have on infrastructure, resources, etc. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 8:30am.

Developer tool: say no homes, if not for all development.

Go back and read the rules and codes of the original PTC "planned community" charter. Zoning has been changed scores of times to suit development: none of it is perpetual for homeowners only!

There is more than one kind of development---some good, some bad (for homeowners).

nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 11:14am.

...which of course planned for 85,000 residents living in PTC. I guess all the developers requested less density and less housing since the plan "has only been changed ever to benefit developers."

Ask the homeowners and landowners who have ever sold their rezoned property to developers if they got no benefit from it.

nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Mon, 12/03/2007 - 7:03am.

Your words are going to fall on a lot of deaf ears. This is the home of the anti-everything crowd that wanted to shut the door and prevent anyone from ever living in PTC the moment they signed the papers to their house built by some evil, Satan-worshipping, pedophile developer. Of course, they also moved here very willingly to enjoy the fruits of what those dreaded developers "developed," but that doesn't matter!

When Brown was running for re-election, the online poll here had him beating Logsdon, and we all saw how it turned-out at the ballot box. This is the very shrill minority that thinks it speaks for the majority of PTC citizens when it doesn't. I guess it's the powerless feeling that gets them so upset.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.