Senior Village

I enjoy a good intellectual discussion. Mr. Morgan makes some good points, and it may indeed be moot since the project appears to be moving to Griffin. There remains the larger issue here that is the real core of the matter. This is not about rejecting senior projects. It is about a developer coming into a community with a state wide reputation for an outstanding quality of life and suggesting that they know what is good for the community. It is about a developer who spent hours meeting with some of the commissioners explaining the proposal in detail INCLUDING the 12 proposed ordinance changes written by, and tailored for that developer. I am sure that you are not suggesting that developers be allowed to write ordinances.
It is about changes in the land use plan that would set dangerous precedents to a well thought out and court tested plan.
If you allow this developer to make these changes, how can you deny the next one?
This is the same land use plan that has thwarted attempts by Rolader, Scarborough and Wieland to bring higher density development into the county for years. They have had to get land annexed by the cities to achieve their goals.
The county commission has gone on record time and again opposing higher density in newly annexed land. Complain to the cities about that.
The meeting where the vote not pursue the proposal occurred was after hours and hours of review by the staff and commission. This was, as I understand it, not the high handed dismissal that some would like you to believe, but simply the response to a well documented and discussed project which did not fit where it was proposed.

Senior village

Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Sun, 02/12/2006 - 8:22pm.

Good points - you must have been there or at least in the background.

No, developers should not write ordinances, but they should be included in the discussion by those that do actually write the ordinances. This has saved millions of dollars in legal fees when the developer can't deny that he had input into the ordinance governing him and his surrogates.

And who cares about density except a rookie commissioner or councilperson - influenced by an even more inexperienced citizens/voters. Density is good when regulated properly. Even Dennis Chase would agree that 20 homes clustered on 5 acres of a 20-acre site (leaving 15 acres of nature) is better than 20 1-acre lots with septic tanks.

And you are correct- Sun City Peachtree (what a name) will be in Griffin. But once again, the real issue is did the commissioners act appropriately when they rejected their request. The land use plan should be updated every 5 years because things change. How would you like to work for a company that still uses carbon paper and typewriters because they were sticking to their business plan written in the 1970's?

login to post comments

Senior Village Cont.

Submitted by thenatural on Sun, 02/12/2006 - 10:12pm.

Come on Morgan, who cares about density? Everyone should since it is density (or the lack of it)that makes the difference between Fayette County and other metro counties that are now drowning under the strain of too many people in too little space. Surely you realize that 3000 homes on quarter acre lots (as planned here) does not compare to 20 homes on 5 acres with 15 acres of green space (developer speak for we could not build on it anyway). Dennis Chase (and others, including developers) as I understand it, were consulted when the county implemented something called a conservation subdivision, which is what the 20 homes with green space would be.
This new catagory was added by the current commission in response to a perceived need. Sounds like "smart growth" in action to me.

I was not there, but I did do my homework on this issue. We agree that regulating density is a good thing. That is precisely what was done in this case. This project does not, would not, and could never comply with any plan for this land, in this location, in this county. I admit that I am very concerned about compliance with a valid, dynamic land use plan which, at least in Fayette County is, and has been, in use for years. And I also know that the land use plan is updated on a regular basis.(I called the county and asked this question before) To imply that it is not is silly and I don't think you believe it to be a static document anyway.

login to post comments