I completely agree with your decision to check out other candidates! I hope that all voters do the same. But the candidate you speak of is Scott Rowland. Please do check him out. Seems to be a very upstanding and straightforward kind of guy!

There goes Spear Guy drinking the Kool Aid again. You moan and rip your clothes about having been sucked in to voting for Harold Logsdon and now you are in awe of this unknown Scott Rowland. Any surprise that Rowland contributed money to Candidate Logsdon for Insurance Commissioner?

Is it true Rowland contributed money to Logsdon's campaign?
How much? When?
Before I say anymore, I'd like this confirmed.

This animal has already been approved by the County, but at a lot bigger size with a septic spray field system next to Wilshire. They can start building tomorrow if they wish.

My only reason to vote for Step 1 was to be able to see how we might be able to minimize its size and impact on PTC. In or out of PTC it will have a major impact on Wilshire and the whole city, like it or not.

Step 1 only enables talks, it does not approve the annexation. That is Step 2.

If talks reveal there are no major gains, then leave it in the County. If we can peel off a lot of sq', change a lot from commercial to office/institutional, get rid of that spray field and put it under PTC standards, those are significant gains.

Also understand the total land in that area for development is 80 acres. We need to worry about that as well and its impact. If it proves they cannot build the whole area with the spray field, leave it in the County. If they can and we control the sewer system, then we have to consider the options.

There is 20 acres across the street Logsdon and Boone wanted to annex as commercial. I managed to kill that deal. I also opposed other annexation proposals on the north side of town, the most recent being Hyde wanting to add more property at Carriage Lane for more homes.

The difference? The other proposals gave no major gain to PTC. This might. I stress might.

You have to look at all the issues involved.

And Scott Rowland (I think someone told me his dad was Matt)? I do not know the gentleman except he is a 31 year old Financial Adviser working in Atlanta who has said nothing to look at so far. The full time job knocks him out immediately. Ask Steve Brown, Bob Lenox or Logsdon if you can have a job and be Mayor. Brown and Lenox tried and had to give up the jobs. Mayor is technically a part time job that in reality isn't. Even Plunkett already stated she would stop working if Mayor because of the time demands.

As well he would have been faced with the same problem on this proposal. Talking about this area is one thing, approving remains to be seen. This is just not a clear cut easy answer issue we all the facts need to be known first, including the surprises that would not show with being able to talk.

Hope that helps clear this one up at least a little. It was 5-0 with Sturbaum and me purely needing more information.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

The real deal is that when a city has a full-time city manager the mayor's position is part-time and largely ceremonial. Lenox strayed from that a little because he owned his own business and could do it. Brown strayed from that a lot because of his ego. Logsdon is certainly not a full-time mayor, nor do we need or want one next time around. It is possible that we could use a more competent city manager - someone like Joe Morton or Billy Beckett, but the mayor's position is not full-time in PTC nor should it ever be.

Brown's meddling and micro managing was all the evidence anyone in city hall needed to arrive at that same conclusion.

Scott's father is named Mitch, his mother Carol. Carol ran for mayor herself back in the era of the real mayor Brown. And in these times a finacial planner would be a good ting.

Your 'real' Mayor Brown didn't have a job either.

Dream on all you want. But a full time job and being Mayor does not work.

Even as a Councilman I get called are very odd times to fill get some where fast, give policy positions and do a lot of things during business hours and so forth. 40 hour 9-5 job cannot accommodate that.

The City Manager does not have as much power as you think.

With all due respect you make a lot of claims of knowledge that do not add up with the facts.

Like the Mayor controlling when someone can declare for an office, what they can say and what is on agendas. Not reality.

My calendar does not have the room to accomodate a full time job since I have to cover a lot of things working Council Members cannot, like meetings tomorrow and Thursday during the day, out of town all day Friday of next week plus three other meetings. I also get a ton of phone calls and emails as well that a full time job would not tolerate. There is only one Mayor. They have to cover their own which includes more turf than mine. That magnifies when they believe they cannot get answers from the Mayor and turn to Council Members.

By the way, Harold was a financial planner and auditor. That does not qualify one as being Mayor. There is a lot more to the job than that.

As well the City has grown a lot. It was 13,600 during Fred Brown in 1987. Now it is closing in on 38,000.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

Mr Haddix,

The annexation in question was the Levitt/Scarborough annexation. Your response clearly refers to an entirely different property. Were you even paying attention during the vote?

I was dealing with the statement opposed to annexation complete. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Now, on Scarbrough. The property was annexed in 2007, before I was on Council. So, the property has already been annexed for two years.

Further, this is not the first adjustment to the annexation. There was one last last year. Yes, adjustment, not initial annexation.

This was a second adjustment. It removes a ten foot strip of property from the annexation and returns it to the county.

The 2007 annexation is in court and ultimately I believe it will stand. Every decision so far has been in its favor.

Further, even we we denied this step one the 2007 annexation would still be in force and the ten feet would be kept in the property. This reduced the size of the annexation.

Even if somehow the court, in the last steps, overturned the 2007 annexation we would not be at Step 2 in the current annexation and that is where we could say no to bringing it in.

Would we be sued if we said no? Yes. Would we lose, let me just they have been doing road work on McDuff, thus have established a 5th amendment defense to keep the annexation.

Bottom line here is if you don't like this annexation talk to those who voted for it in 2007. We have 3 sitting on Council.

Personally, I was against it in 2007, but now on Council I have to deal with the legal realities.

I hope that clears this up.

So, Skeptic, I was paying attention then and before as regards all the issues and legalities behind this issue.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

No, Don, that doesn't clear it up.

On the one hand, you say its ok to vote for step 1, cause it really doesn't count until step 2.

On the other hand, you imply you can't vote against it at step 2, cause the City will get sued.

On the one hand, you say you're against annexation which will add unneeded housing.

On the other hand, you hide behind your lawyer's skirt, claiming a fear of getting sued. (An excuse you've never used in opposing any other development).

Can you explain to me why, if the court eventually tosses the annexation, the developer will have any right to sue the city if it then doesn't approve it. Seems like the developer took his chances for doing work on McDuff (BTW, how is it the developer is doing work on McDuff, thought that was a city function) while all the legalities were up in the air.

Bottom line question: If the court eventually throws out the annexation, how will you and your team vote if the developer tries again. I seem to recall the annexation will cost the city millions before it ever has a return on tax revenue sufficient to cover the city's costs. How can we afford that now?

Study 5th amendment rights and how it applies to developers along with case law. Short answer is once they expend money on a site they have an overriding inherent investment in the property that gives them priority rights. Thanks the Supreme Court for this one.

So, I did not want it in 2007 but it was granted, along with allowing the developers to start work because of the clause he could not get a build permit on any home until McDuff was finished first. Now there is the conflict of want versus law.

How would we vote? Going to take a lot of legal advisement and research before I could answer that one. So not touching that one now.

Wieland and Scarbrough are building McDuff, the bridge and infrastructure, not the city. Total city cost I have not dug into because it is currently a done deal and those items they are paying for are the big ticket items.

Huge, complicated issue. Has to be taken one step at a time.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

you're not one to handle huge, complicated issues.

God, please let someone with a brain run for mayor.

and a spine.

a bridge built over the tracks, etc.. and gives PTC control, I am for the annexation for sure.

He's going on and on about a totally different proposal.

What are the odds Haddix never answers my question? Seems he has time to respond to everyone else.

possibly anti everything...

Except the splost.

I do not support Rec at any cost, Big Boxes, more retail and more homes when we have a glut.

I do support getting good paying employers and educational facilities into PTC to finance our city and fill those vacant homes and stores.

Smart Growth and controlled budgets.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

"getting good paying employers and educational facilities into PTC"..

I mean c'mon...that's just common sense. But since you brought it up, what is your PLAN to try and do this?

I think most of know how you feel about the Rec budgets...

Already in work via DAPC. Remember the old Council had them on the shelf and I got them off and put them to work.

Currently 4 projects proceeding in this area. Sorry, cannot go into detail since many will back out if it becomes public. One is coming in firm, one probably and two in initial stages.

If common sense why wasn't it already done before I got on Council? Because the priority of some was and still is to

See my other reply on Rec.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

We are living in a very nice place. Good to hear about the new business potentials.

Can you please explain this comment that you made? Does this mean that you oppose all the rec we have in this town or do you just oppose expanding Rec or is it the current Rec Director? What gives, I'm sure a lot of parents with children in this town would like to know before we cast a Vote.

Obama's weapon of Choice!

It means I believe in efficiency and that does not always mean under direct Rec or Council control, as has proven a failure across the nation and here in certain facilities. Whereas the majority opposed taking that control away for political and other reasons, I want the best possible at an reasonable cost.

Look at the Tennis Center. Lost us big money from day one. Pumped hundreds of thousands into the Tourism Authority and that didn't work either, they are in deficit this year.

I pushed for outsourcing or selling it. Got the outsourcing and now on operations we are moving from deficit to break even or even profit with Canongate taking over and expanding services offered. Nothing to touch there for budget purposes now, although the bricks and mortar still owed and the legal costs spilling over from the past do still exist.

Then the Fred. Again, via Tourism, loosing money hand over fist.Pushed for outsoucing and got it finally. Down about $220,000 this year because Plunkett had to interject politics and insist on 2 nights to protect gold ticket holders when told we would loose money on 2 nights. That changes next year and I hope it opens the door for running a second package series of one night each to expand offerings. But that is Nancy's call with a bottom line of nothing to really cut there now.

In turn that frees up Hotel/Motel Tax for more efficient usage in other areas.

Now the Kedron Center. Was running 75%, $701,000, on taxpayer money. Changes there already see a cut of $300,000 from the budget. Still a lot left but far better than it was. But getting better and will continue to push for better.

Little League does a lot of support and other work already. I don't see what we can touch there as well.

And so on.

My point is unlike many prior on Council I believe we can have our Rec without just seeing pumping more and more money into it as how to run it. Spending more and loosing ground is not good management. Further, public/private partnerships work. Demanding it only works under Staff and Council Control is not smart. I have no interest in playing politics with these facilities, I just want them run efficiently in a cost effective manner that give the citizens the most services.

My approach give more to the citizens than does the old approach.

Sturbaum is the President of Little League. I was a leader in Scouting and 4-H. We are most assuredly pro Rec but understand it needs to be run by the right people at the right cost.

As with baseball, adding lights to fields is cheaper than adding new fields while giving the net effect of building new unlit fields. But we do not have the money now to spend on it right now, but would accept donations for corporations, etc.

So, again this comes back to SPLOST, property tax, the economy and past practices that put us where we are that have to change for the future.

I am trying to get more out of a buck without cutting anything, success to date even with battles is almost a million dollars a year. With time, also adding what we need but don't have. But we don't have the money to pay for it now.

I ran in 2007 stating we needed budget efficiency and Village Concept priorities, but didn't have them. The last 19 months have been battle after battle with the majority on these issues.

It will take a new Council with shared goals and priorities to get there, which is up the voters. You have two very different groups running so you have a solid choice. Take Plunkett and the other two if you want to continue the last 4 years or pick me and 3 others to add to Sturbaum if want change. No excuses later saying there were not clear cut choice this time. Just be aware to return to the old ways will be a big hike in property tax and other costs with no gains.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

I'll go along with most of what you said, but I will have to take you to task of the first 2 points of your reply. The Tennis center and the Fred were just recently moved under Rec, weren't they (last 6-9 months). I do have to ask if the Soccer programs pay for themselves or does it cost the city in the end? And its Dondol, not Donol, thank you.

Obama's weapon of Choice!

On the Fred it was moved out last year. This full season has been under Nancy and Rec. The $220,000 is the projection and was caused by the 2 night requirement. So, my statement are correct. With learning I think it will improve.

On the Tennis Center they are locked to giving us a minimum monthly initially which changes to the minimum or 3% of gross, whichever is greater, in the future. They assumed management July 1.

Both are out from under Tourism, which frees up Hotel/Motel Tax and should mean some cost saving changes at Tourism since they no longer have two facilities to manage.

I don't have the bottom line breakouts on all the programs. So I cannot give you a specific on Soccer.

I don't expect Rec to always be break even. Be reasonable, not ridiculous.

As with the Tennis Center costs versus users was absurd. Or the Kedron Complex requiring 75% tax support. And the second night at the Fred costing almost $40,000 each.

My point was almost a million could be trimmed from these three alone with gains in service. That says the old way was unacceptable.

We will keep working on making everything in the City more efficient, if possible, not just Rec. But we both know only so much can be done in that regard, but I don't think we are all the way there yet.

The Library is a frustration, money wise. It costs over a million taxpayer dollars a year to run. But how do we save money on it without severe cut backs? But cutting the Library more? Hard to see how to possibly do that.

Sorry about the misspelling. Too late for me to edit it now.

Always open to constructive suggestions on any area.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com

About the Fred, the idea is to present good shows and charge enough for them to pay the bills--at least most of the bills.
The idea is NOT to meet the budget even at the risk of crappy shows and one show a week in the summer!

Let's face it we have gone from two excellent shows a week---sold out---to one show not even full!

Even if that meets the budget==temporarily, it is not good!

You also say the Tennis Center is profitable now and a success. What do you base that upon--some rent has been paid?

Saying the Amphitheater is "under" some person doesn't mean squat!