Every community will get government housing sooner or later. Every one needs a place to live. Keep in mind last year we had a pilot beat and rape his wife and just recently we had some other white guy beat the crap out of his wife. They did not live in Harmony village. Just because you can afford better housing doesnt mean you are a better citizen. Just check the local bars, there are many well to do citizens intoxicated daily. So lets all get a long and get rid of the rotten apples. We could start in washington where they are hell bent on destroying America. That pretty much sums it up.

perfect definition of an oxymoron.

We have to allow them because we have zoned for them. If we did not zone high density housing, then we would not have it. There is no constitutional mandate for high density housing. Of course, there isn't any mandate for 1/2 the stuff the federal government does now.

When Atlanta got the Olympics they did not want visitors to our beautiful city (sarcasm) to see all the slums--I mean projects. So they tore down their projects and gave us the wonderful gift of our own project---Harmony Village and moved many of those people here. How could we ever begin to thank them?

Harmony Village is a nice apartment complex. (Cosmetically) Blame the low rent on two much compitition. If we didn't over saturate the apparment market with the two Amli complexes and the Sussex complex prices in the older complexes like Harmony Village would be much higher and would have less problems.

Section 8. Someone told me that when they first came to town and was looking for a temporary to live til they decided on area for permanent resident, they inquired at Harmony Village and was told they made too much to qualify for an apt there.

No, you are not wrong that the name of a minor cannot be printed, but this did not happen here. A 17-year-old is NOT a minor, rather is considered an adult and is treated as such by the criminal justice system.

The citizen has a history of printing the names of kids. The fact it is lawful misses the point. As a small town publication(one they should distribute at the Publix checkout stand) with limited resources and amateur staff, they have a poor record of following up. To print the kids name when there isn't an eminent threat to the public is nothing more than tabloid journalism.

They let the cat out of the bag then if the kid is ultimately expunged (as they often are in these teenage incidents) . . . you will never hear about it.

In this case, if the police indicate there may be other victims, then they should print "a 17 year old child attending a particular school" has been charged with statutory rape". This gives me all of the information I need as a parent to quiz my kids about anything they've heard or if they have any direct involvement. I don't need to tell them the kids name - they would have heard - trust me. Printing the name moves it beyond the circles in the community that are impacted and need to know.

Those who think a teenager thinks far enough ahead so that their actions are deterred by potentially getting your name in print are naive at best.

They were both old enough to know better.

If you would be embarrassed to have it printed on the front page of a news paper, DON'T DO IT!

Think back to when you were a teenager - you knew something was wrong and didn't it anyway and you were likely worried about consequences . . . but getting your name in the paper probably wasn't one of them.

As for you "Concerned Nutjob" in the other post - I didn't say the story wasn't worth covering and I didn't mention the police. I said the public doesn't need to know the name of the "child" who is unable to elect "lawmakers" and I don't have a son you jack---.

A crime happened not because the male was 17 and considered an adult but the girl was 13 and under aged.

It is an item picked up from the police blotters and in this case was obviously researched beyond that as indicated by further details.

As far as amateur staff, with a poor record of follow up. They may not make big salaries, but they work their butt off for you the reader.

to know better. He may be a teen, but a "child". He should be charged as an adult. Although with him in jail, who will be paying for the baby he probably produced with the 13 year old.

The Citizen seeks out this kind of info because it catches the eye of it's readers, valid point. If it bleeds, it leads. It seems that your gripe is more with the police:

"if the kid is ultimately expunged, as they often are" and "if the police indicate there may be other victims, then THEY should print"

If only you ran the criminal justice system, it would all be so easy, right? Sounds more like you know this loser or brought life to one like him. Most kids are not expunged, most charged plead guilty. In fact, more than 90 percent charged plead guilty in Fayette.

Your son is a pervert, beat it.

first off you dont even know him so to say something that outrageous is dumb on your part. i happen too know him well and as a female im one of his good friends and know him personally to a point this is ridiculous he is not that type of person. just wait till its further investigate to you make assumptions

Here is the gist of the case as charged. He is 17 years old- I assume a fact. The girl in question is 13-also an assumed fact. There was evidence of a sexual encounter between the two-hence the medical exam and evidence. If he did it, then he broke the law because a 13 year old is not legally old enough to make a lawful decision on this. A 17 year old is legally assumed to be an adult in this case. If he did it, it is called statutory rape. It doesn't matter about her intent as she was not old enough to have consensual sex. On the creepy side now- it is an assumed high school senior with an 8th grader.

... and big girls to go to big boy and big girl jail.

What an avatar!!!!
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.