Mayor on losing side

Tue, 02/21/2006 - 5:14pm
By: John Munford

Call it Harold’s first stand.

Chalk it up as his first loss, too.

New Peachtree City Mayor Harold Logsdon stuck to his guns for his proposed change to the city’s sign ordinance, but the rest of the City Council firmly rejected his proposal Thursday night.

Logsdon had suggested that residents be allowed to display two real estate signs — one in the front and one in the back. Many homes for sale just off local golf courses already have signs in their backyards, he said.

It might not be a bad idea for residents who are selling a home adjacent to a cart path, either, Logsdon noted, adding that he’s lived here for 10 years and has always seen such sign uses.

“It happens all over town,” Logsdon said.

“Why change it?” countered Councilman Stuart Kourajian.

The majority of council balked on the concept, voting 3-2 against Logsdon’s two-sign proposal, with Councilman Steve Boone casting the other favorable vote.

Before the vote, Logsdon said if the real estate signs along golf courses are illegal, city code enforcement officers should “go out and pull every one of them.”

Minutes later, when council adopted the tweaked staff changes to the sign ordinance without the mayor’s suggested amendment, Logsdon voiced the lone “no” vote.

The amended ordinance allows yard sale and real estate directional signs to return to city rights-of-way, but the latter must be taken up after 14 days. The yard sale signs can go up as early as 5 p.m. the day before the sale starts, but they must come down the day the sale ends, but after it is completed; the signs will still be sold at City Hall.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
livininPTC's picture
Submitted by livininPTC on Thu, 02/23/2006 - 9:13am.

First of all, good for Boone to stand with the mayor.

Secondly, what's going on with the other council members? This seems to be such a common sense issue and yet the voted against it? For what legitimate reason?

I hope this is not a sign of worse things to come.


Submitted by bob30269 on Tue, 02/21/2006 - 11:02pm.

So Logsdon is on losing side, his first losing position. So you are going to keep score. As a homeowner trying to sell, I think Logsdon has a valid position. It was a bonehead decision to change the ordinance to begin with. How many of the council members actually read the change in the sign ordinance when they voted on it some months back? A city employee a few months back gave me an explanation. "It's politics, they (the council) probably didn't even read it".

mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Wed, 02/22/2006 - 7:38pm.

So, exactly who is harmed when a homeowner who wants to sell their house on the golf course puts out a for sale sign that can be seen from the golf course by golfers who may want to buy a house on the golf course? Where do you think they should advertise their house for sale - Kroger's, Publix? Think people.

Are we not getting a little too anal here? Again, who is harmed by a second sign?

I was impressed with the new group on council, but stuff like this is troubling. The reason the new people were elected to council was to get away from the Steve Brown micromanagement template. How about we follow though on that and leave Steve's techniques behind us?
meow


Comment viewing options

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