Plunkett: Big decision for PTC voters

Tue, 11/24/2009 - 4:25pm
By: Letters to the ...

On Dec. 1, the voters of Peachtree City have a big decision to make. With the economic downturn, the city’s budget decisions will be tough over the next few years. We will have to work hard to maintain our quality of life, public safety and facilities, while not increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The choice for voters is clear, between someone who wants to balance the city’s budget on our checkbooks or someone who thinks we should tighten our belts and figure out ways to run the city more effectively, efficiently and innovatively.

Throughout the campaign, others have attempted to define me by decisions I have made. They have tried to malign me because of friends I have, supporters of my campaign, because I like to work with others, and because I make solutions, not arguments.

Most of all, my opponent has tried to define me, both personal and politically, by one set of votes, by one decision I made among many. After four years on City Council and over 800 votes cast, my opponent believes that one decision, one vote, one issue is the most critical facing Peachtree City.

As citizens of Peachtree City, we have made many of the same decisions that have led us to live in this great community together and face the important choice of who will be our next mayor.

As it happens, Mr. Haddix and I have made a lot of similar decisions. We both decided to move to and live in Peachtree City. We both have served on City Council and we both decided to run for mayor of Peachtree City.

As a matter of fact, while we served on City Council together, Mr. Haddix and I voted the exact same way more than 90 percent of the time.

Although he might not like to admit it, Councilman Haddix voted with Mayor Logsdon more than 90 percent of the time.

While serving on City Council together for 18 months and casting over 300 votes together, my opponent believes this election comes down to one vote where we disagreed, one decision where he and I were fundamentally opposed.

My opponent believes the critical issue facing Peachtree City are votes on a traffic light and a grocery store.

I believe the traffic light was a vote on public safety. The vote was whether to ask the Department of Transportation to complete a safety analysis. I couldn’t live with myself, if a citizen or family of Peachtree City were injured, or worse, because I didn’t do all I could.

I made a decision on what I believe is best for our community and didn’t calculate my vote based on future ambitions. I voted for safety.

The second part of the vote was not a vote of stores or no stores. It was a vote that said Avenue-type shopping or a gas station/strip mall. I believe the citizens of Peachtree City deserve the high end, not another strip mall.

Despite Mr. Haddix’s fantasy, it was never a choice between open space and shopping. The choice was to control the quality of the project. I voted for quality.

With that said, I do agree with my opponent that there is one vote in which we disagreed, one decision that clearly defines us. During these tough economic times my opponent voted to raise our taxes. Instead of tightening the City’s belt he decided to put the burden on us.

I voted against raising taxes and will continue to do so. My opponent is on record supporting tax increases. He voted for them.

The decision is big and the choice is clear. If you believe we can work together and continue to make the community we all love even better, please cast your vote for Cyndi Plunkett.

Cyndi Plunkett

Candidate for mayor

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by R. Butler on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 8:00pm.

Ms. Plunkett-

I think after this letter, you have succeeded in your goal to make this election about more than one issue. Indeed, this tactic of misrepresenting facts and the history of your ideas here has now called your character in question-in addition to your views about city growth.

A little more than a month ago, you were publicly denying any vote related to the the traffic light on Hwy 54. Now, it has turned into a vote on safety issue. How completely disingenuous. Especially as you knew there would be no response related to these comments in the print version of the Citizen until after the election. What is now clear is that you are prepared to say and do anything it takes to win...regardless of the truth.

CCD wanted that light for one reason alone, to maximize the ability of high density vehicle traffic to enter and leave the mall area.

You claim that your vote was to spare us a "gas station or a strip mall." So you enabled a developer to create an even larger shopping complex which would create more traffic running into the city. And after enabling this traffic and safety nightmare, you claim to care about our safety by endorsing the developers application for a traffic light. Of course completely ignoring earlier comments that the majority of the council felt that they were bound by their agreement with CCD to support the developer request for the light as part of the prior zoning variance the same majority of the council granted. After that same majority voted to sell the developer the streets necessary to make the shopping complex possible in the first place.

The one comment that you are correct is that you clearly made your votes without any calculations as to future ambitions-at least as far as the residents of PTC are concerned. You made that clear 18 months ago in your comments concerning the TDK extension--when you noted that you were not prepared to react to a vocal minority on terminating the road project-implying that there was a silent majority (other than the Chamber of Commerce) who somehow supported the idea of a a road which would enable traffic from a hastily planned 8,000 home suburban community next door to flood through town on their way back and forth to I-85. It was not until that planned community came with it's own shopping center (thus adversely impacting the Braelinn Village shopping complex) did the Chamber of Commerce back away from the idea, and then so did the majority of the council.

As it turns out Ms. Plunkett, it appears that we were never the silent minority on these issues. We were the vocal majority. You had your opportunity to represent those of us who look at Peachtree City as a community. Instead, you sought to represent those who look at Peachtree City as nothing more than an upscale marketplace to be exploited as much as possible.

Submitted by MYTMITE on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 7:01pm.

truth is there for all who take the time to track it down. The tactics you have used as it gets close to the end of the race only make it clear that you are not what Peachtree City needs. I have really tried to keep on top of things and watch and listen to what is being said and I have to say that I have not changed my mind about Mr. Haddix being the best person to serve as mayor. I think he has the best interests of of the city and it's citizens at heart and has proved this in the past by his votes. I appreciate the fact that he has always been available to answer any questions citizens have had for him--on the other hand, Ms. Plunkett has only made herself available-if in fact she is available-in the last few weeks---never before answering letters, e-mails, etc. I do wish that young Scott would have run for a council seat, because I think he would have won, and after a few years seasoning on council, would have made a good mayor. Maybe he will decide to run for one of the council seats as they become available, I hope so. Peachtree City is at a crossroads and if it continues as it had with the 3-2 council we will be going down a slippery slope. It has been changing from the place where we all wanted to live to a congested mess, and when (and if) the light goes in at Planterra we will see an even greater bottle-necked mess- a disaster waiting to happen. So, please think long and hard, and do take the time to go vote. At least if we vote and things do not change we can at least say we tried. If we do not make the effort we can only blame ourselves when things get worse. Hope to see you all at the polls, and I hope after much consideration, you will realize that now, for this time, Don Haddix is the best person for the mayor's position.

Submitted by Doug on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 6:51pm.

First off, I don't doubt for a second that Mrs. Plunkett and Mr. Haddix voted the same way on 90% of the votes. During the normal course of business like voting on the purchase of a new copying machine or installing a new cross walk on a local road, I can easily believe they would agree.

It's the stinking 10% of the votes (3 to 2 votes) on the huge issues like big retail and annexation where Mrs. Plunkett differs from Mr. Haddix. Think about the magnitude of that 10%. I agree with Mr. Brown's letters on Mrs. Plunkett. She doesn't say anything.

After reading Mr. Dyer's blog post, I'm positive I did the right thing voting against him. We've got some real spoiled sports around here.

My two cents worth.

Hoosier Fan's picture
Submitted by Hoosier Fan on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:41am.

The critical issue facing Peachtree City in this mayoral election is NOT votes on a traffic light and a grocery store.

For me, the critical issue is your integrity.

At the October 6 candidate forum you were asked about your vote on the traffic signal at 54W and Line Creek. You could have answered that question in one of two ways:

1) Yes, I voted in favor of the traffic light and I believe it was the best decision for Peachtree City because…, or

2) Yes, I voted in favor of the traffic light, but in retrospect I believe it was the wrong decision for Peachtree City because…

I may not have agreed with one of the above answers, but I would have respected you for taking responsibility for your vote. Instead, your response on October 6 was something to the effect of: “I didn’t vote in favor of the traffic light.”

That was a lie. You lost my respect and any possibility for my vote at that moment.

Your statements, actions, and campaign materials since November 3 may trigger enough sympathy, or fear, to get you elected on December 1, but you will not have my respect or the respect of any citizen who knows the truth about your integrity.

Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:03am.

"Despite Mr. Haddix’s fantasy, it was never a choice between open space and shopping. The choice was to control the quality of the project. I voted for quality."

Some don't like to admit it, but that is the truth my friends.

I tried to get the bloggers to address this in an earlier blog, but everyone ignored the elephant in the room.

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 9:04am.

It is up to the Council to try and do whatever they can to manage the "quality" of the development, even though they are somewhat limited in this case.

What irks a lot of people is that Plunkett has totally lied about her votes on this issue as well as her cowardly reasoning that "she just couldn't risk" a Pep Boys or Hooters coming in as threatened by the developer. I think that is the real issue. She did a no-sell job to the voters on this issue and then turned around and blatantly lied about it. That's poor leadership and not what she was elected to do. Some votes are tough and are going to make some citizens unhappy, but it's any elected official's job to explain to them WHY and the reasoning behind their vote. Cyndi did a lousy job of that and broke a lot of the trust factor.

Of course, a lot of PTC is too damn ignorant to realize what is zoned commercial already and what will be developed at some point. That doesn't stop this crowd from being quite noisy and exposing their ignorance constantly, and it side-steps the reality of the fact that commercial property gets developed and all that can be hoped for is that it matches the general consensus of what a quality development should be. A few more lawsuits against the City over this simple issue will probably happen before some wake up and realize that property rights extend further than just what one might like.

matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 1:57pm.

How do you define quality for this area? Is quality a giant well landscaped shopping center with no occupants? Because if that center ever gets built that is what it will be. I personally think a gas station or a drive thru restaurants would have been just fine in that area.

Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 3:35pm.

Nothing wrong with that. IF you think that things will never turn around and spaces will sit empty forever, I'm glad we disagree. That said, the property is zoned commercial, and you have stated that a gas station and a drive through restaurant are your cup of tea. I'm not sure that is best for PTC, but hey, it may be what we get if some folks get their way.

matt.barnes's picture
Submitted by matt.barnes on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 4:12pm.

I am not a pessimist. I know things will turn around. However, PTC is a small town and even during the best economic conditions we can only support so much retail. If we over build too much eventually we will turn into one of those nasty looking towns with shopping centers full of nothing but nail salons, Chinese restaurants, dollar stores and for rent signs. T

Submitted by Spyglass on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 8:51am.

The council can't keep the property from being developed.

I agree, we are full up RIGHT now with centers, but we just can't keep the property owner from developing. I say work for the best available.

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 1:48pm.

You neglect to mention that. The cats is out of the bag, but we can punish those who have benefitted by voting this way in council

Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 3:39pm.

And a proposal did come before's not going to sit vacant forever.

Submitted by PTCGOIL on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:41am.

Nothin' there yet. And you wait and see what is in the plans..ain't nothin' like what Cyndi fantasizes it will be.

Pay attention to what the plans are for Lower Fayetteville Rd. and Hwy 34, on 2 of the 4 corners. There will be a giant sucking sound of what CCD had planned for the Three Stooges traffic light development by Planterra.

Submitted by Spyglass on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 3:37pm.

We can either build nice stuff here, or let it be built in Coweta, just over the line. Refusing to try and work at all with developers (who are PTC property owners and tax payers) is not the way to get higher quality developments. Obviously, the Haddix followers see it differently.

Hopefully, it will work out for the best for all of us.

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 9:12am.

The NO crowd wanted to slam the door closed the minute they got to PTC and lack any awareness of how PTC was built in the first place or why it is considered such a great place to live. Half the same idiots don't realize they live in neighborhoods that were zoned commercial or industrial not that long ago and that someone had to change the sacred land use plan or they'd be living elsewhere. They think it was some kind of divine magic that PTC just suddenly appeared, waiting for them to move in and immediately whine about everything being done wrong in the past and future.

There was a time where PTC really could extract some meaningful concessions from developers and it was a lot more of a win-win situation than an adversarial relationship. That's all changed as time as gone on, and some of that is directly the City's own fault. Allowing Longhorn to bulldoze everything in sight after they had denied several others that same variance shortly before was one of the big starting points to developers and the City not seeing eye to eye too much. Electing some people who were openly hostile to anything besides NO NO NO didn't help at all either.

Submitted by PTCGOIL on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 9:52am.

Nice much education have you had?

Okay, give it up. In the last 4 years, can you now name 3 (count them three) solutions YOU "made". A List of YOUR accomplishments, finally? You know, the ones that YOU initiated?

And, please, work harder on the sleezy justification for the traffic light. Safety???? From what, the 50 car backup at another light on 54 at a dead stop, thanks to the light you voted for? Seems traffic that actually moves forward would be a bigger safety issue than dead stop traffic for a shopping center we don't need.

And since when is Kohl's considered Avenue type shopping? Ha ha. Jokes on us, I guess.

Yes, we are going to find a way to run the city more effectively, efficiently and innovatively. We're going to continue with Don Haddix's ways of making cuts that HE has already come up with and implemented.

Cyndi, name TWO things YOU have come up with and implemented to run the city more efficiently.

Again, more of nothing here. Cyndi, you have already helped to make the big decision for Peachtree City voters, as you say. And, sorry sweetie, it isn't one that speaks of YOUR accomplishments.

Submitted by Angry Taxpayer on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 2:35pm.

Maybe I've become too cynical, but I've sometimes wondered if the Logsdon, Plunkett, Boone crew intentionally wanted to turn 54 West into a "red light district" in an effort to get TDK restarted.

mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 7:46am.

If he voted 90% of the time with you and Logsdon, doesn't that negate his claim of a 3-2 voting bloc?

Tell it like it is Cyndi. I will vote for you and hubby already did - yesterday.

Submitted by lesdyer on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:15pm.

Knew in my heart there was no way Beverly would print my letter-to-the editor so will share it with this small forum and know that Haddix will respond. At least the Fayette News has promised it will see ink on their pages.

I would like to pose three questions for Haddix:

1. Why did you lie about my ties to developers and continue to do so when assured that I had no connections to any special interests?
2. Why did you quit your City Council position to run for Mayor?
3. Why will you not divulge your educational history?

I'll put pen to paper, briefly, on each of these questions . No one can or will prove you fabricated some links between me and developers due to my wife’s long association as a realtor with The Home Source . Why would you not accept my word that this was not true and is there any link to your overarching need to try and pack the Council with a Haddix-clone majority? The school I attended had an honor code and we were sworn to uphold that in all we did. Do you recognize the principles of honor, Don?

Why not do the job you were elected to carry out and fulfill your four year obligation as a councilman? Mayor Haddix would have the same voting power as Councilman Haddix. Was it necessary to subject the City to this extra cost and trouble so you could ‘feel’ the power and try to have your clones piggybacked into office? Do you have the strength of personality and leadership potential to shape the direction of the City versus surrounding yourself with “yes, Don” folks?

If you successfully completed third grade or sixteenth grade, I don't care, but ….. I do care that you refuse to disclose your background when asked to do so. There are a VERY few sacred items when you step up to the plate to run for office and a full disclosure of biographical details is not one of them. If you've reached your position with a GED, tout yourself as a self-made man and be proud of it. You may even wish to mention a few short military schools as most vets do in their bio.

I will dutifully respond to comments on my post by anyone signing their name -- assuming I am not again fooled by Morgan:)

Vote Plunkett !

JGF9148's picture
Submitted by JGF9148 on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 2:01pm.

Les, From what I've seen the group still running aint "yes, Don" folks. And I do respect your opinion, but can't fathom to think of another four years of Cindi the Marie Antoinette of the council poo pooing the wishes of us just plain folk.

Happy Thanksgiving

TinCan's picture
Submitted by TinCan on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 1:47pm.

Geez Les, as I’ve asked you in person, what have you done to elicit this kind of reaction from the “fine folks” of PTC. I’ve always thought you were an honest and upstanding guy and I can’t find fault with the questions you posed. It certainly stands above the almost daily 3-2 whining I see on here. Kind of makes me wonder about GOIL’s motivation in recommending that 3-2 not respond to you. I guess I can only conclude that I’m a lousy judge of character, and since I’ve already voted as you suggest I’ll probably come to regret my voting choices. Since you don’t like the anonymity, I’ll let you know who’s asking when I see you sometime.

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 1:46pm.

My school had a very simple code "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do". I find it interesting that you will wink at offenses with Plunkett that you would tolerate to be punished in another. That sir, is a satire upon soldiership and honor.
Plunkett's post card was dishonest, plain and simple. Even her supporters acknowledge it. Her voting record is public knowledge.
Politics can be detestable. Your note is equally so. I hope that she fails to become elected.

Submitted by PTCGOIL on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 1:14pm.

to Les Dyer. Stay off from here till next Wed. at least. There is nothing to gain from this.

Mr. Dyer-Does your wife salute you before you go to bed every night? Do your kids line up in formation every morning for review?

How long have you been retired from the military? Will you just get over this strident former military crap you present? It's almost 2010 and we don't answer to you. We don't report to you and you are NOT in the military anymore.

And since you have already answered your own questions to Mr. Haddix, why should he bother? Please take a vacation.

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:56pm.

The venom you spew is certainly misrepresentative of the military background you possess. The sooner you get over the fact that you lost, the better off you'll be.

Could it be that your ties to the current mayor and Ms Plunkett are forcing your hand in an embarrassing and needless post? Perhaps you joined their bandwagon under the guise of becoming one of the few who know better about what is best for us mere citizens.


But, then again, welcome to the club of city council losers.

Submitted by lesdyer on Sat, 11/28/2009 - 12:48pm.

Hoping Mike King is a real person and I'm not fooled again by another alias.

What does my intense dislike of Haddix's campaign AND my friendship with Ms Plunkett have to do with a military background? I've been retired for 20 years so may publicly voice my opinion as I did in my blog reference Haddix's untruths and non-disclosure attitude.

Venom from your side of the aisle but disturbing truth from mine.

PS Let me clear the air on another subject. There was NO disrespect meant to any of the fine candidates remaining in the run-offs. Don's attempts at loading his "side" with clones is his alone and in no way reflects on those civic-minded individuals.

PS I had at least expected a response from ole Don (not answers), but he has Cal to brandish the bully pulpit for him in that yellow sheet called a newspaper.

Comment viewing options

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