it was at the Mayor's discretion....and he denied it....I really don't know why folks expected anything different.

Spyglass, are you certain the decision to not allow public comment was a unilateral decision by Mayor Haddix and not determined by the entire Council when the meeting agenda was prepared?

If you are certain, how do you know? What's your source?

JCAT's comment above is correct, but I think Council erred in not allowing public comment - especially after Mayor Logsdon's disasterous handling of public comments at the Council meeting regarding cell phone towers.

After the clear mandate from the elections, I doubt public comments would have changed the Council's 5-0 decision, but it's more of a perception and credibility issue after the arrogance of the previous Council.

The Mayor said it was at his discretion. I'm not sure if the Council was involved or not.

A quote from the article....

“I stated before there was to be no public input on this and I will stick to that,” Haddix replied."

The development agreement approved in '08 said the city would not oppose the traffic light. Then at a later date council voted (3-2, the usual) to ask DOT for the light.

The story on the light vote is below. You can also go to peachtree-city.org, click on mayor and city council/meeting minutes/2000s/2009/Feb. 5 2009 meeting.

PTC OK's new 54W light on 3-2 vote
Thu, 02/05/2009 - 8:56pm
By: The Citizen

DOT Atlanta office has final say on approval for signal

Peachtree City will apply for a new traffic light on Ga. Highway 54 West to serve a new shopping center.

A vote of the City Council tonight was split 3-2 in favor of seeking the light, which would be located at Line Creek Drive in between existing lights at Planterra Way and MacDuff Parkway.

Voting for the motion were Mayor Harold Logsdon and council members Steve Boone and Cyndi Plunkett. Voting no were Don Haddix and Doug Sturbaum.

City Engineer David Borkowski noted that the traffic light "is not a done deal" because it must be approved by the Atlanta office of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

Several conditions were attached to the approval, including a requirement that the developer have the traffic lights in the corridor resynchronized, and the installation of a "loop" for traffic coming off Planterra Way and turning right onto Ga. Highway 54.

That loop will allow such traffic to be included as a turning movement as part of the signal's operation. Currently when traffic backs up in the morning drive time, cars often have difficulty turning right onto Hwy. 54, residents have said.

The city is also requiring that all costs incurred by the city's engineering department be paid for by the developer.

The light is being sought on behalf of Capital City Development which has city-approved plans to build a 175,000 sq. ft. shopping center on the south side of Hwy. 54 at Line Creek Drive.

The traffic light has previously been turned down twice by the local DOT office in Thomaston because the signal was deemed too close to the other ones at MacDuff Parkway and Planterra Way.

The development has been the source of some controversy because the City Council previously agreed to sell most of Line Creek Drive to CCD for a minimum of $500,000. Without ownership of the streets, CCD would not be able to build the larger-scale stores because of the city's setback rules.

Thanks for doing the "leg work". I completely missed the second step of that process. Probably not the last thing I'll miss either.

Glad to help. After TinCan brought it up I needed to refresh my memory anyway so I figured might as well share!

Good summary John.

Seems to me that without the lucrative big box lease that McMurrain was hoping for, it will be financially unrealistic to build that loop road and resynchronize the traffic lights - which of course assumes they are already synchronized and that would be hard to prove, but that's a different subject.

Council should send a signal (pun intended) to DOT that they oppose the traffic light and get that totally off the table. It is stupid to have another light so close to the others for just one side of the highway and solely for the benefit of one developer.
McMurrain will then sell the property or just give it back to Joel Cowan if he hasn't actually closed on it and the next developer will do something less intrusive under the control of the new council.

Ok with you Mr. Haddix?

The city council (spelled this way) meetings are public so the public can observe how their elected representatives perform their duties. They are held at 7PM so people with day jobs (generally speaking) can attend after work. Naturally laybouts and welfare recipients and house-husbands can attend as well. Retirees - especially David's Mom are welcome as well.

Public hearings are open to the public and the public is allowed input - both pro and con on the subject being discussed. Public hearings are scheduled weeks in advance and advertised, so interested parties can attend and provide input.

Town Hall meetings are obsolete except in Massachusetts and they date back to the 17th and 18th century. Town Meetings allow almost constant public input on every little thing. It is as close to a Democracy as you will ever see. They have also been phased out in favor of a representative form of government where we elect people to handle things for us - as the Constitution so clearly describes.

The issue discussed last week was a developer who has a written agreement with the city that specifies what he can and cannot build (size-wise) wants to change that agreement. The council members voted to not allow a discussion about those changes to proceed. Since 4 of them actively campaigned for office stating they were against said changes and we voted for them and elected them, that's how we participated in that decision.

Did you vote chrissy? Are you even registered?

You know, I agree with you, but Brown would have ripped Logsden (or any other Mayor) apart for denying public comment on such a big issue. So it'll be interesting to see if he comments on "his man." Additionally, it's hard enough to get people to City Council meetings. But Haddix' plan to only allow comments at workshops, generally in the past, held on weekends and odd hours will certainly limit the "public comment." So much for transparency and open govt. and public input.
Let's see if Brown is a man of principle as he likes to believe or just a whiny loser like I believe.
It's going to be a long four years.

But now that she's gone, I get your point. The brownone will have to comment on Haddix's plan at some point from his not-so-bully pulpit and as you point out, he sure would have gone after Logsdon or Lenox (and did).

Remember, Haddix is 100% correct and legal in what he did - even chrissy knows that now, but the brownscribe's take on it will be very interesting.

I do think webcasting the meetings is big positive step. It is unlikely we will ever get people attending council meetings in any significant number, but at least now people can watch the actual proceedings, hear the actual comments, arguments, etc.