Please when you go to the ballet box tommorow remember you are not only voting for a candidate you are also voting for their beliefs. I feel the most important issue this year is annexation. Therefore I ask everyone, before you press those "voting buttons", think to yourself; "do I like where Peachtree City is headed?","Would I like Peachtree City to grow and become more dense?" and finally "do I like increasing taxes?" if you answered no to all of these questions vote for Dan Tennant for mayor..... He is the only candidate against annexation, and also the only candidate that has a record of lowering our taxes........thank you

Greg T. Madison's blog | 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 Greg T. Madison on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:53pm.

Folks, as I explained above Annexation will make our city more crowded and more strained. Below I explained taxes and what Mr. Tennant has shared with me. Now, we can mesh both of these together. Do not be fooled by people saying the best way to lower taxes is to expand Peachtree City. (First let me say if that’s the case, YES for higher taxes). If this is true then I ask you why our tax increases are higher then ever. I understand that a dollar isn’t worth what it used to be worth, but not only aren’t we seeing just an increase of 5-6 % to keep up with fluctuation. We are seeing 12- 13% proposals. Thank god Tennant was there to get that proposed increase down to 8 or 9% or I would have never moved here. Brown has showed everyone all the great things he claims he has done and done alone. Well I remind the citizens that he did all these things on a budget that Mr. Tennant proposed. You see what I am trying to explain. He understands the city needs to spend money, but he also understands the city needs to be responsible on the money they spend.

JWM's picture
Submitted by JWM on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:03pm.

Mr. Tennant:

Maybe you did not see my post. How did the council votes go during your term ?

Submitted by Greg T. Madison on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:06pm.

What does that mean?? The records are there that's where I got all my information.

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:04pm.


You may not know this since you state that you are new to Peachtree City, but 4 years ago, Dan Tennant was summarily booted from his city council seat.

Dan is probably the fastest road to the death of Peachtree City of any of the candidates. By shutting the borders and claiming that he can reduce taxes, this city will begin to dissolve from anything that it used to represent. Cold hard fact is that we need new revenue. There is no fat to cut from the budget without cutting to the heart of Peachtree City. I am not for higher taxes, but I am also not for reducing the quality of life that is Peachtree City. By Dan doing these things, he will write our epitath.

We made number 8 on the Money Magazine list for a reason. That reason is not reduced services, higher taxes due to lack of fresh revenue, and an absolute shutting of the borders.

Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support Mr. Tennant and would encourage all to vote for anyone but him, well maybe not the Pizza guy either.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by Greg T. Madison on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:16pm.

A lot of people have a common misunderstanding when it comes to a candidate cutting taxes. They have a notion that cutting taxes actually cuts services from the budget, this is completely false. The local government works just like the federal government and when they claim to cut or reduce taxes, our services still will get funding, the candidate will just be more watchful to any new services proposed. So Mrs. Kinser I feel the same way you do, it is great we are number 8 on that list, Tennant helped just like Brown to get us there. What Tennant has proposed is that we just be cautious on the new programs we inherit.

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:34pm.


The misunderstanding starts on your side. I am Mr. Kinser and not a Mrs.

Unlike the Federal Government which has massive amounts of pork in its budget, this city does not. The cart paths require $6,000,000.00 in maintenance that is coming from the SPLOST. Our wonderful city is comprised of vast areas of green space which do not help our tax base. In fact, they add to the cost side as we have to pay city employees to maintain them.

By shutting the door behind you, you have effectively terminated new residential tax revenue. By cutting taxes today you are setting yourself up for a massive, and I repeat; massive tax increase in future years. Failure to do so will result in another budget deficit which will result in reduction of services.

Can you buy today's gasoline on yesterday's income? No. The city can't either. My point being that the city's costs are going higher, but you and your candidate are saying stop fresh revenue. I assume your health care coverage has gone up at least 15% each year for the past 3-4 years. So has the city's health care coverage. Where does this requirement for additional revenue come from? It can't if you cut taxes. Therefore, you either have to cut services or personnel. Either hurts the city.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that cutting taxes does not mean cutting services. That is exactly what it means. The city, like any business must have a certain minimum funding to meet expenses. When that level of income falls, you have to cut.

And just so I understand this concept of yours, exactly, and I repeat, exactly where does this funding come from when you make the statement "The local government works just like the federal government and when they claim to cut or reduce taxes, our services still will get funding". One word. TAXES.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by Greg T. Madison on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:32pm.

I am sorry I must have confused you. Basically reducing taxes comes down to this. Tennant is not saying that he will cut all taxes nor is he saying he will cut out our city services. He is merely saying that the city is spending money on crazy things that it shouldn’t. He came to my door asking to place a sign here and explained a situation with an assistant city manager with a salary of 100,000 plus benefits, and then he explained more examples of spending that our city is so urgently doing. Mr. Tennant then explained to me that, just like his history, he would fight the budget and keep any and all tax increases down as low as they can go. I was as concerned as you are, but he simply wants to eliminate not needed spending.

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:55pm.

Greg, up until this post, you have appeared to me to be an intelligent individual. Did you ever give thought to the fact that the Mayor is only 20% of the vote?

He/She doesn't control the other elected officials, so Dan's promises are empty, just like the city's emergency funds will be if he is elected.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by Greg T. Madison on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:04pm.

Dana it seems to me that you have a hidden agenda here against Tennant please explain??? Yes I understand that the mayor has no more power then anyone else on the council, but if you look at this election that way then no candidate has any platform issues, none of the candidates will be able to do anything anyway. From what I hear Tennant has stood strong and never swayed for what he promised the citizen's when he first ran for council. I believe in no annexation I believe in his history as a council man. I find it intresting that no one has yet challenged him on his voting history. Because my friend he sticks to his word.

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:10pm.


Every single candidate, except Mayor Brown has made a platform of rebuilding relationships with local governments. Those relationships do not just go beyond city hall. There are some on the council that have major differences with the Mayor. I want a candidate that can work with ther other 4 personalities as well. By the council working together, the city prospers.

They are not dumb people and they know what Dan is spouting cannot be done either.

As for a hidden agenda, I have none. I thought I made it very clear that I cannot support what I know is not good for the city and my family. What Dan is pushing isn't good for any of the above and therefore I cannot support him.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by Greg T. Madison on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:16pm.

All right it looks like we hit a fork in the road, I explained how Dan can do what he promised and you explained how he can't....That's America thank god!!! I respect your opinion and we will find out tomorrow...

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:19pm.

Here Here.

Good night.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:43pm.

Care to buy some ocean front property in Idaho?

Dana Kinser

JWM's picture
Submitted by JWM on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:43pm.

When Dan Tennant was on council I can remember some of this debate about tax hikes. I’ll take your word for it that he voted against it. Didn’t council raise taxes, though ? I know that county taxes go up every year. But didn’t they also go up in the city ?

Submitted by Greg T. Madison on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:12pm.

Hey sorry Didn't see this message. You see when Tennant was on the council the city proposed a 12-13% tax increase and Dan faught hard to get that down to a single digit increase. That is why I say he has a record of fighting for our tax dollars.

Submitted by Reality Bytes on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:47pm.

The city's millage rate (which is how the taxes are collected) has not gone up in, I believe, two years. Unfortunately, when property assessments, which are controlled by the County, go up, the amount you pay in taxes go up...but not the percentage.

So....who's to blame for the tax increase? Look east, young man, to Fayetteville and the County Tax Commissioner.

JWM's picture
Submitted by JWM on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:50pm.

A net tax increase may, in fact, occur due to reassessment and an increase in value. But the county could certainly choose to roll back the millage rate a corresponding amount. They simply refuse to do that and blame it on the increase in values. Many people believe them !

Submitted by Reality Bytes on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:09pm.

....and it goes back to the initial equation. Revenues less expenditures equals what's left. More service requirements/desires/needs = more expenditures.

The strategy of raising property values while keeping millage rates the same is EXACTLY what governments do to try to defend tax increases. How many people actually understand what a millage rate is?

If you lower the millage rate even lower than it is, and you still have the same or higher expenditures and, Deity forbid the value of homes goes DOWN, imagine the increase in tax percentage then!'s a fine line to walk.

It's late, so I might not be making much sense. I'll wait for one more go around of competing thoughts, then it's bedtime for bonzo.

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:08pm.

You are correct. In fact the assessments went up significantly this year. The city could have rolled back the millage rate, but instead chose to simply spend the money. With the huge increase in energy costs, significant number of citizens with wage decreases, even a little would have helped. Instead everyone's favorite Councilman, Steve Rapson, stated that he would rather leave the millage where it is instead of rolling it back only to increase it a few years down the road. I thought maybe a rollback during this time of financial concern for most and then fiscal responsibility "down the road" to limit increases would be more in keeping with both Brown and Rapson's stated "promises." Instead they'd rather just spend it. But then who would pay for the Bridge, or any of the other "pet projects" they want. Makes one wonder what Brown really meant in 2001 when he said:

"Steve Brown promises that raising your property taxes will the last resort and not the first line of defense. No more wasting precious dollars on pet projects."

Unneeded Bridges, Wi-fi at sports fields, expansion of city jobs i.e.$106,000 Asst. City Manager, etc. Seems like "pet projects" to me. Oh well, just another Brown broken promise.

Submitted by Just be Honest on Tue, 11/08/2005 - 9:14am.

I suggest you speak with your representatives. I did. Judy said that the Wi-Fi Network is for residents like me, a parent volunteer, who could stay at the baseball field and work via computer access than have to drive home and then come back later after practice. If you want me to pay for that then you should pay for the roller hockey ring, neighborhood pools,
The purpose of the "gateway bridge” connects a large majority of residents living on the northside of Highway 54, ties in the Avenue shopping center complex to Home Depot and Best Buys, connects the LCI plan that has generated over two million dollars of grant awards to this city. But the real reason was to “stop commercialization of property” down Highway 54 into Coweta County. The property cost $850,000 is about $30,000 year and was for forty-eight acres NOT just the three acres YOU care about. I do however agree with you that I don’t think you’re Carol Fritz. I think you’re Robin Lorber and that your REAL ISSUE is selling the property across from where the bridge is going. You see I can read Real Estate signs and YOUR NAME is proudly displayed. Am I typing slow enough for you?

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 11/08/2005 - 11:03am.

Since you are of the type who seems not to believe anything, let me add this to my last post. Look up the City Council Minutes for May/June of 2002. Let me "cut and paste" this about the acreage (ok, it was $825,000 not $850,000) from the May 16 Executive Session meeting:

"City Attorney Rick Lindsey told Council that Marvin Isenburg had accepted an offer of $825,000 for approximately five acres of land located on Highway 54 adjacent to the entrance of Wynnmeade subdivision....Financial Services Director Paul Salvatore told Council the debt service on the lease/purchase of the land would be approximately $88,000 per year."

Now, regardless of your opinion of the purchase, it was 5 acres not 40 acres as Brown now claims, and the "quarterly payment was $21,586. Annual debt service would be $86,343" not "$30,000" as you claimed (June 6 Council minutes). The purchase was approved in the June 6 meeting. DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Submitted by dkinser on Tue, 11/08/2005 - 11:18am.

I did do my research, and I noticed that happened to be another council meeting that Dan Tennant couldn't attend.

During his terms in 2001 and 2002, then Councilman Tennant missed 8 meetings. Comparatively, the most any other member missed was 3 and these were due to deaths in the family.

The election will decide this and not me, but I don't think that Dan's real job will allow him to be Mayor.

I did not vote for him this morning.

Dana Kinser

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 11/08/2005 - 3:58pm.

I am certainly not defending Dan, but actually he did attend the Executive Session of May 16,2002 where the property purchase was voted on. So, he was going to vote for it anyway. I personally think it was a "rushed" purchase with little real thought and planning. That, and the fact that it was "unbudgeted" at a time when the budget was in crises made me believe it was unwise.

Submitted by birdwoman on Tue, 11/08/2005 - 11:16am.

You are still sadly mistaken and misinformed. The purchase was for 48 acres and included a conversation easement and environmental credits. Why don't you call City hall and become an "informed" citizen. You are obviously Pro-Commercialization, Pro-Development and Pro-DIRECTPAC. Carol, Robin, Rex, john whoever you are your 15 minutes is over. bye.

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 11/08/2005 - 3:53pm.

Hey, you kind of layed an egg "birdwoman." Go ahead, read the council minutes of May 16,2002 Executive Session and June 6,2002 Regular Session. Better yet, I have copied and pasted them below:

"City Council of Peachtree City
Minutes of Executive Session
May 16, 2002

Mayor Steve Brown called the executive session to order immediately following the regular meeting on Thursday, May 16, 2002. Other Council Members present were: Annie McMenamin, Steve Rapson, Dan Tennant, and Murray Weed. City Manager Jim Basinger, Financial Services Director Paul Salvatore, and City Attorney Rick Lindsey were also present.

City Attorney Rick Lindsey told Council that Marvin Isenburg had accepted an offer of $825,000 for approximately five acres of land located on Highway 54 adjacent to the entrance of Wynnmeade subdivision. The only problem was Isenburg wanted to close on the deal the next day, May 17. Lindsey continued that in order to finance the purchase the City would have to hold a public hearing on June 6, 2002. Isenburg wanted to sign the sales agreement the next day, May 17.

Financial Services Director Paul Salvatore told Council the debt service on the lease/purchase of the land would be approximately $88,000 per year. One quarterly payment of $22,000 needed to be made this year and the funds needed to come from Council Contingency. Lindsey explained that the City could not get the bank-qualified rate because of the WASA bonds. The City could only obligate to $10 million a year to be eligible for the bank-qualified rate. Five thousand ($5,000) dollars in earnest money was needed by the next day, May 17. Basinger said there would not have to be a tax increase to pay for the land, but the money would come out of reserve funds. Rapson said he thought it was a good deal and said Council needed to take the $22,000 for the first quarterly payment out of Council Contingency. Lindsey showed the Council Members the purchase agreement. He added that Isenburg’s attorney was working on an agreement for the 45 acres of wetlands because of the mitigation rights. He clarified that Isenburg actually held the option on the property, which was owned by Jennings Land. Lindsey continued that the Mayor needed to be authorized to sign the purchase agreement. The Council Members acknowledged their agreement with the authorization."

Brown moved to recess out of executive session and reconvene the regular meeting. Tennant seconded. The motion carried unanimously."

Please note that the purchase, as stated in the above minutes, was for FIVE ACRES.

The following quote is from the June 6,2002 meeting when the property was purchased:

"Developmental Services Director Jim Williams explained that when the Wynnmeade subdivision was platted Blount Construction acquired the property and did the platting. The two tracts that were adjacent to Highway 54 (located on the east and west side of the Wynnmeade entrance) were left out of the plans. The tract on the east side of the street was approximately three acres. The parcel on the west side was two acres."

Two tracts, one of 3 acres and one of 2 acres. Total is 5 acres, NOT 45 Acres. Or are you suggesting that the City Council Minutes are in err?

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Tue, 11/08/2005 - 9:45am.

First, let me try to put this in simple terms. I am a full blooded American MALE!!!!! Why must everyone insist on "who I am" anyway. As for the "40 acres," sorry, that wasn't the deal. I was there. It was 5 acres and $80,000 per year.

The plan is for crossings at Huddleston road and a tunnel from the Avenue to the other side of 54. The bridge is being built to, as you said, stop development. That is certainly Browns reasoning. May actually be a good idea, but how about letting the people decide as he promised he will. At least tell us the truth.

As for my real issue, I am a retired military officer. I am not in real estate, don't work in the development industry, don't even work in Fayette County. I am not running nor do I hold, nor have I ever held public office. I volunteered as a coach for both soccer and baseball for over 14 years, have mentored in our local schools, helped run both soccer and baseball, etc. As I said, the Wi-Fi is a good "fluff" item but if you really need it, assess the players. When I left soccer there were over 2000 players. A $5 assessment would raise $10,000 for wi-fi. Add baseball, basketball, etc. and the assesment would be only a few dollars. If you are a "parent volunteer" you wouldn't be driving home then coming back after practice, you would be helping with practice. If you are simply a parent who doesn't want to have to leave practice that is admirable but hardly the citizen's responsibility. As for pools, etc, I am fully in support of that. The Wi-Fi money could be used to build playground equipment at Drake Field (for example). Something that benefits ALL PTC residents. Biggest shortage this city has is park space. How about diverting the "fluff" money to making Drake Field a nicely designed city park where we can take our families and enjoy nice days by the lake?

As for your "Brown" tactic of using this, or any public forum to name people and attempt to discredit them, it is just plain inappropriate. You are engaging in a malicious anonymous tactic that certainly speaks volumes about your "character" and "integrity." So simply stop trying to figure out who I am. You don't know me. I doubt you would recognize my name. And if you are going to obsess over me, at least get the gender right. But stop trying to discredit people that you seem to have an unnatural obsession with. Now, AM I TYPING SLOW ENOUGH FOR YOU????

Submitted by Joe Swanson on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:24pm.

I agree with Dana Kinser's earlier observation that your preoccupation with Steve Brown is rather odd:

"It is easy to point the finger of blame solely on the target of your anger, Mayor Brown, but there are 4 other elected officials that make the decisions too. I notice that you take aim at Brown, Rapson, and Weed, but what about Rutherford and Kourajian. They have voted on these same issues too."

Why is that you choose to attack only part of council ? And the discussion is about Mr. Tennant's positions. Why do you go way far afield to attack Mayor Brown ? Almost all of these votes you speak of were unanimous. Wouldn't you agree how transparent that appears, Birdgirl ? Hmmmm....

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:40pm.

Well, as I said, I am not a "girl." Sorry. Get over Carol Fritz. And as much as I think this may be a very difficult concept for you to understand, the reason I concentrate on Brown and Rapson (I really don't mention Weed much), is read very...very...slowly so you don't get confused, only Brown and Rapson are running for re-election. If Rutherford and Kourajian were running, then certainly their voting records would be scrutinized. Did I type to fast for you? Are you having trouble with the "Gee, only Brown and Rapson are running" concept? Now,for the final time... and this is getting quite boring... I am NOT CAROL FRITZ!!!!! Try...I mean REALLY TRY to get that!!!
Again, did I type to fast for you to follow?

Submitted by Reality Bytes on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:11pm.

how much was this wi-fi thing? haven't heard of that one....

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:30pm.

Truthfully, as I am sure someone will point out, the Wi-Fi was only about $14,000. Surely a "drop in the bucket." But as these "drops" fall they can become floods. The project will put Wi-fi at the soccer, baseball fields, field house, etc. Rapson stated in the paper that it would encourage parents to become more involved in their kids sports if they can take their computers to the fields and do work. How dumb is that? Truth is it is a project that will yield little results and can be funded by the sports clubs. There is at least 2000 soccer players. $5 assessment each would amount to $10,000. Let those who will use it pay for it. As I said, only a "drop in the bucket," but it goes to show the mentality of the mayor and council. Since they think they have the money, why not find projects to spend it on? It's like the "gateway bridge." The property cost us $850,000 which, after paying it off, will be around $1.1 million. Added to our share of the bridge, with no overruns we will spend around $1.3 million on a bridge over Hwy 54 to Line Creek. Nice to have? Maybe. But not now. By the way, Brown promised a vote on all large projects. Do you remember getting to vote on the bridge? Of course not. The property purchase was proposed, discussed, and voted on at a single council meeting. I don't even think it was an agenda item. Other examples incude the Assistant City Manager. The city is near buildout, but we instituted an Assitant City Manager position at the cost of $106,000. Why now? The former City Manager didn't need an assistant, and he didn't have a "full time" mayor micromanaging him. And there are a number of other "pet projects" and costs. With all the increases in the cost of living for the citizens, loss of wages to many such as Delta employees, wouldn't you expect someone who claims "responsible fiscal policy" to put those "nice to have" items on hold and concentrate on the "need now" items? So what happened to Brown and Rapson who both claim "fiscal responsibility?"

Submitted by Reality Bytes on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:37pm.

I like the idea of the soccer players paying for it....the concept of a "user fee" isn't a bad idea. If I want to use a field to play a season of soccer or baseball, I pay for registration. So add a little more in to make sure that we can afford to keep the fields up to shape.

And then, less taxes for everybody else? Every little bit helps - I think that's the concept of Dar's home sales fee - you put a little bit more in on the front end to get better results on the back end.

OK, time for sleep....night all. And THANK YOU for the reasonable debate, all who were reasonable.

Submitted by Joe Swanson on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:36pm.

Birdgal continues the attack on Rapson and Brown. Let's forget that she makes no posts with anything positive or constructive. But notice, as Dana Kinser pointed out, she conveniently ignores that it takes more than two people on a five member council to do these things. And besides, Birdgirl, a $14,000 WIFI project does a lot less damage than a row of Big Boxes. Why nothing ever positive from you?

birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 11:41pm.

Ok, you are a dolt!

Submitted by Reality Bytes on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:28pm.

OK - revenues are identified each year: taxes, loans, grants, savings. Expenses are identified: personnel, equipment, maintenance, etc. If revenues are less than expenditures, funds come from loans or reduction in savings from previous years, stored for "tough times". A continued reduction in savings over time leaves no money.

The federal government has a deficit, a mythical amount of money it owes itself. Local governments DO NOT have that. The bills still have to be paid - perhaps you forget New York City in the late 1970s, declaring itself bankrupt (or close to it)? Perhaps you didn't read about Lithonia recently...if they run out of money, the town stops providing services it cannot afford and must be bailed out.

Please discuss in detail how services get funded when revenues aren't there. I'm interested in your analysis.

Submitted by Investq on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:37pm.

Our best strategy is to continue to focus on the fundamentals of finance that our current council and Mayor Brown are doing. Our tax base will be healthy if we continue to attract new businesses to our industrial areas to take some taxation pressure from our homeowners. Homeowners are a big drain on the budget. Businesses are contributors. Keep up with roads, water and sewer and work with the state agencies to get business here. We need new sources of revenue. The new sources of revenue should be to continue the success in the industrial area. Look at the businesses that have chosen PTC; it is an impressive legacy. And the planners years ago provided a platform for even more industrial growth. We need more Cooper Lighting and Panansonic ribbon cuttings. By invoking a solution that extracts even more taxes on homes, all we do is overburden an already overtaxed base. Our current council is doing a good job to expand this trend. We need to continue with the plan that is in motion to expand the base and we need to expand it into the commercial and industrial fields.

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:49pm.

You state that homeowners are a big drain on the budget. I was told by a County Commissioner that a house needed to be valued at $240,000.00 to be tax neutral. Anything over that and it was considered tax positive. Anything less, and you would be correct.

The houses that Wieland is proposing in the annexation will sell for an average of $500,000.00 which makes them a good source of revenue for the city, county, and Board of Education. And this does not include the one time fee for impact fees.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by Investq on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:55pm.

Is there any way that a local government can limit residential to that price range, in order to keep the tax impact positive ?

Would not senior/retiree zero lot line projects be similar in impact?

I was not aware of that statistic.

Submitted by dkinser on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 10:08pm.

I don't think they can. To do so would be simply inflating the values to generate taxes. That would have a negative impact on the houses that are valued under that amount. The better way is with cautious annexation and revitalization. Allowing the better builders to do their magic which increases the tax base but the growth is controlled by the city.

The bigger issue that we are facing is the in-fills. In the older sections along the lake, houses are going to be sold, bulldozed, and a much larger house will go into it's place. Yes it will generate a higher tax, but we lose that Peachtree City consistent look. In-fills have rapidly become one of the largest headaches for any Planning and Zoning Commission.

Just as the current council has developed an Overlay Zone for commercial tracts, I would love to see them develop something similar for residental. That would forever maintain the consistent look that we are accustomed to.

Dana Kinser

Submitted by Reality Bytes on Mon, 11/07/2005 - 9:43pm.

Copy....paste...repeat. I agree that business needs to be expanded. Can you please cite concrete examples of the current council and mayor focusing on the fundamentals of finance by expanding industrial and commercial base?

Are there tax incentives for businesses to move here?

Does the political climate appear calm and stable?

Comment viewing options

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