Search the ArchivesUser loginGoogle AdsNavigationThings to do calendar
Browse archives
Business Showcase
 Contact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
OPINION — What makes Cyndi run? Really, what drives her decision-making process? In the few instances where Councilwoman Cyndi Plunkett actually owns up to her infamous support of selling city streets to enable a big-box developer to construct larger big boxes, she cites aesthetics — her personal notion of aesthetics, not anything in city planning or zoning documents. She prefers big-box Kohl’s to — and this is her own term — “a 24-bay gas station.” Presumably the small amount of residents of nearby Cardiff Park also prefer Kohl’s to the gas station. That’s her rationale: a Kohl’s with its acres of asphalt parking is better for the nearby residents than a gas station or some other horror that the developer would maliciously inflict on the commercial area if he were denied the enabling city streets (as if banks would finance projects built for spite instead of for profit). The problem with her approach is that a group of volunteer citizens and city planning staff years before had carefully produced and the City Council had enacted as an ordinance a Highway 54 West “overlay” on the existing commercial zoning. That “overlay” produced the commercial areas alongside the highway from Huddleston Drive west to the city-limit line. Like it or not, that result came about through the time-honored “Peachtree City way,” through careful planning and prolonged citizen input before the final vote. That democratically produced result was scuttled by the Logsdon-Plunkett-Boone triumvirate in a vote that I called “the sell-out of Peachtree City.” Logsdon and Boone are nearly bad history now, prime examples of an “anything but” voter reaction that preferred style and empty words over substance. With just weeks left in their terms, the damage those two did will extend far into Peachtree City’s second 50 years. Let’s talk substance. Whatever a council member’s political or governing philosophy, probably 95 percent of all council votes don’t threaten the underpinnings of “the Peachtree City way of life.” But from time to time, a few decisions before the council are game-changers; such were the West Village annexation and the Hwy. 54 West vote. Such is the pending developers’ request for annexation on the city’s southside and the accompanying extension of city sewer service into the unsewered, unincorporated county. Particularly in matters of annexation, rezoning, land use planning, development and re-development, I believe Plunkett’s philosophy of local governance is fundamentally at odds with a majority of residents when these game-changing issues face the council. I think her flawed notions of her duty as a City Council member are extensions of her day job of being a mediator. She most clearly demonstrated her proclivity for mediation in the sale of the city streets, her negotiations with the developer and her vote to put city weight behind a stalled developers’ request for an unneeded traffic light. In her current campaign, Plunkett has bragged about her experience as a mediator and explicitly says she sees that as an important skill as mayor. I think she could not be more mistaken. There could not be a role more detrimental to the residents and taxpayers of Peachtree City than that of Mediator-in-Chief Plunkett. Here’s a definition: “Mediation is a process in which a third-party neutral assists in resolving a dispute between two or more other parties. It is a non-adversarial approach to conflict resolution. The role of the mediator is to facilitate communication between the parties, assist them in focusing on the real issues of the dispute, and generate options that meet the interests or needs of all relevant parties in an effort to resolve the conflict” (from BeyondIntractability.org). Just like in her day job, Cyndi took on the mediator’s role in the “dispute” between the developer and the spooked Cardiff Park residents. She tried to get the best deal possible between the developer and that small subdivision, and she will tell you today that’s exactly what she did. But that’s exactly what she should NOT have done. The real dispute was between the developer and the existing rules of the entire city, those rules that protect ALL property values and ALL residents in ALL subdivisions, not just a few. The rest of Peachtree City suffered because her default response is to mediate rather than to umpire. In these game-changers, she is NOT supposed to be a neutral third party; she is elected by the majority of us to represent the majority viewpoint. She is supposed to stand as the majority’s advocate (yes, even adversary) against all who would seek to change the written rules to give advantage to the few. In the game-changing decisions, Cyndi prefers to be a mediator, but in these cases the majority elected her to be an umpire, calling the balls and strikes over a plate with predetermined dimensions — the existing land use plan, the existing zoning rules, the existing overlay, the existing setbacks, the existing city streets. In other words, somebody who will say, “NO!” Instead, rather than represent the majority that elected her and abide by existing rules of the game, Plunkett became the “neutral” mediator to assist the only two parties she recognized as relevant — the developer and the small subdivision — to arrive at a “win-win” resolution, a win-win exclusive to the two special interests. She ignored the existing rules and the rest of us, setting awful precedents for future councils to navigate. As a mediator, she joined with Logsdon and Boone to change the rules to make them fit the special interests of the two parties. Exactly like Logsdon, Cyndi simply doesn’t listen to the rest of us non-relevant rabble. I think she views existing zoning rules as barriers to resolving “disputes.” As a mediator instead of an umpire, she arbitrarily widened the plate and enlarged the strike zone to accommodate the two special interests. And that’s how she will respond as mayor: as mediator-in-chief, looking for any possible ways to accommodate those who want to change the rules of the game to provide a win-win outcome for narrow, special interests. Developers and the big-bucks boys will line up to utilize her game-changing mediation talents: Win-win for the special interests and lose-lose for Peachtree City. I will say this: If you liked Logsdon, you’ll love Plunkett. The runoff is this coming Tuesday. I believe the top vote-getter Dec. 1, Don Haddix, as mayor will be a good and fair umpire — never a mediator! — who will listen to the majority of Peachtree City residents. I believe he will never vote to change the rules of the game to give advantage to the few over the many. He won’t view the mayor’s office as the next check-mark toward a higher office. He will deal with fiscal reality, not ignore it or mislead about its implications. And, I firmly believe, whatever else he does or does not do, at any time in the future, he will NOT be selling any city streets or changing any city rules to enable more or bigger big boxes for any developer. You would be wrong to underestimate the importance to our city of that last sentence. login to post comments | Cal Beverly's blog
|
AdvertisementsWho's new
Recent Comments
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 46 guests online.
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive forum topics
Recent staff blog posts
|
From Our Galleries Random Photos are from:
Featured Columnists
More Columnists |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright 2010 - Fayette Publishing, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Policy
Server 4
Click for Latest Gallery Additions
