Don Haddix
01-28-2008, 03:05 PM
Council Meeting - January 3rd (http://www.donhaddix.com/?p=26)
January 4th, 2008
Please understand I am speaking for myself on this site. I am not the Mayor and am not speaking for the Council as a whole. I am only speaking for Council Post 1.
I was officially sworn in January 3rd and had 3 items on the Agenda.
The first was the forum. Three of the Council Members wished to postpone this vote until they better understood Forums and related issues.
The second was the Moratorium.
It was stated the Morartium was only for retail. It was stated it did not apply to housing, industrial or offices. It was stated it did not apply to any already proposed and in work plans. It was stated that we needed it because our ordiances making it fully compliant with the Comprehensive Plan either did not exist, were insufficient or were flawed. It was stated that PTC needs a change of direction away from a retail development focus.
Such Moratoriums are already in force in Georgia, have withstood legal challenge and have been found legal in two Supreme Court cases. This was not like the 2002 Moratorium.
Public input was allowed and the developer community said:
1. It was a blanket moratorium on all development.
2. It stopped already in work proposals.
3. It sent a bad message to the business community that PTC was not friendly to the business community.
4. All retail has a positive income value to the PTC tax base.
5. That it was illegal, citing the 2002 Moratorium.
The citizens said:
1. They wanted the Moratorium and to change our ordiances as outlined.
2. The election was all about retail development.
3. That the citizens had a place in this discussion, they lived here and they would be here after the developers left. That their voices about what PTC was to be outweighed what the developers wanted.
Mayor Logsdon and Councilman Boone took positions that:
1. All retail has a positive income value to the PTC tax base.
2. It sent a bad message to the business community that PTC was not friendly to the business community.
3. Our existing ordinances addressed all my concerns about enforcing the Comprehensive Plan.
4. We only have 79 acres left in Commercial Zoning, so it didn’t warrant a Moratorium.
5. Retail tax income was our best source of revenue income.
Councilman Plunkett took the positions that:
1. It sends a bad message to the business community.
2. That my presentation of concerns about the lack of ordinances was valid and needs to be moved on quickly, starting with the Big Box ordinance.
3. We might get a lawsuit and might loose. She wanted a guaranteed win only.
4. That the risk of place hold plans being put on the table to escape new ordianances was valid.
Councilman Sturbaum:
1. Supported the Moratorium.
2. Supported the changes to and creation of ordinances needed under the Moratorium.
3. Stated the new ordinances change the focus from retail to industrial, office and other development that created jobs that allowed people to work, live, raise families and spend their money here.
So three did not want the Moratorium and three saw that our current ordinances either did not exist, were insufficient or flawed, therefore the Comprehensive Plan was not being protected or enforced and the risk of place holder plans being submitted to escape new ordinances was valid.
Not a full victory, but at least the recognition of many lackings in our ordinances in supporting our Comprehensive Plan is now known and there is a sense of urgency by some to correct that problem due to the threat of new unwanted development, including Big Boxes, being put on the table. It is now being seen more by more that personal opinion must be removed from the process. Also, it has been stressed these issues are not limited to existing unbuilt land, but areas facing redevelopment and potential areas of future anexxation.
The final item was discussion on the Police Station. Doug Sturbaum and I have spent three hours at the station and found extensive problems.
The nature of repairs and reports have since been evolving with a new report due soon. There will be more discussion on this matter since it appears a new set of costs will be presented and the extent of repairs keeps growing.
We are already looking at a million dollars worth of total repairs in a building that is only 6 years old and cost 1.8 million new, with more costs to come.
I believe we need a different station on a different location, either new construction or an existing building remodeled to suit. This site is not suitable for construction in my opinion.
January 4th, 2008
Please understand I am speaking for myself on this site. I am not the Mayor and am not speaking for the Council as a whole. I am only speaking for Council Post 1.
I was officially sworn in January 3rd and had 3 items on the Agenda.
The first was the forum. Three of the Council Members wished to postpone this vote until they better understood Forums and related issues.
The second was the Moratorium.
It was stated the Morartium was only for retail. It was stated it did not apply to housing, industrial or offices. It was stated it did not apply to any already proposed and in work plans. It was stated that we needed it because our ordiances making it fully compliant with the Comprehensive Plan either did not exist, were insufficient or were flawed. It was stated that PTC needs a change of direction away from a retail development focus.
Such Moratoriums are already in force in Georgia, have withstood legal challenge and have been found legal in two Supreme Court cases. This was not like the 2002 Moratorium.
Public input was allowed and the developer community said:
1. It was a blanket moratorium on all development.
2. It stopped already in work proposals.
3. It sent a bad message to the business community that PTC was not friendly to the business community.
4. All retail has a positive income value to the PTC tax base.
5. That it was illegal, citing the 2002 Moratorium.
The citizens said:
1. They wanted the Moratorium and to change our ordiances as outlined.
2. The election was all about retail development.
3. That the citizens had a place in this discussion, they lived here and they would be here after the developers left. That their voices about what PTC was to be outweighed what the developers wanted.
Mayor Logsdon and Councilman Boone took positions that:
1. All retail has a positive income value to the PTC tax base.
2. It sent a bad message to the business community that PTC was not friendly to the business community.
3. Our existing ordinances addressed all my concerns about enforcing the Comprehensive Plan.
4. We only have 79 acres left in Commercial Zoning, so it didn’t warrant a Moratorium.
5. Retail tax income was our best source of revenue income.
Councilman Plunkett took the positions that:
1. It sends a bad message to the business community.
2. That my presentation of concerns about the lack of ordinances was valid and needs to be moved on quickly, starting with the Big Box ordinance.
3. We might get a lawsuit and might loose. She wanted a guaranteed win only.
4. That the risk of place hold plans being put on the table to escape new ordianances was valid.
Councilman Sturbaum:
1. Supported the Moratorium.
2. Supported the changes to and creation of ordinances needed under the Moratorium.
3. Stated the new ordinances change the focus from retail to industrial, office and other development that created jobs that allowed people to work, live, raise families and spend their money here.
So three did not want the Moratorium and three saw that our current ordinances either did not exist, were insufficient or flawed, therefore the Comprehensive Plan was not being protected or enforced and the risk of place holder plans being submitted to escape new ordinances was valid.
Not a full victory, but at least the recognition of many lackings in our ordinances in supporting our Comprehensive Plan is now known and there is a sense of urgency by some to correct that problem due to the threat of new unwanted development, including Big Boxes, being put on the table. It is now being seen more by more that personal opinion must be removed from the process. Also, it has been stressed these issues are not limited to existing unbuilt land, but areas facing redevelopment and potential areas of future anexxation.
The final item was discussion on the Police Station. Doug Sturbaum and I have spent three hours at the station and found extensive problems.
The nature of repairs and reports have since been evolving with a new report due soon. There will be more discussion on this matter since it appears a new set of costs will be presented and the extent of repairs keeps growing.
We are already looking at a million dollars worth of total repairs in a building that is only 6 years old and cost 1.8 million new, with more costs to come.
I believe we need a different station on a different location, either new construction or an existing building remodeled to suit. This site is not suitable for construction in my opinion.