89 Acres

[Don Haddix]

The 89 Acres of John Wieland in Wilksmoor is a complex issue at the moment.

Since the ACC Task Force is meeting and negotiating issues I will not go into details upon that item.

In general, here is where it sits:


The ACC Task Force is working on:

Moving PTC from the final two to the site choice for ACC.
Obtaining property for ACC and hopefully Clayton State College as well.
Placement and planning for the ACC and associated areas.
Working with the BOE on school location issues.





BOE school location issues:

Option for property for an elementary school from John Wieland has, or is about to, expired.
Inability to obtain a bond for new school building for at least five years.
Finding an alternative site for a future elementary school. The desire is to be in Wilksmoor but the reality is that may not be a realistic goal.


Multi-Family Housing Zoning Moratorium:

The reason for the Moratorium still exists.
We have over five years worth of home inventory for sale in PTC. So, there is no need for any new housing of any kind at this time, especially high density such as townhomes and condominium complexes.
No property has currently been provided for ACC.
ACC has not made its final site choice. But getting the property would almost assure a PTC selection.
The 89 Acres is currently zoned GI, so to actually build homes of any kind would also require a rezoning, which there is no current justification to do.
John Wieland wants the Moratorium lifted on the 89 Acres to proceed with planning.
It is premature to lift since without the land and college there is nothing to justify planning for anything that contains Multi-Family.
No final location for the ACC has been designated. So again, there is nothing firm to plan for.
A medical research facility seeks to locate on 20 Acres in Wilksmoor. That needs to be accomodated within the planning and can locate in the current GI zoning.
As GI a Professional Center can be built, which would better suite the needs of PTC than homes.
Even with ACC exactly what mix of school, office, institutional and housing would be ideal has yet to be determined since some information is still too soft to proceed upon.



Therefore, until we get land and the ACC there are too many unknowns to proceed with any true planning. We are looking at one or two colleges, a medical research facility, a professional center, an appropriate mix of student and family housing, lifting a Moratorium on an exactly unknown area of land and potential rezoning.

It is too early to proceed with planning anything in detail.

We understand John Wieland is a for-profit business. But that does not give superior rights beyond what zoning and ordinance permits, as some believe it does. This has to be right for PTC.

But if it is made right for PTC then it will be profitable for John Wieland as well.

[Don Haddix]

The Wieland argument for lifting the Moratorium is, in the main, the Task Force voted it should be lifted.

But, I have seen no report from the Task Force and I do not believe one was every actually written. So, I pursued information about the vote from one who was on the Task Force. They reported to me that the vote to lift was based upon ACC being part of the 89 Acres, which makes the recommend moot since Wieland has decided against the ACC being on the 89.

Therefore, until something changes, here is what I see as regards the request to lift the Moratorium:


The reason for the Moratorium still exists.
The BOE cannot bond another school for 5-7 years.
The Task Force vote to lift is moot since the conditions of the vote are not being met by Wieland.
It will be more than 2 years before the economy can even begin to turn around.
It will be in the neighborhood of 7 years for the housing industry to turn around. Fayette is currently flat to negative.
PTC already has a housing inventory of over 5 years.
A feasible alternative site and plan for ACC is now in work.
Wieland has presented nothing else to justify lifting the Moratorium.

Therefore there is no reason to lift the Moratorium or consider rezoning the 89 Acres to Residential of any type.

[1smartcookie]

The Wieland argument for lifting the Moratorium is, in the main, the Task Force voted it should be lifted.

But, I have seen no report from the Task Force and I do not believe one was every actually written. So, I pursued information about the vote from one who was on the Task Force. They reported to me that the vote to lift was based upon ACC being part of the 89 Acres, which makes the recommend moot since Wieland has decided against the ACC being on the 89.

Therefore, until something changes, here is what I see as regards the request to lift the Moratorium:


The reason for the Moratorium still exists.
The BOE cannot bond another school for 5-7 years.
The Task Force vote to lift is moot since the conditions of the vote are not being met by Wieland.
It will be more than 2 years before the economy can even begin to turn around.
It will be in the neighborhood of 7 years for the housing industry to turn around. Fayette is currently flat to negative.
PTC already has a housing inventory of over 5 years.
A feasible alternative site and plan for ACC is now in work.
Wieland has presented nothing else to justify lifting the Moratorium.
Therefore there is no reason to lift the Moratorium or consider rezoning the 89 Acres to Residential of any type.

Mr. Haddix thank you for the update. I agree with you 100%. We do not need more empty houses, townhouses, apts, etc. There was really no need with Wieland land being used for ACC and definitely no need now that that land is not in consideration for ACC. One again, thanks for fighting for Peachtree City citizens.

[Don Haddix]

The Moratorium was lifted tonight in a 3-2 vote, for:
Cyndi Plunkett
Harold Logsdon
Steve Boone
Against:
Doug Sturbaum
Don Haddix

In spite of many arguments the reason was the 89 Acre Task Force wanted it lifted, even though Marty Mullin, who was on the Task Force, admitted the Task Force didn't specify when it needed lifted.

[CitizenAl]

Lifting the ban on multi-family housing is another bow to the developers. It is not good for PTC. I only hope they cannot do too much damage before we get them OUT in the next election.

[Don Haddix]

The questions that need to be understood here are:


Do we need more housing?
Can Wilkmoor handle more housing?
What does each residential zoning require and allow?
What is Multi-Family?
Should the Mult-Family Moratorium have been lifted?
Does Councilwoman Plunkett's exclusions adequately address and protect against concerns about Multi-Family Housing?
Is it a legitimate argument to say we can lift it the Moratorium but that does not mean rezoning will be given?

My answer to all of the above is no.


You do not lift such as the Moratorium unless you intend to rezone.
The only way to actually protect against the high density is to look at low density zoning, something that does not require lifting the Moratorium.

So why lift the Moratorium at all:


More one time fee collections.
Thinking more homes aids the Budget by increasing the Tax Digest for property taxes. It does not.
Thinking it attracts more residents to PTC. It does not. That requires other reasons for which we already have a huge inventory of homes to satisfy.
Wieland, as did McMurrain, threatened to build undesirable development on the property. Which would not happen because there is no profit in such construction.

Added information:

Sorry, but I cannot give you a direct link the page. It will not display, so:


Click here (http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/code_list.asp?stateID=10)
Click PTC
Click Peachtree City Code of Ordinances
Search 'multi-family'
In addition:


ARTICLE XIV. MULTI-FAMILY--REZONING MORATORIIUM*
__________
*Editor's note: Ord. No. 727, adopted Nov. 4, 1999, renumbered art. XIV, §§ 1401--1404 to art. XV, §§ 1501--1504 and added a new art. XIV, §§ 1401--1404 as herein set out.


__________


Sec. 1401. Purpose.
In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, the city has determined that a moratorium on the zoning or rezoning of property for development of multifamily housing needs to be adopted and enforced for all property in the City of Peachtree City not currently zoned for use as multifamily.

This moratorium is intended to promote: the orderly development of property in the city; maintain the high quality of police services now provided; maintain the high quality of emergency and fire services now provided; maintain the quality of education now provided; maintain the high quality of life now existing; help reduce traffic congestion; and ameliorate air quality standards.

(Ord. No. 727, 11-4-1999)


Sec. 1402. Findings.
The mayor and council have made the following findings of fact in consideration of this moratorium:

(a) The development of additional multifamily housing would create a significant burden on the police department and emergency and fire departments for the city;

(b) The development of additional multi-family housing would overburden area schools

(c) The development of additional multi-family housing would exhaust available resources, thus reducing the quality of life now existing; and

(d) The development of additional multi-family housing would increase traffic congestion, which also reduces air quality.

(Ord. No. 727, 11-4-1999)


Sec. 1403. Moratorium.
The Mayor and Council of the City of Peachtree City hereby directs its staff to accept no applications seeking to zone or rezone property to any designation that would allow the development of the property as multi-family.

(a) Multi-family shall include apartments, townhouses, duplexes, condominiums and assisted living facilities.

(b) This moratorium shall be in effect for a period of one year and shall automatically expire if not reviewed by the mayor and council and if deemed necessary, renewed.

(c) This moratorium shall not apply to property already zoned for use as multifamily.

(Ord. No. 727, 11-4-1999)


Sec. 1404. Appeals.
Any party with an ownership interest in property in the city that believes said property owner is severely prejudiced by this moratorium may file an application with the city planner requesting that the mayor and council remove the moratorium as it applies to the property.

(a) The application shall be accepted by the city planner and placed on the council agenda after being properly advertised, and then, considered by the mayor and council.

(b) City staff shall only provide council with current land use and zoning information regarding the subject property and its surrounding properties and shall not make a recommendation to council on the application to lift the moratorium.

(c) In the event council lifts the moratorium, the property owner may then submit the request for rezoning following established procedures.

(d) In the event council declines to lift the moratorium, the property owner shall have the same rights and follow the same procedures as those connected with the denial of a rezoning request.

(Ord. No. 727, 11-4-1999)

[Wilbur]

Mr. Haddix,

I appreciate that you have started this website. I am glad that you are reaching out to the community to both listen and pass along information.
I do not agree with you on this particular issue, but I am a whole-hearted supporter of your stated goal of drawing job centers--particularly white-collar job centers--to Peachtree City. Our policy positions may differ a little here and there, but you have not done anything on the council that would lead me to vote against you.

However, outside of the council, you are doing one thing that will directly lead me to vote against you in the next election and place my trust in somebody else. I am referring here to your active participation in the blogs on the webpage: www.thecitizen.com.

On the surface, or to the untrained eye, the blogging on thecitizen.com may seem rather harmless. Users pick names and pictures for themselves and then argue anonymously over occasionally important news items. This is ok.

The ethical problems on thecitizen.com arise from the fact that the blogs are placed directly underneath the headline and the news story from this legitimate news source. Suddenly, anyone can make any anonymous comment about the "news" and have others anonymously read and respond. In thecitizen.com's format, these comments become part of the original story.

This format--which allows unsigned letters to the editor to be immediately published--does not mix well with the traditional ethics of journalism. (The Citizen is not a member of the Georgia Press Association). Thecitizen.com's format IS innovative and seemingly popular, so why not embrace it? It doesn't seem to bother you personally at all. As a public figure, your name comes up from time to time. People might make some un-based accusations about you and your votes, but you have no problem "taking it" or setting the record straight.

However, I would be surprised if you didn't find some ethical and worrisome moral problems with this story and the blogging that accompanies it:
http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/30042

Most of the blogging on this particular item amounts to nothing more than unsigned, published inflammatory statements that espouse alarmingly bigoted views and ideas.

The Citizen is not a subscriber based entity (another traditional ethical taboo). Therefore, publisher Cal Beverly is accountable first and foremost to his advertisers. He has learned that the more race-baiting, sensationalism and anonymous defamation that he packs into his website (and print editions), the more eyes he draws to his advertisements. The online blogs were designed to widen Beverly's ego/influence and deepen his pockets. The Citizen is what happens when the deplorable standard of national television "journalism" (cnn, fox news, etc.) is applied at the local level. In short, Thecitizen.com is a shameful embarrassment to all Fayette residents. Take out the community section and the sports and all you have left is a dirty tabloid.

Like the National Enquirer, The Citizen and thecitizen.com are best when completely ignored--Especially by the people who serve in public office. As an elected official, part of your duty is to uphold the moral and ethical standards of your office. By participating on thecitizen.com you have failed us in that regard. I am disappointed in you and I hope that you will rethink your willingness to participate on that website.

Sincerely,
Wilbur Swain

[Wilbur]

P.S. (In your elected position, you have many ways to correctly defend your position on a particular issue. The cheapest and easiest is to write a signed letter to the editors of the local newspapers (and websites like www.fayettefrontpage.com). You can also send out mailers, take out an ad, or even appear on a local radio station. Town hall meetings also work.)

[Don Haddix]

Mr. Swain,

I am not a journalist, but an elected official. I get stopped on the street by people whose name I do not know and asked questions, receive phone calls, PTC email, questions via cohorts and so on. I do not ask for names.

In the election I did not ask the moderators who asked the question, where did they live and so on.

Why? Because what is at issue is the question asked. If it is pertinent, legit and reasonable, it does not matter who asked it. The question, not the questioner, is what is at issue.

Should I ask for proof you are who you claim to be? Get your phone number to call and only let you hear answers?

Would you rather I do as others do and only answer emails with names attached that are only seen by the sender, receiver and whatever persons they choose to share them with? Only say things in a controlled environment where I did or did not have to even let you ask your question? Did or did not have to answer?

While I respect your right to feel as you do, I do not understand the point of putting the name of the person asking as more important than the question. Or saying it is okay to ask one place but not another.

Do I have to answer every question? No. Especially if it is not a real question but a personal attack or such.

Do I have people that don't like me and/or my politics? Most assuredly. But, I am still elected to represent them? Yes. Can I be thinned skin and only answer my supporters? No.

Do I find somethings said in many communication formats distasteful? Yes, including by a number of journalists.

I know a few that adhere to your thinking about these issues. I would hope that while they don't like my openness that they would want to make informed judgments about me and my votes.

Governance from silence or controlled and heavily filtered communications is a common complaint against elected officials. I just am not that kind of elected office.

If I cannot handle a spectrum of communications, thoughts and discourse, then I should not be in politics, as many have proven they should not be.

I hope that at least helps you to understand my thinking.

[Don Haddix]

P.S. (In your elected position, you have many ways to correctly defend your position on a particular issue. The cheapest and easiest is to write a signed letter to the editors of the local newspapers (and websites like www.fayettefrontpage.com (http://www.fayettefrontpage.com)). You can also send out mailers, take out an ad, or even appear on a local radio station. Town hall meetings also work.)
A Town Hall Meeting is being planned already. That is discussion.

As for the others, those are statements, and have their place, but are not discussions. Discussions allow development of an idea rather than just telling people, "Here it is, live with it." It also allows for actually discovering ways to tweak an idea or completely change it if a missed point is brought to one's attention.

By the way, I am on Fayette Front Page here (http://www.fayettefrontpage.com/pol-haddix.htm). Those posts are extracted from their link here (http://donhaddix.blogspot.com/). One submission was used as a news article and a couple have not been copied over yet.

A complaint heard often in local politics is that citizens do not attend meetings and such. But in turn citizens feel they are not listened or do not give time for discussion on issues when allowed to speak.

There is no perfect answer. There will always be the unsatisfied.

Please understand I rarely post on the Citizen. I recognize it is a Blog and in the main not a place for me, but for those who wish to talk about me and those like me.

But there are times when it appropriate, I believe. Just will not be that often.

[Wilbur]

I appreciate your candid and quick reply.

Again, I commend you for setting up this web site for people to interact with you.

I am not against 'openness' as you put it. I wish that every local elected official would open a forum like this one, or join yours (as several have already done). I laud your willingness to talk to constituents, even if they are anonymous ones who disagree with you.

My problem, as I intended to clearly state in my previous post, is with the lack of ethics and morals routinely on display at thecitizen.com--in both the blogs and the reporting.

By posting there, you--as an elected official--give it more credibility than it deserves. This is where you stumbled ethically in my book. As you pointed out, you were elected to represent all of us. We look to you and all publicly elected officials to uphold higher standards across the board.

I believe that you have good intentions. I know you are not in the business of pleasing everyone. But I assure you that it would greatly help the moral standards of this community if next time you felt the urge to post on thecitizen.com's blogs, you simply posted a link to a discussion thread on your own website.

thanks again.

[Don Haddix]

I appreciate your candid and quick reply.
I try to be prompt.
Again, I commend you for setting up this web site for people to interact with you.
Thank you.
I am not against 'openness' as you put it. I wish that every local elected official would open a forum like this one, or join yours (as several have already done). I laud your willingness to talk to constituents, even if they are anonymous ones who disagree with you.
Thanks again.

My problem, as I intended to clearly state in my previous post, is with the lack of ethics and morals routinely on display at thecitizen.com--in both the blogs and the reporting.
That is another issue and point of view as an elected official I upon which I shall remain neutral.
By posting there, you--as an elected official--give it more credibility than it deserves.
Debatable point, I believe.
This is where you stumbled ethically in my book.
Nothing unethical there. My addressing issues about me are neither and endorsement or a condemnation of the Citizen.

I do represent all of those folk, agree with them or not.
As you pointed out, you were elected to represent all of us. We look to you and all publicly elected officials to uphold higher standards across the board.
Solidly in agreement on that one. I am very careful how I conduct myself. Or at least try to be.
I believe that you have good intentions.
Thank you.
I know you are not in the business of pleasing everyone.
That is a nice dream, but is not going to happen. Impossible, as you well know.
But I assure you that it would greatly help the moral standards of this community if next time you felt the urge to post on thecitizen.com's blogs, you simply posted a link to a discussion thread on your own website.
That is normally exactly what I do.

This was one of those odd times I didn't.
thanks again.
And thank you.

Rest assured I will not be a regular on the citizen or any such forum or blog. If I were going to be then this site would never have been created.

It does not run itself and does cost a small amount of money. I do all the work myself.

[Don Haddix]

Another consideration is the fact that there are still several properties in the Wilksmoor area that remain within the County.

One day that land will come into PTC. If the neighboring land is residential, it will be hard pressed to bring it in as anything but more residential.

[Don Haddix]

The property mentioned in the above post is on the August 7th Council Agenda.

[Don Haddix]

For those interested this is on the 9-8-08 Planning Commission Workshop:

Proposed rezoning, 89.146-acre tract in Wilksmoor Village, John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods.

[Don Haddix]

In update, this is all still in the beginning stages. But I can tell you:


Home sales are flat to negative with too many on the market.
The market for commuter based housing is declining and the demand for housing close to work is increasing. That was a fact for several years before the recent housing crunch.
Home value gains peaked in 2006 and then began declining, drastically, overall. The trend continues throughout Fayette County.
School populations have declined the last two years. Thus the removal of plans to build any schools in Wilksmoor Village with the current construction adding even more student capacity that is really not needed at this time and will absorb any gains for some years to come. We know they are not going to lay out the money to build any schools for convenience, when a basic elementary costs $30 million plus to construct and that they cannot even apply for a bond for another 5-7 years.
We continue to loose jobs in PTC. I am working with DAPC to get it fully on line and seeking replacement jobs, which they have begun doing. Doug Strubaum is fully on board, supportive and working as well in this effort. Harold Logsdon and Steve Boone would as soon leave it all to the Fayette County Development Authority, which has made it clear they do not do redevelopment, repopulation of existing empty stores or small business and industry recruitment. That is DAPC function, which is fully appropriate. Cyndi Plunkett supports the need for DAPC.
Without gaining higher paying jobs, in PTC, that will allow people to live here, there will be no demand for more houses to be built.
The current economic slump will continue for an unknown amount of time. Europe and Japan, in example, are in recession and still sinking deeper into trouble.
There are aspects of this plan before the Planning Commission not permitted in the lifting of the Moratorium vote that took place. But even with those aspects removed there are numerous ways to maintain the sought after density.
A petition against this zoning change circulated in Centennial. To date 62 copies have been forwarded to Council in groups of 20 at a time, not to mention the other emails and personal comments and contacts on this issue.
In the contacts from Centennial residents and others I have had, none opposed, with all actually preferring, the building of higher educational, research, medical, tech and other type facilities on this land. The secondary preference was for homes on 2 acres minimum.
Dan Fields attended the ACC meetings, and along with Harold Logsdon pushed for the lifting of the Moratorium. They were constantly told the ACC and Moratorium were totally separate issues unless the ACC was going on the 89 Acres, which then would demand a change in the nature of the zoning and planning to be allowed. When it was lifted he never attended another meeting.
We have no idea where our local economy is heading and some of us are working hard to gain the needed job base to successfully move into the future. That means once we overcome the issues we really cannot state what the shape of PTC will become. Will we be adding homes? Will we be stabilized in size and upgrading the quality of what we have? Will we be reshaping PTC to be more golf cart and technology based? Will we be office, factory, lab, classroom and/or telecommerce in nature?
It is inappropriate for this Council to tie the hands of Councils for years to come by rezoning now. They need that flexibility when the proper time comes to move forward on that property.
As of this time there are two votes firmly against this rezoning, two for and one unknown after the anger and criticism that follow the vote.

There are currently more questions than answers. That is not a time to be voting in such a change when there are so many unknowns.

But how will the vote go? I really do not know as of this date.

[Don Haddix]

The issue has been pulled from the docket for planning changes. I believe Wieland understands he has resistance to his density and other issues.