Light Hwy54-CCD

[RDM]

Don thank you for taking the time to communicate with the citizens and your service to this community. With that said can you help me understand the process for submitting a light request? If I understand what has been written and done CCD applied for a light and they where turned down twice. Is that correct? So according to the response I got from GDOT they have not approved a light at this location as of this week. The response I got was there is a push to have it reconsidered. Is that push the "permit" submitted to PTC council? I don't understand the process to be honest. If CCD submitted and it failed why the permit? Is the permit the only way it can be resubmitted to GDOT? If it was required prior to submitting a request to GDOT why didn't that happen first? To me this appears to be an alternate attempt to get what they want (CCD and Mayor) a light.

[Don Haddix]

A push to approve? I would love to get my hands on an email, from GDOT, that states that, citizen name deleted, or course, by the author or me, before using further. That could be the final nail against this issue.

A brief outline of the process:


A request for the light is submitted along with a basic model and other claims justifying the light.
If some basic criterion, called warrants, are met, then a formal signal application is submitted, allowing for the full and complete investigation to occur.
The full and final investigation determines if a light is justified.

This is at the application stage.

CCD twice failed to get by the basic warrants. Now, with the intervention of someone else and, I believe, false data and claims, they have been met.

Plus, PTC was to take no part in the work done, on this light process, by CCD. This was a demand, by Cyndi Plunkett, and agreed with, by Sturbaum and me. But PTC became involved, after the second request by CCD failed.

Someone authorized that use of Staff time. So, the demand not one dollar of PTC money be used, made at the same time as the first demand, has also been violated.

So, I agree, this is an alternative approach to gaining a light, which was not authorized by Council.

At Council Meetings, more than once, CCD acknowledged they were the ones who had to put in the application and do all the work. Didn't happen.

[CitizenAl]

Former Mayor Brown offers a web address in his article in the Citizen today to sent input to the GDOT. Do you think this would be effective? Should this be broadly encouraged?

[Don Haddix]

Former Mayor Brown offers a web address in his article in the Citizen today to sent input to the GDOT. Do you think this would be effective? Should this be broadly encouraged?
Al, I think this is something every citizen has a right to know about and use. I also think the information being spread, via such as Letters to the Editor, etc., by concerned citizens sharing with their fellow citizens, would be more effective and appropriate, in this case, than by an elected official.

Here is the link (http://www.dot.state.ga.us/misc/Pages/ContactUS.aspx) to view the site.

Be aware, there is push on to bring the light vote back for a January 15th agenda.

I also note Steve mentions Mitch Seabaugh, in his article. Let me add that Seabaugh is also viewed as an obstacle to Smart Growth and a detriment to home rule by many, elected and otherwise, but residing in a district heavily controlled by developers and pro developers. He was also a main financial backer of Logsdon's campaign and they remain very close.