September 20, 2007 Letters to the Editor

Mayor Wood has proposed that Roswell transition from suburban community to high-rise, high-density urban center. He supports his position on two premises:

1)  Without the tax revenue generated by high-rise, high-density development, Roswell will not have the funds needed to solve the city’s traffic problems or sustain city’s services.

2)  No one has offered a better idea for developing the city’s remaining undeveloped land or for the redevelopment of blighted areas.

The mayor has made this election a referendum on his proposal because he said in his State-of-the-City address that he would be supporting candidates that agree with his position on high-rise, high-density and that he will seek to defeat those who oppose it.
Because the mayor’s candidates are hiding behind weasel words – “Nobody supports the East Roswell project” and they refuse to be forthright about their commitment to support the mayor’s “tall buildings” agenda, we are not having an open and honest debate.

Instead, the mayor is attempting to deflect the issue by passing the buck, first to citizens in general and, most recently, to the candidates for City Council. He argues Ad Ignorantium that his high-rise, high-density scheme should be adopted because no one has come up with a better plan.

The fact is, in debate he who asserts must prove. If the election is about the mayor’s plan, let’s examine that plan. Let the mayor and his candidates convince us that their position holds up under examination. The mayor has directed the staff to spend countless hours and a significant amount of our tax dollars on studying the question of future development and redevelopment, so let’s see the proof of his position.

Did those studies come to the mayor’s conclusion or were other reasonable options possible or even considered?  Has there been outreach to developers other than Charlie Brown?

It’s not for the citizens or opposition candidates to come up with alternate plans. It’s up to the mayor and his stealth candidates to convince citizens that his proposal is sound and what we want.

Dennis P. FitzGerald

With reference to the … article which appeared in [the September 13, 2007] edition of the Roswell Beacon, I would like to point out that your article stated that "police officers went to the back and found a pile of wood, and wooden pallet leaned against a tree." This statement is only partially true.

The "pile of wood, and wooden pallet" was not in the backyard. It was in the old and abandoned Hembree farmhouse area behind the house. The house in question has a six foot privacy fence surrounding the perimeter of the home. Your article leads one to believe that the debris mentioned is in the homeowner’s backyard.

As the victims of this crime, your article has made my family feel as though we perpetrated this opportunity to "peep" when in fact it was perpetrated by the developer that began the demolition of the farmhouse in early August, then abruptly stopped and left all of the debris sitting on the property. The abandoned farmhouse was already an eyesore for the community, now it sits with half of the roof hanging off of it and a load of junk piled in front of it.

I would like to ask whether the Roswell Beacon can use it's influence to get whomever began this demolition to come out and remove the debris that created the opportunity to commit this crime and prevent it from being duplicated.

My family and I would appreciate any assistance that you can provide to make this happen.

Serge Jourdan

Last night we had a fairly small turnout [for a cycling excursion]. There was one person of note who came out; a city of Roswell police officer. He was on duty, but came by to tell us that his assignment that evening was to watch us through the Martin's Landing area and specifically to ticket any bicyclist who failed to completely stop at a stop sign. This is apparently going to be their focus for the next few weeks. They are targeting the Thursday night and Saturday morning rides as that is where most of the complaints are focused. From the fact that he was kind enough to alert us that they would be "hiding in the bushes" in the ML area and that this order is apparently coming down from offices other than the mayor's, I would strongly suggest that [cyclists] give them absolutely no occasion to ticket us. By demonstrating to the authorities that we do in fact ride responsibly and are in the right it will be easier to push back against future complaints as well as to tackle the issue of rude motorists.

Also as an FYI, he told us any tickets issued would be considered a moving violation ... so the same as if you were in your car.

John McConnell

The Beacon does a terrific job of keeping us informed about our wonderful city, and makes it so easy for us to share our thoughts and ideas!

The first time I saw Roswell in full bloom in the early 90's I knew I wanted to live here.  That became a reality in 1996 and I became a proud Roswell resident. House hunting included much of the Atlanta area.  I loved the small town feel of Roswell, the beautifully landscaped and maintained appearance – the pride that was so obvious from residents and property owners. The loitering, junk cars, overgrown vacant properties and that neglected look of some areas was minimal here. Eleven years later I cannot use the word minimal to describe these things in our wonderful city. That bothers me.

The growth of Roswell has brought many blessings as well as curses – what a challenge it must be to manage such an explosion in population! God bless those willing to make the commitment to serve.

Various proposed developments have increased the awareness that Roswell is at a crossroads. Like so many areas, our infrastructure is maxed out. Traffic, water rationing and portable classrooms are the most obvious indicators. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples of the same mistakes we have made and are making – all over our country. Development encouraged, fostered and approved with no plan for the consequences of more people and more traffic. The result will always be the same, gridlock and lack of services.  Of course the development and its profits come easier and feel better than the work it takes to build infrastructure. After all, this is America, home of fast food and Fed-Ex, we want a lot of it, and we want it fast! Maybe it is possible for Roswell to take a different path. 

What if we capitalized on the fact that we recommend a tremendous source of revenue for many retailers and service providers that want to be a part of this enclave of affluent seniors, boomers, gen-xers and their children and grandchildren? Perhaps put the brakes on those that see dollar signs exclusive of any interest in the future of Roswell and our community, and be better negotiators of what we have to offer.  Sure we might not get that next Starbucks or McDonalds, but would that be so bad?  What if Roswell said, you know what, our city doesn't currently have the need for another strip shopping center, nail shop, Mexican restaurant or cleaners or new construction for another free standing fast food restaurant – what we do have is many available properties within our city limits of 80,000 consumers in prime locations that we will assist you in obtaining the use of, through leasing or purchasing. Just imagine – the reduction in vacant buildings and shopping centers, the return of commerce and activity to the overgrown, unkempt properties all over Roswell! 

Critics will say that would never drive the tax revenue to operate the city. I would counter with: there is no free lunch! We cannot benefit from tax revenue from unbridled development without eventually paying the cost of updating our infrastructure. So it becomes the proverbial pay now, or pay later – but we will pay for bigger and better roads, more classrooms and the privilege of using water. The question is have we explored all the options available to us – can Roswell step out of the box – create yet another vision for our future.

Let's take a look at sharing the cost of supporting growth with the developers – via usage fees or development fees. Even better than that, require they build/improve the infrastructure to accommodate the project. Would the inclusion of space for a community center, school, library or facilities for city offices be more appealing to Roswell in the design for the next major development?  The developer bears the cost (and gets the notoriety for donating a school or library, for Pete’s sake, not to mention the tax advantage) or shares the cost with their buyers. I think it's time for us to ask – what's in it for Roswell, the community, as well as the budget.

There are other options to generate the funds we need to run our city, tax revenue collected on sales from new developments, is just one of many, but we get our money later rather than sooner and always get stuck with the tab for roads and schools. We can change this, but Roswell must acknowledge the current system is not working-then move forward to create a new vision for our city.

I can't help but wonder would the right first step be to restore the “wow factor.” Require all property owners, absentee, vacant or occupied, to properly maintain buildings and landscaping, ramp up programs to encourage a litter-free community, more involvement from residents and eliminate loitering. There has to be a way for us to educate our growing immigrant population on where to place trash, how to cross the street and the benefit of being respectful of our city and being a good neighbor.

Come on Roswell, we can do this. There is still more right with Roswell than wrong!
 
Judy Brown