Mountain Park Life
   
 
Welcome

Username:

Password:


Remember me


Main Menu
 · Home
 · The Stand
 · News
 · Traffic
 · Community
 · Members
 · Forum
 · Recipes
 · Polls
 · About
 ·
 ·
 ·

Chatbox
bullet editor
Jun 01 : 17:00
Members, post announcements in the Chat that don't seem to fit in the Forum such as Happy Birthday, Welcome New Baby, etc. Get "social."

Forums
Mountain Park Life :: Forums :: City Issues
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>   

Town Hall Meetings Gone Wild!

Go to page   <<      
Author Post
Bi-City Mike
Thu Aug 13 2009, 04:01pm
Registered Member #47
Joined: Fri Jul 29 2005, 05:45pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 6
Keith - the concern regarding the annexation of the property at MP Rd @ Old MP Rd at the time was not the "professional" character of the proposed subdivision. I don't recall that issue being raised at all. The memories regarding those meetings were recollected by Trish (she was on Council at the time), Marvin and me at a council meeting within the past year and a half (maybe Trish can recall exactly when).

Drive through Indian Creek subdivision across 92 next to LA Fitness. That developer was proposing to build that size and style house (150+/- homes) on the corner property on smaller lots than the current Hadfiled S/D (100 +/- homes). He wanted to take advantage of a less restrictive MP building code than Fulton County (the property had not been annexed by Roswell at that time) required.

Although several on the Council saw increased tax revenue, the citizens (who showed up in very large numbers at the meetings) feared the loss of Mountain Park's identity, a potential takeover of Council and Civic Club by the new residents (with a resulting "subdivision mentality"), and the realisitic idea that it was (and still is) difficult to manage the residential-only municipality that we had, much less half again as much land, streets, housing construction, infrastructure, etc.

The proposed annexed S/D would have been very different than Hadfield eventually became. Hadfield's developer, Monarch, went bust during that process nonetheless. Mountain Park probably did dodge a bullet.

In my 33 years as a Mountain Park resident and property owner, I have reached the conclusion that our unifying characteristics are that many of us are "about a quarter turn off of due north" (quirky - meant as a compliment), and, given the choice, we don't want to live in a subdivision. Indian Creek II would not have fit in with those charateristics despite the added revenue.

Going through the phone book, I see maybe 12 other households that were around when this was being debated. If they have any corrections or additions to my memories, I welcome those comments.

Mike
Back to top
Keith
Thu Aug 13 2009, 04:18pm
Registered Member #46
Joined: Fri Jul 29 2005, 02:20pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 158
Mike, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Your insight and recollection makes more sense than the "snippet" that I heard during the recent townhall.

As Paul Harvey would have said, thanks for the rest of the story. :-)
Back to top
Wild Magnolia
Fri Aug 14 2009, 03:44am
Registered Member #163
Joined: Fri Oct 13 2006, 09:57pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 44


Life is way too short to be unhappy!

Really...first amendment..... please.

Common sense simply stated if you are not happy then you are in the wrong place . Why stay??????

Short and to the point.



Back to top
cheryl
Fri Aug 14 2009, 03:28pm
Registered Member #196
Joined: Wed Mar 21 2007, 04:02pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 17
To Stuart,

Don't leave. You belong here. Stuart, you are good neighbor and citizen. I thank you keeping accurate information forthcoming.

Not one of us in Mountain Park wanted to live in a cookie cutter subdivision. We are very individualistic and that comes with a price of often disagreeing with each other's point of view and coming to civil compromise. That is democracy, not at its worst, but at its best.

I find it so odd that wanting to protect our city and debating our direction as a community is seen as loathing where we live. How dare anyone to think someone else should leave. The ones who do like the Park put up a fight for the Park and the ones who don't like our community do leave. Bravo for the ones who love this place enough to believe it is worth fighting for...they are ones who stay.

I also contend that when dissent is banished so be freedom.


Our little lakes are in trouble no doubt. We are a small town drowning in a bureaucratic whirlpool of state and national regulations and paperwork. And that alone would be enough to risk the charter of the city.

But it is the lake legal fiasco that is destoying us from within. We are in debt more than we ever be able to repay in my lifetime (and I am 48). Our attorney has misfiled papers, been forced to submit amendments for careless errors in briefs, missed court deadlines, and failed to even interview atleast 2 of the major contributors to the lake siltation. And that is from the VERY limited amount of information that I know about... that has been made public....how much more has been done incorrectly? We shoot the messengers that are trying to save us.



I attended the city meeting that Jim Still wrote about. He was correct in saying so many of us want to preserve the city of 1927. I do! The problem is that we are without income to keep the city alive in 2009 and the lake legal team that our grandchildren will still be paying monthly will be living somewhere else without a concern for the community they destroyed.

I am probably the eternal outsider... so be it... but that is also why I love Mountain Park.

It is not the citizens that built their lives here and pay their taxes to support the city that should be asked to leave.

Maybe it is the carpetbaggers who are stealing huge chunks of our future with no intent to live here that should be asked to leave???

Just a thought...

and thanks again Stuart.

Cheryl Ridgway
Back to top
Nua Chua
Sun Aug 16 2009, 06:26pm
Registered Member #165
Joined: Mon Oct 16 2006, 11:35pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 103
In regards to the Town Hall meeting, these are my thoughts. I recognize that there is a great deal of behind the scenes with the “lake legal fiasco” that I don’t know.

Two things to reflect on:

1) Remember Yogi Berra ... “It ain't over 'til it's over”.
2) What’s the problem and what’s the remedy? Mistakes will be repeated until that is resolved.

Yogi Berra was talking about baseball hoping for a home run with the bases loaded in the last few minutes of the game. We’re talking about finances which means minimizing losses and paying bills but the settlements reduces the chance for the home run but also minimizes losses and helps pay bills. I don’t know enough.
Taking settlements reflect a lack of confidence in the suit to me but I’m sure that there were reasons to justify it. What I don't know is what the judge thinks about it, and I am hopeful that it is insignificant or just an accounting problem.

We want our attorney’s advice but it should be evaluated because he could have his own interests. For example taking a settlement could mean less work for the same pay or that the settlements will eventually be his money, but there are others.
From a perspective of percentages of the total damages claimed plus legal expenses, I don’t see how the previous settlement was anywhere close to break even and additionally we lost another defendant too so I question his advice, yet we have the money. A dollar is worth more today than tomorrow, we could lose or get less than we expected.

Our City Council is similar to others in experience, possibly not in percentages to the population represented. A major difference is the large degree of public activism here in respect to these same percentages so it is a unique situation here. Expert advice is not readily available and good advice is difficult to pursue reliably that you can rely on.

The problem is that most cities have doers that are experienced and completely independent of the City Council and we don’t have that here. The doers have some involvement with them but their advice is respected/accepted by the Councils. Employees that have been doing the job for years can not be replaced by a committee of any composition. A committee is a committee and are influenced by other residents plus the political factors and are not independent experienced employees getting things done so both are entirely different.
The doers are not associated with the public or City Hall because they would interfere with getting things done and this includes legal and technical employees.

We could need a better form of evaluations before final decisions which could create the need for committees with different expertise involved with final decisions by the City Council as a mandatory approval before action.
That is especially true, if our City Attorney did recommend handling this litigation on a percentage of the take rather than an hourly agreement with this attorney. It would have been worth it to have had a bill approval process that challenged his bills, outside of the City Council, most likely an outside legal professional. If that was done, such a professional would have substantiating proof why they approved the bills far beyond the bills themselves most likely leading to an evolvement of renegotiations in the very beginning.

Higher expectations could have been unrealistic by the public in our present situation with a lack of understanding the legal process and greed. There were indications of problems that needed confronting at the beginning when the bills came necessitating renegotiations with the attorney, but recognizing that comes from experience so what would you expect? It was obvious that no one had been in this situation before so we needed advice from those that had. You don’t know what you don’t know so you don’t know you need advice.

A great deal of value should be placed on inside information or free legal advice and should be encouraged when you can get it.

I hope the mayor or council will keep giving periodic updates as events transpire, understanding that the evolvement is very slow so mostly there is no new information.



Back to top
EJ
Mon Aug 24 2009, 02:13am
Registered Member #22
Joined: Mon Jul 25 2005, 12:42pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 86
I haven't been on in a while but this back & forth seems like the same stuff we were going over two years ago. Decisions have to be made ...but I don't see any being made by this city. It's past the 11th hour.
As a family man, I have to make some tough decisions for my family. Tax time is coming up and it feels like giving cash to a crackhead. Sad!
I hope everyone survives this mess.

EJ
Back to top
Moderators: bt, Archive, editor

Jump:     Back to top

Go to page   <<      
Forum theme loosely based on Invision Power Board

 
© Mountain Park Life 2006 All Rights Reserved

mountainparklife.com is a community site for the City of Mountain Park.
 
Render time: 0.0780 sec, 0.0126 of that for queries.