I am extremely uncomfortable with government ownership of land, period. When private entities own land, that land has the potential to create jobs, income and wealth. When government owns land, that land is dedicated to the income taking enterprise that is government. For this reason, the government should only own land in very narrow situations where its use is very specialized and limited such as for schools or military installations. When the need is generic such as for office and meeting space, the government should lease it as is the case with the current city hall. The idea that government would use tax payer money, overpay market value for land, and take it out of use for income generating enterprises, all to prevent a private land owner from some activity has great potential forabuse. I live very near where this development is planned. Like everyone, I am not happy about more apartments on Medlock Bridge but I would like to see our city officials work with the land owner in a way that maintains the integrity of the surrounding area and property but keeps the property in private hands. If it is not possible to come to some mutually advantageous solution, then the private rights should trump the government intervention.

As a private citizen, I always have the right and ability to move somewhere I like better. I have done it before which is how I landed here. And I can do it again if overtime the Peachtree Corners government turns out to be no better at working with private entities and spending tax payer money than any other government entity has proven to be. When the city came into being, we were promised something truly unique in the world of government. Here is a typical government problem in the area of land use and development. Time for our officials to put those promised unique and creative approaches to practice not just whip out our check book and start spending tax payer money. There is nothing unique in that approach for certain.

And to think that all most 'yes' voters wanted was to save the now illusionry $10 per month on garbage collection, all of a sudden apparently some folks want to incur millions of dollars in debt. NO WAY. Even thinking about this is scary. Remember the saying: absolute power corrupts. Absolutely.

Would this really be as big an issue if the apartments were not zoned for Simpson Elementary? Just curious...

would love to see the green space stay as it is!

I concur with Duluth2; I don't think there would be nearly such an uproar if the potential students were zoned anywhere but Simpson Elementary. I'd like to see the woods left alone but that's just not going to happen. The city can't get into the business of owning private property at this point.

You can not zone a property to avoid a school. I am pretty sure that segregation was outlawed a few years ago.

Do not buy the property. It might be more appropriate to focus on the students being bused in from other counties and cities that is placing a burden on the school system.

Brent, you can zone property with regard to schools if it meets certain criteria when it's the proper time. Bush Road is zoned to Duluth High School, not Norcross - which is closer. But, I'm no expert on that. Plus, I don't really see that as a concern.

With regard to the property use. I know I would get a big BOO if I suggested the city's use of power of eminent domain. I believe this was done by GwinnettCounty on 1900 plus acres of land to create Harbin's Park.

The fact is no one likes apartments due to density and the transient nature of the complex. But, the other fact is that this property is the best place for a Suwanee style type park. (Do I hear boos yet?) Peachtree Corners has no other area that could serve that purpose as well as this. Is it worth $8, 10 or 12 million is the question. Would the citizen's of this city want it? Is it a large enough tract to do it well? We can put that to a vote online through the city website (with a proper login and respect to ip addresses).

All this may not matter in the end and for a young city to take on such debt may be unwise. The "Roberts" property has been dormant for years now and the change will be a drastic one for this area.

Bob, I hope that what you are doing with your write-up is fighting fire with fire, and do not mean your suggestion at all. But are bringing it up in case our leadership is dreaming up what I consider a nightmare. Lennar is a great company and I doubt that they would build an inferior product in that prime location. It is likely that they would want to follow the original Roberts plans, which were to build high end apartments that could easily be converted into high-end condos to take advantage of tax incentives and capital gain rules. A meaningful counteroffer may change the landscape (literally), but it needs to be a reasonable business centric deal. In my opinion, if left to its own devices the market forces will build the most valuable improvements for the location with a few incentives from the city. If left to the city government to do, we may get a civic area that sucks money out of the coffers. Please pick your poison carefully for all actions have consequences!

City Council must be involved in the planning and development of this land use but not the purchase of. High end, quality mixed use residential that mirrors that of the Forum is a good idea. Low quality multifamily with high density will just create another Buford Highway. I would assume that this land would be zoned for Berkeley Lake elementary which is already way overcrowded and has trailers throughout their campus. I thought our city was incorporated to do 2 things- manage/control development and 2- manage/control residential waste. (which we should also be taking a look at as Waste Management Co. Located right next to Pinckneyville park has left a horrible stench throughout the soccer and baseball fields. ) Our city council needs to step it up. While Lennar may be a great company, hope and thought is not a strategy.

Schools are zoned by the school board based on need not segregation. Berkeley lake is zoned duluth due to need not because the residents wanted it.

As far as the property goes it is a stupid idea to buy the land. The land has been zoned this way for over 10 yrs
If my memory serves me right. I discussed this problem numerous times during my campaign. Obviously no one listened. It has always been the cities desire to buy this land. The whole need for the city was based on misleadings about this land.

Over 250 more apartments to push us well over the already really, really poor 50/50 ratio of apartments to single family residences is not good no matter where you live in the city. Property value declines in one part of the city effect everyone's values, no matter where in the city limits one lives. If the city uses eminent domain - the purchase price is fair market value not some projected profits pulled out of the air. If I could invest $100 a year in the property to buy it with others investors, I sure would. Everyone wants the government to perform in a businesslike manner, well... purchasing the property is a good investment. I'd rather have a park and a city hall than 250 more apartments, but it won't come to that because the property is valuable for development (although maybe we could squeeze in some decent green space in any development). Saying that the city will buy up property every time it doesn't like it's use is ridiculous because 1) this is the only undeveloped property left, and 2) the city will have its own land use plan in place to avoid this fiasco in the future. Anyway, one of the primary duties of the city is to protect the community. If this bothers the marginal anarchists, ultra conservatives, isolationists, and reactionaries, maybe they'd be happier if they moved out by themselves somewhere else.

The city has no business buying the land. And we definitely don't need that kind of debt. Simpson is not overcrowded - the numbers there are way down. I'm not happy about the apartments, and I don't understand why the courts decided the county had to allow a zoning change. But what's done is done. The community will survive this - move on.

Building apartments could mean the demise of more than just schools people. One cannot control the elements that apartment living allows. Just keep in mind the apartment strip just pass Holcomb Bridge and P'tree Corners Circle while being mindful of safety, security, and the overall comfort we've all grown so accustomed to. If they build unaffordable luxury apartments perhaps citizen concern would be lessened, but if not, the real fear is that over time our beloved Forum could become just another strip mall with limited occupancy and in that case, the Peachtree Corners we love so much could've just remained a part of Norcross. Boo Hoo! Sounds like we're damned if we do, damned if we don't! But somebody better figure out something fast...

I'm just glad I sold my house and no longer live in Peachtree Corners....not because of the potential for declining property values, but to get away from the NIMBY attitude that was obviously behind the push for the city in the first place.

I encourage everybody to contact the council and let them know how you feel. A decision is going to be made quickly as Lennar is set to close next Thursday. Given that the city council is not planning to hold any public meetings/hearings it is necessary to call your representatives and city hall to voice your opinion. They currently believe that they have the support of the majority of residents, which I believe is inaccurate.

I am not a lawyer or a politician so I am curious to know what grants the Mayor and the council the power to make such a purchase. We were sold a "City Lite" and adopted a charter that details the three specific services the city is to provide: (i) planning & zoning, (ii) code enforcement and (iii) solid waste services. Into which of these buckets does purchasing a parcel of land to prevent the development of apartments fall?

I believe that one of the reasons for Peachtree Corners becoming a city was to eventually acquire this land. If the council is confident that the residents support this acquisition I challenge them to pass a resolution to purchase this parcel and then put it to the vote of the citizens. I strongly believe that such a referendum will be defeated.

Do I think that the City of Peachtree Corners should spend $10 million to $12 million, which correlates to 132%-158% of fair market value, to acquire this land? No way!

How did the budget debate work for us? This is an attempt to grow the city and empower the politicians.

Let me clarify that I do not want apartments to be built on this piece of land; however, I feel even stronger about the City not purchasing this parcel. It sets bad precedent, increases the tax burden of all residents and in my opinion far exceeds the power of the City as it was sold to us.

Does anyone know what the Special Called meeting for tonight is about? Just noticed it on the City website.

The value of the land is above $7,000,000. Where does a city lite get that kind of money. We were already deceived by certain people about the original cost to start the city. Report said $750k they spent $3.5 million, whats another 7 or 8 more.

But wait werent we told City Lite would only cost around $700k to run. Where will the money come from when they are sued for floating some kind of revenue anticipation notes or bonds without the voters having a choice. Let them build what they want. Dunwoody recently had dreams of making things (and people) go away by buying apartments along PIB - but ya know what - the bond measure was voted down. That is how things are done in a democracy - but wait, I forgot, this is a glorified HOA.

Great discussion thread. Gwinnett County/UPCCA had ample opportunity to influence and oppose zoning through the years. When entities own land they have rights - and so does Lennar. I don't think the new City of Peachtree Corners should be in the business of owning this tract of land. I think the best we can do is to influence Lennar as much as we can. They will build high end apartments and our great community will go on.

1) Read the city charter. 2) Why do the residents, through their elected officials, have input on planning and zoning? 4) On what, except for your imagination, do you base the belief that the city was formed, and our elected city officials planned, to "eventually acquire this land?" 5) From what orifice do you pull out the figures $10 - $20 million? 6) Look up "eminent domain." 7) Our "politicians" live here, have regular day jobs like most of us, care about our community, have contributed to our community, and aren't paid much for the grief they take, 8) Did all the reactionaries move here from Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Roswell, Norcross, Berkeley Lake, Duluth, and Johns Creek?

My goodness everyone is in such a mess on this property. I believe when this was decided years ago through a court case that the court didn't decide this. That's right. If I remember correctly the court remanded it back to the county to "fix it" or the court would. There were also rumors about comments concerning the nature of people that may eventually live in these apartments that may also have driven this rezoning. The county never took it all the way through the court process. I believe they would have won. When rezonings are done they have to take into account the land use plan and the surrounding nature of the area - which wasn't driven by apartments. Anyway that's past history.

The land is zoned what it is. The city has no recourse - unless the developer comes in to ask for changes to the zoning or conditions. At that point they can play hardball. Otherwise it is what it is.

BTW, I never heard anything about the city coming into being because of that piece of land. Where'd that come from?

I do not think it is a good idea for the city to purchase the land. I remember the uproar over the Ingles and McDonalds going in and now folks enjoy the convienence of them being closer. I am not crazy about apartments in the area, but don't think the answer is for Peachtree Corners to purchase the land. I would however, welcome a Kroger Store in the proposed shopping center, if anyone has some pull! With a gas station for convienence purposes. Missy Thurlow

Here is a thought.
Buy the property
Partner with a developer and let him develop the property
Then lease the property out and collect the money until the debt is paid and then cash out at a certain point.
Everybody wins.

Debating is always helpful, it provides insight to the various sides and opinions. However, you may want to reach out to your city council representative to ask for a clear interpretation of the charter on this issue. And a reminder, for those of you who chose not to use your name: Before you push that "submit" button, ask yourself if you would be willing to post the comment if your name was attached to your words.

According to the city charter, Peachtree Corners is legally allowed to provide three services. Land speculation and profiteering is not enumerated among them. Though the very idea of emulating anything the city of Atlanta does should be abhorrent to all in most every respect, folks on this board have held up their Sears land deal as some sort of model. Please keep in mind that they housed a police station and parts of city hall in that building for more than a decade before selling it to a developer. That many of the city's other land deals - particularly in and around the beltline - have so far shown to be a tax payer quagmire. Peachtree Corners should stick to its charter and leave the back room land dealings alone.