David, Alex was not affiliated with UPCCA. Many people chose to support the "Yes" campaign that was lead by Mike Mason. However, many of those people had no previous connection with the organization and still do not today. They just believed in the concept of the city.

Jimmy, I was there as well. I was disturbed by the implication. I have campaigned on my own. I believe each candidate needs to earn their votes.

UPCCA as an organization has a long history of never supporting political candidates. However, the Board members individually do have their personal lives and should have the same rights as all others to support a Candidate of their choice. Speaking from experience, the UPCCA board members have privately supported many different candidates. It has not kept them from remaining friends and colleagues working together for one common goal which was "doing what was in the best interest of Peachtree Corners."

FYI - HOAS as a whole normally do not allow signs on residential or common area grounds.

Hadn't heard that and I've spoken to Charlie and he never brought it up and since that is my district, I'd think he'd want to have talked about it with me.

As for comments below about a "virtual" city hall, if you are saying that we would have no physical space, that is impossible simply because we need a place for people to come and get permits and pay fees and be able to meet with people about their issues.

If by virtual, you just mean some office space, I think there is a pretty wide consensus among the candidates right now that that is the best way to go. We really only need space for a few employees (two in my mind, a clerk and city manager), and probably a conference room, storage space, and likely one or two offices for the mayor and/or council to use as an office if they have meetings or need a workplace for city business.

The sort of place I thought would be worth considering as a "city hall" (and this is just an idea, not a place I have done any price or real detailed logistical research on) was the old DMV/Tax assessors office near Dreamland/Flying Biscuit. I remember it being a reasonable sized property (possibly big enough to hold small city meetings in), in a fairly central and easy to get to location, and it was obviously set up in a way to handle permitting. I'd think for big city meetings on controversial subjects, probably makes sense to rent a conference room at a local hotel (ala what the PCBA did this week) as needed.

I am not supporting the Building of any city hall. We have enough Vacant locations in the City now. We as a City Council can lease one of those spaces to fill our needs.

I can remember being warned early on by former Senator Dan Weber speaking about his experience in Dunwoody. . ."the elections for mayor and city council will not be like any elections you have ever experienced before! Because your neighbors and friends will be running against one another people will be reluctant to place a sign in their yard. They will be very private on their choice of candidate until they walk into the voting booth." Senator Weber has been right on all points. We have a great slate of candidates to chose from which does make it very tough to decide.

Most of the signs you and many of the candidates put up on in those "high-visibility" areas are illegal. Signs put up on properties in front of homes where you go door to door may be time consuming but its the only way to do it and follow the law.

As for my subdivision the reason there are no signs is it is against our covenants. I will expound on this in the article I will finally have time to write tonight but it was discussed in my HOA meeting and members of our HOA board were pretty clear that if a candidate was going to violate the covenants of an HOA for their own benefit, that really doesn't show much respect for property rights or ability to handle code enforcement. And, even though I took a shot at David in the prior paragraph, both of us live in the same subdivision and neither one of us (to my knowledge) have a single sign up out of respect for the rules our neighborhood chose to live by, even though I'd assume this is detrimental to our ability to promote ourselves for the election.

Well question then; you and I generally agree, and I have asked permission at any business that I have put a sign (and checked the sign ordinances; many of them differ for political campaigns). But even you admitted in Alex's blog that you had put a few signs in "no man's land" areas (unless I misread, referring specifically to the shot on the sign @ the Burger King).

So what do you propose we do here? We have a large populace of people that do not care about local politics voting on March 6th (GOP / Sunday alcohol sales). Those signs are quite literally the only way to get "name recognition" on there, otherwise they're going to vote on the best last name (at least, that's what I'm hoping :)). So where do we draw the line on those signs that are technically against the rules?

I draw the line that if something is against the rules, its against the rules and should be removed. I think I have removed any sign that I have that isn't in compliance with Gwinnett laws (and if I have any still up there, let me know and I'll take it away promptly) because, as you stated, both due to ignorance of the rules at first and some over-zealousness at the beginning of my campaign, I put some up where I shouldn't. After being better informed of/gaining a better understanding of the laws, I tried to remove any illegal signs that I may had put out prior and have put out none in the last month in any of those areas.

But we have now had a candidate session discussing this, the laws have been posted on these very pages, and Gwinnett County has done a sweep of signs up in areas that don't comply. I think it should be much clearer to all of us where we can and can't put up our signage. And since we are going to be expected to enforce these laws if elected, I think it sets a very bad example to the residents for us to knowingly break them to benefit ourselves. Again, I plan on writing up some of this later tonight, so that should provide some background (I'm sure you are waiting on baited breath).

I am basically asking all candidates to do 3 things that I think would set a good example 1) Don't put signs on people's lawns without permission 2) Don't put signs were GC just removed them and 3) If you have a sign against the law, and someone calls you on it, remove it.

Well, my source was a neighbor who got it from a candidate. I also got a call that Mike Mason was seen dining with Mr. Roberts.

I had heard Charlie wanted a meeting last weekend but I'm not sure why Mike having dinner with Mr. Roberts is seen as a negative. I reached out to Charlie soon after I filed for my candidacy because I had heard so many rumors about what he wanted to do with his property and wanted to hear it from him and had a good phone call with him. If he asked to meet me for dinner, with the importance of what the development of that property means to the community, I'd be there in a heartbeat. I'd hope Mike, and the other candidates, would want to talk with people like Charlie, the company that has filed for development on Bush Road, the one who wanted to redevelop Sturbridge, etc. to get a sense of what they wanted to do for our community and to share citizen concerns.

I understand but none of us are running to deal with jaywalking laws. We are running to deal with property rights (zoning) and code enforcement. So if people aren't going to follow the very specific laws they are running to uphold, that doesn't exactly get us off to a good start. And I'm not talking about people who just put their signs a bit too closely to the right of way or make an honest mistake. I'm talking about people who know the laws very well but just choose to blatantly ignore them to help themselves. And, in that count, I think the worst thing is to go stick a sign on someone else's lawn or personal property without their permission because that violates not only the code but people's personal property rights.

And Brent, I know we've had conversations about people that feel that it is ok, just because your or I have a sign on someone's property with their permission, that they can just plop 10 of their own on there. One candidate, who I won't name (but you can), seems to do that with just about every sign they have, even when its obviously on someone's private property.

I can only say that signs in subdivisions haven't been a major part of my strategy. I have tried to work with homeowners/businesses in high visibility areas to allow me to put up signs on their properties but I haven't pushed hard with homeowners in subdivisions to do so since I don't feel it adds much to my campaign. I also have some signs that I still need to get out to those that said they would.

But based on David's comment above about needing to put signs out or otherwise people are voting solely on last names, isn't that exactly what putting out signs would do? The only person I have seen with any position statement on their sign is Robert Indech, whose simply says (I believe) "Less Government". So saying we need to put out signs to avoid having people vote solely on name is like saying we need to put up pictures so people don't just vote on candidates looks. It just doesn't make sense since, if anything, we are just encouraging people to vote based on name with our signage. Besides, in my election, David Proud and Alex Wright have much easier to pronounce names than I do so that is not a fight I can win.

Byron,
Three things....
1) Many HOAs have rules either totally banning signs or in some cases preventing signs from being posted until a few weeks before the election. That is why many subdivisions are totally empty.
2) I can only speak for myself but the vast majority of the signs I have in yards are people that I did not know two months ago. I suspect that is the case with the vast majority of the other candidates as well.
3) The city council races are much different than the Yes/No battle. The Yes/No battle was really about an idea. In a fairly short amount of time you could educate yourself about the issue and decide what you believed. With candidates it is totally different. When you are putting a sign in your yard for that candidate you are saying you believe in that person. Unlike the idea of Yes/No, people are humans who can let you down, embarrass you with foolish behavior and end up being something different than what you thought. I think most candidates would agree it takes a lot of work, effort and time to convince a home owner that you are who you say you are and that they should take the risk of publicly supporting you.
Thanks for your interest in this matter.
Regards

And I see you got your signs in a cemetary.... what is your point?

Rob thank you for the most worthless response in this whole blog. How does me being friends with a business owner have anything to do with the upcca trying to fix the election. 1. You are on Alex's campaign so I expect this kind of response. A do nothing response to deflect what I said. Lets ask this question does Alex have the back have the back bone to stand up to the upcca to help protect peachtree corners or is he going to do what the upcca tells him to do since he is clearly the chosen one.

One other thing. Lets let Alex answer this. Not his friend, campaign manger or supporters. I live in post 3 so I have a vested interest. I want to hear from the man himself how he going to stand up to his god friend and her organization to protect me and my family

Rob,

I actually had a conversation with Brent about his signs at the cemetery cause I thought it was a questionable maneuver. He explained that he had a long time relationship with the owners, they had been with him through some tough times in his life, and were more than happy to support his campaign and let him (and him alone) put a sign up there. I have had businesses that know me far less allow me to put signs on their property so I certainly can't criticize Brent for working with a business owner he has known for years to provide support. Wouldn't expect you to know this, as I didn't either til a week ago, but I'd hope you'd retract your comment about Brent in that case in light of this information.

I'd also like to point out that the cemetery isn't the one sponsoring what are supposed to be unbiased debates. Not saying she doesn't have the right to do so, or accusing her of wrongdoing, but I'd assume you can see how it certainly looks questionable to alot of people when the only organization in town that has the infrastructure and the use of a large amount of space at no cost, is lead by several people whom are openly backing one of the participants. I know Mike and Debbie Mason, who have played a large role in the UPCCA, have gone out of their way to remain neutral in this campaign, advising any candidate that asks, and I really appreciate that stance (and I have no idea if they support me in private).A community organizations' principals should do the same.

Sir,
We will just have to agree to disagree regarding your first point.

Here are some examples for you - Brookfield Chase (total ban on signs), Linfield (no signs until two weeks before the election)

Have a nice evening.

Regards