04.29 Ledger 01 - The Cherokee Ledger-News
04.29 Ledger 01 - The Cherokee Ledger-News
04.29 Ledger 01 - The Cherokee Ledger-News
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Publisher<br />
DAVE CAUGHMAN<br />
T H E C H E R O K E E<br />
LEDGER-NEWS<br />
Editor<br />
GERRY YANDEL<br />
Assistant Managing Editor<br />
ERIKA NELDNER<br />
©2009 Lakeside Publishing Inc.<br />
All Rights Reserved.<br />
Articles and advertisements may not be reprinted in whole or in part<br />
without the expressed written consent of Lakeside Publishing Inc.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Cherokee</strong> <strong>Ledger</strong>-<strong>News</strong>, published weekly on Wednesday by Lakeside Publishing, Inc., 103 E. Main St., Woodstock,<br />
GA 3<strong>01</strong>88-4908. Periodicals postage paid at Monroe, GA and additional post offices. USPS 021-137. Postmaster: Please send<br />
address changes to <strong>The</strong> <strong>Cherokee</strong> <strong>Ledger</strong>-<strong>News</strong> 103 E. Main St., Woodstock, GA 3<strong>01</strong>88-4908.<br />
Phone (770) 928-0706 • Fax (770) 928-3152<br />
Send e-mail to: editor@ledgernews.com<br />
Write us at P.O. Box 2369, Woodstock, GA 3<strong>01</strong>88-1379<br />
Disclaimer: <strong>The</strong> views expressed on the Opinion page are not necessarily the views<br />
of the publisher or the staff of the <strong>Cherokee</strong> <strong>Ledger</strong>-<strong>News</strong><br />
LEDGER-NEWS<br />
OPINION<br />
6 THE CHEROKEE LEDGER-NEWS MANAGING EDITOR: GERRY YANDEL APRIL 29, 2009<br />
CHEROKEE VOICE<br />
■<br />
ISSUE: April 29 marks 100 days in office for Barack Obama.<br />
QUESTION: How has President Obama done in his first 100 days?<br />
“I'm not impressed.”<br />
David Garner<br />
Canton<br />
“He sounds good on TV, but, in reality,<br />
it's not really working.”<br />
“I'd say middle of the road.”<br />
Kim Stone<br />
Hickory Flat<br />
Michelle McKinney<br />
Holly Springs<br />
“I don't have a clue yet.”<br />
Rodney Holbrook<br />
Canton<br />
“I guess he's doing fair, considering the<br />
shape it was in when he got there.”<br />
Ray Vickery<br />
Holly Springs<br />
“I'm in favor of a few of the things he's<br />
done, but the majority, no.”<br />
Tammy Sloan<br />
Canton<br />
O ne<br />
Etowah Valley’s road to nowhere<br />
of the responsibilities and<br />
obligations of publishing a<br />
weekly opinion column, at<br />
least the way I see it, is that one<br />
should be open to dissenting viewpoints<br />
and be willing to change<br />
one’s mind – and say so – when the<br />
situation calls for it.<br />
This, I think, is one of those situations.<br />
I had previously written a column<br />
supporting the approval of<br />
the Etowah Valley project, formerly<br />
know as Canton West, based on<br />
the fact that a lot of people in our<br />
county could use the work right<br />
now.<br />
While I still feel that the project<br />
could provide a lot of jobs for a lot<br />
of people in <strong>Cherokee</strong> who are in<br />
the building industry, I’m having<br />
second thoughts about the project.<br />
Perhaps I got a little bit rusty<br />
from having the residential<br />
growth in the county all but dry up<br />
when the mortgage meltdown occurred.<br />
Luckily, our <strong>Cherokee</strong> County-<br />
Municipal Planning Commissioners<br />
didn’t get rusty when the<br />
Etowah Valley case came before<br />
them earlier this month for a public<br />
hearing and subsequent discussion<br />
that lasted about two hours at<br />
the new county administration<br />
building.<br />
<strong>The</strong> commission at that time voted<br />
to table the application for a second<br />
public hearing, which is currently<br />
scheduled for May 5 at 7 p.m.<br />
Opponents of the project who<br />
spoke at the first public hearing<br />
raised a number of points, some of<br />
which were further expounded upon<br />
during the planning commissioners’<br />
discussion afterward, that<br />
caused me to re-assess my feelings<br />
about the project.<br />
At issue was whether the project<br />
should have to be re-reviewed<br />
through the DRI (development of<br />
regional impact) process, what<br />
would happen if PEC had to bail<br />
out of the project for economic reasons,<br />
why 428 units of residential<br />
senior living weren’t included in<br />
the unit count of about 2,800 for the<br />
2,300-acre proposal, the potentially<br />
hazardous flexibility of RD-3 and,<br />
most importantly, the true status of<br />
the proposed four-lane parkway.<br />
Unfortunately, the RD-3 zoning<br />
classification is what it is. RD-3<br />
zoning is subject to a wide range of<br />
densities – from three units an acre<br />
to six units an acre – and we have<br />
seen developers in the past come<br />
back before commissioners to increase<br />
their RD-3 density for economic<br />
reasons. If the RD-3 classification<br />
is too open-ended, it should<br />
be revisited and fixed, but to penalize<br />
a developer on the front end for<br />
wanting to use a valid classification<br />
would be like charging someone<br />
for DUI when they drove up<br />
sober to a liquor store to buy booze.<br />
Likewise, I don’t see the seniorliving<br />
units, which would be rezoned<br />
under the Office and Institutional<br />
classification, as being a<br />
deal-breaker, either. Although<br />
there will be some separate homes<br />
as part of the senior complex, the<br />
idea is that seniors would eventually<br />
move from those to assisted<br />
living and full-time care units.<br />
That kind of component would<br />
have no impact on the schools, and<br />
almost none on traffic and services,<br />
such as police and fire.<br />
But, the question about a new<br />
DRI review, particularly in light of<br />
the current<br />
parkway status,<br />
is another<br />
matter entirely.<br />
DRI reviews<br />
are done by the<br />
Atlanta RegionalCommission<br />
(ARC)<br />
and, when appropriate,<br />
as in<br />
the case of<br />
large residentialdevelopments,<br />
by the<br />
Georgia RegionalTransportationAuthority<br />
(GR-<br />
TA). <strong>The</strong> ARC<br />
weighs a devel-<br />
DIALOGUE<br />
Gerry<br />
Yandel<br />
opment’s regional impact on infrastructure,<br />
the environment, how it<br />
fits into the area’s land use plan for<br />
long-term growth and other factors.<br />
GRTA evaluates the proposal’s<br />
impact on traffic and whether<br />
current road systems need improvement<br />
to support the anticipated<br />
influx of new residents.<br />
Although the ARC’s decisions<br />
are not binding, most communities<br />
weigh them heavily when deciding<br />
on rezoning issues for a proposal.<br />
GRTA, on the other hand,<br />
can withhold state and federal<br />
transportation funds if a developer<br />
and a community decide to ignore<br />
its decisions and conditions,<br />
which typically entail road improvements<br />
to handle additional<br />
traffic and vehicle trips brought on<br />
by large developments.<br />
In a letter sent April 7 to <strong>Cherokee</strong><br />
Planning Director Jeff<br />
Watkins, the ARC said a re-review<br />
was not necessary, because the<br />
scaled-down version of Canton<br />
West did not meet the requirements,<br />
based on land use and the<br />
size and scope of the proposal, to<br />
warrant a new DRI review under<br />
the ARC’s rules.<br />
■ ■ ■<br />
However, the letter also stated:<br />
“ARC strongly recommends that<br />
<strong>Cherokee</strong> County and the developer<br />
identify new funding sources<br />
for this transportation project and<br />
work with the city of Canton to request<br />
an administrative modification<br />
to the RTP (Regional Transportation<br />
Plan) in regards to this<br />
project.”<br />
GRTA’s response was even less<br />
equivocal. “If there are substantial<br />
changes to a plan, we expect<br />
the developer to discuss them with<br />
us – especially if they affect one of<br />
the conditions,” a GRTA<br />
spokesman told me. “If the<br />
changes are significant we would<br />
want to re-evaluate the DRI. Our<br />
DRI staff is going to follow up with<br />
the city.”<br />
<strong>The</strong> city has already spoken; last<br />
week Canton, which appears to<br />
want nothing to do with Etowah<br />
Valley whatsoever in light of the<br />
city having about 3,000 empty<br />
homesteads already looking for<br />
owners, formally removed the<br />
Etowah Valley parkway from its<br />
RTP.<br />
Furthermore, it is highly doubtful<br />
the city will allow any type of<br />
road connected to the project to be<br />
constructed within its city limits ...<br />
which pretty much foils about 75<br />
percent of the conditions and requirements<br />
for road improvements<br />
GRTA has said are necessary<br />
for the project to proceed.<br />
GRTA’s assessment was based<br />
on a four-lane road being put between<br />
Ga. 5 and Ga. 108 to handle<br />
the majority of the project’s expected<br />
traffic, but PEC has said it<br />
only plans to build a two-lane road,<br />
as per its original deal with Canton<br />
under Mayor Cecil Pruett. While<br />
there are no state or federal funds<br />
attached to the parkway project –<br />
which would need an additional<br />
$25 million or more to be widened<br />
to four lanes – GRTA’s findings<br />
should not be discounted, particularly<br />
by anyone who lives in the<br />
area and intends on being able to<br />
drive anywhere around there in<br />
the future.<br />
Everyone else in <strong>Cherokee</strong><br />
should let their commissioners<br />
know how they feel about the county<br />
possibly approving the proposal<br />
and being on the hook to pony up<br />
$25 million of taxpayer money to<br />
put the appropriate four-lane road<br />
out there.<br />
Perhaps the planning commission<br />
did PEC a favor by tabling the<br />
application for a second hearing –<br />
as opposed to recommending denial<br />
outright – but I’ll reserve judgment<br />
on that until after GRTA<br />
takes another look at it … even<br />
though no one asked them to do so.<br />
LETTERS<br />
■<br />
Turn off the TV and be productive<br />
Dear Editor,<br />
Media in America has begun to<br />
ensnare most of the kids who live<br />
there. It has produced so many<br />
new means of entertainment that<br />
many kids and young adults spend<br />
an average of 45 hours a week using<br />
some sort of electronic entertainment<br />
or communication device.<br />
It has gone too far, and some type<br />
of reform is needed, but focusing<br />
on what parents and their children<br />
can do to limit how much time they<br />
spend using media devices by find-<br />
ing other, more fulfilling, things to<br />
occupy their time is where it<br />
should start.<br />
I think the most effective way<br />
would be to simply not have a television<br />
in the house other than in<br />
the sitting room, den, living room<br />
or anywhere that the entire family<br />
will know that someone is watching<br />
the TV at any one time.<br />
Perhaps a more subtle approach,<br />
which might prevent any confrontations,<br />
would be to remove<br />
the cable box but not the entire TV<br />
from the room. A house could have<br />
just broadcast TV; it has very few<br />
channels, so there is less chance to<br />
have immoral programming on.<br />
I also believe that the use of the<br />
Internet on a cell phone is a waste<br />
of time and can lead to disaster<br />
when a person can watch any TV<br />
show they want whenever they<br />
want to watch it.<br />
At the least, these simple guidelines<br />
can help me, and they can<br />
surely help others.<br />
Daniel Bailey, 15<br />
Woodstock