Saturday, Dec. 3, 2016    Login | Register        

PTC voters give Imker a 4-year term, approve Sunday retail alcohol sales

Incumbent Post 1 Councilman Eric Imker Tuesday easily turned back a challenge from political first-timer Steve Allen to win a four-year term on the Peachtree City Council.

Imker’s tally was 2,039 votes (58 percent) to Allen’s 1,468 (42 percent).

Imker was running for a full term after having won a special election two years ago to fill the unexpired term of then-Councilman Don Haddix, who resigned to run for mayor.

George Dienhart locked up the unopposed Post 2 slot on council.

Voters also overwhelmingly approved the Sunday retail sale of alcoholic beverages 77 percent to 23 percent.

Voter turnout in Peachtree City uncharacteristically lagged the other two cities voting on council positions.

Only 15 percent of Peachtree City’s total of 23,185 cast ballots in this off-year city election. Fayetteville also uncharacteristically had a higher than usual city election turnout at 19 percent. And Tyrone led all comers with a 39 percent turnout.



Dondol's picture

Buy Booze on Sunday in PTC? Inquiring minds want to know!

NUK_1's picture

Dunno about PTC, Fayetteville and Tyrone, but the Newnan Times Herald this morning stated the Sunday sales go into effect in Newnan and Senoia the 20th.

So 943 voters didn't bother to record a favorable vote for Dienhart and 171 more voters were write-ins against him. That means over 30% of the PTC Citizens showing up for the election gave Dienhart the proverbial thumbs down, even though he was running unopposed!
So what does Dienhart attribute the negative connotation of over 30% quasi"no" votes or "un-votes"? His support of the very unpopular mayor? His continued love of the deader than dead DAPC? His endorsement of Allen? Putting words in the mouth of sitting council members in the editorials? Of course not!
Instead, Dienhart blames "residents who oppose his conservative Republican beliefs!" Are you kidding me? George has been drinking the same delusional-inducing kool-aid the mayor is addicted to. The liquid that causes one to do anything in the world rather than ever admit that perhaps they made a mistake. Thank you Jesus for keeping the Mayor and his new disciple from having a majority.
What is wrong with HONESTY and INTEGRITY as an approach once in a while? Incredible.

I also like the fact that Dienhart would now like to play the part of Jimmy Carter and negotiate a truce between the mayor and councilman Imker. Are we going to send him to the middle east too. This guy hasn't yet sat in on council and he wants to take charge. How about starting with an apology to sitting members for your stupid comments during the election and sit quietly and learn about the issues. What ever happened to working your way up the totem pole.

What is the point of the rant of saying a percentage of the people (might have) disapproved of an unopposed candidate. Of the voters that turned out, 42% disapproved of the incumbent Imker.

The real point is, Mad Mike, that both guys actually showed up. They put their names on the ballot. All you do is dribble your sarcastic remarks.

I think Imker is a petty egomaniac but he had the guts to stick his neck out. I'm part of the 42% that thinks he's a big part of the in-fighting on the city council. Our problem is we have five prima donnas with egos so fragile they can't handle the business of the city.

Don Haddix and Kim Learnard both deserve to be impaled by the voters when their terms end. Their continuous cat fighting is straining everyone's patience.

NUK_1's picture

Wow...I agree with you about never, but you're 100% right here.

I said over and over that Imker ain't the greatest and needed some "good competition," but that didn't happen in Allen who started out with nothing but the Haddix-Brown style of attack, attack, attack. He botched some facts and adios. I hope Imker doesn't let his re-election go to his head because he has some work to do and has also been part of the problem. Besides breaking his "no new tax pledge" and "not running for re-election" pledge, calling the Mayor "delusional" during the Council censure showed what an azz he could be. I don't care whether the statement is true or some class and just shut up. You knew you had the votes and Haddix was going to get censured.....just keep your mouth shut and at least pretend it's not so personal.

When Kim Learnard wrote a scathing opinion piece in The Citizen last year about how stupid anyone is who doesn't believe in single-payer universal health care, I never thought she'd make it to PTC City Council. I was totally wrong on that and now she's a lot of people's favorite councilmember. Why? I have no idea.

delusional, and I happen to like people who call a spade a spade. The mayor doesn't tip-toe around anyone else with his insults through these blogs and letters to the editor. Why should anyone give him the respect he never shows to anyone else?
Haddix plays from a lying, deceitful, and manipulative playbook but expects everyone else to be upright and respect him. You are implying that people aren't being "fair" to the Mayor and if you believe that Nuk, you've been played and are falling into the Mayor manipulation trap. You are smarter than that.

Randy Boyett's picture


I have come to enjoy your insights and find that most of the time I agree with you. On this one, I can't see it.

First, you can respect the office but an office holder may bring disrespect to that office. Think Blagojevich in Illinois. It has been proven on several occasions that Haddix tried to deceive. If those proofs are not enough, then I have others. I personally believe it was for personal gain and I see nothing he is doing that makes out city better.

Second,I have found a problem with Imker. He is an engineer, definitely not a politician or a salesman. Therefore when he sees someone deliberately misleading the citizens and that person does not have the experience or education needed to understand complex budget issues, he does not do a good job hiding his frustration. If you sit down with him and ask him to explain the budget issues, you may come to the same conclusion I did - he is truly trying to represent the citizens.

I would think that rather than looking for no conflict that we would want to know why there was conflict. Maybe one person is looking out for our interests and the other is not. It is up to us to try to get the facts so we understand the differences. I spent a lot of time doing the research so that is the basis of my viewpoint. Personally I'd rather have someone in elected office that stands up for what is right than just let a bad official get away with deceit.

As for Council Woman Learnard, I understand your viewpoint. I do not agree with her on all points. But then I do not agree with almost any elected official I can name on all points. I think the only way we would find the perfect match is if we were in the position. But I also spent time time talking to her and researching her positions. My opinion is that she is a person if integrity and has the best interest of the City at heart. At the end of the day, I personally can't think of anything better. I feel she will always listen and work in the best interests of the City. And who knows, we may be able to convince her to change her mind on those issues where we do not agree.

Democracy is messy, especially if you have a weak link. Our job is to do our homework so we don't get fooled and deceived.

Randy Boyett

Robert W. Morgan's picture

I must have missed that which doesn't make me stupid, but I sure don't believe in Obamacare or whatever its fancy name is and that does make stupid? Why does an otherwise intelligent person think that a single payer system is the answer to anything? And a city councilperson has exactly what to do with national healthcare issues?

Agree on Imker. Best course of action is to ignore the distracting little man and not get dragged down to his level. That should really be easy if George just takes a deep breath and settles down by January. Forget the peacemaker stuff, just take your municipal government courses and come in as the newest and most junior member. Stay away from Haddix and Imker - there is no upside potential there. Just learn something about business development from other cities and counties and be prepared to hire an EDC in January.

Live free or die!

NUK_1's picture

If one thinks that government is the solution nationally, they may tend to also feel that way about local issues too. While I haven't noticed Learnard being especially inclined that way so far on Council, this particular council has in fact stuck their nose in some issues such as considering gas golf cart bans, walking sign bans, tree-cutting bans, single service sanitation, etc that to me is a lot of overreach.

Randy Boyett's picture


Now I am understanding. As is much the mood of our Country today, you believe anything Government is bad. I can understand that as I too have great concerns. Our government does not appear to work well on almost any level.

But what should we expect when only 20% of voters turn out and I'd bet the majority of them don't do their homework. They dislike how things are going so they pull the lever for anybody but the incumbent. My question is - what if the incumbent is doing a really good job and is just constrained by other elected officials?

I invite you to take a look at an INC magazine article published this past January about Norway. They pay higher taxes than we do and their government is closer to socialism than we are. From the article, all levels of society from lower level workers to CEOs support the system. And don't think about immigrating there - they don't want us unless we have some unique talent or resource - their system works just fine and they have made Government work (albeit for a much smaller population).

So now maybe we need to frame the question as do we need Government? Obviously in the course of human history, the answer has been a resounding yes. So now, what should Government do?

We know defense is one job Government does that is needed. Regarding health care, just from the Facts - it would make sense as a Government service if we trusted our Government to perform (remember - I am aligned with you here in that our Government is not trusted to perform). But the facts are that when considering Canada, France, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK - The United States has the highest per capita cost for medical care and the lowest life expectancy (source World Health Organization circa 2008). As a matter of fact, out of the top 50 industrialized countries on this globe, the United States is the only Country to ration health care based on the ability to pay. Many people ion this County go without health care until it is too late - many insurance executives have high salaries, country club memberships, personal aircraft, etc. Meanwhile we eventually pay for those without health care that have catastrophic silliness when preventive care would have negated those costs.

So the facts seem to support single payer. Other facts are the highest and best use of resources. How many people do you know that stay in a job or do not start that dream company because of losing health care benefits? If they were not constrained what could they do to boost the economy?

The emotional concerns regarding our Government's inability to provide services for now seems to limit us. I get that and share those concerns. But maybe the issue is us - if we don't keep an eye on Government then those that want to deceive for personal reasons have nothing to reign them in.

It is not that single payer health care is so bad. It is that we do not trust Government and in so many cases we have been proven right. But Government is the people - so the first step is to make sure we are watching and participating. Only then can we keep the bad guys out and get a Government really working for the better good. For me I have started (finally - too many years with my head in the sand) where I think I can get the facts - the local level.

Randy Boyett

NUK_1's picture

[quote=Randy Boyett]NUK

Now I am understanding. As is much the mood of our Country today, you believe anything Government is bad. [/quote]

I never said that at all. I am all for minimal government and am not into anarchy. There are certain functions of government such as public safety, national defense and infrastructure/roads(private streets anyone? NO) that I don't ever see being performed solely by the marketplace nor do I want to see that.

Randy Boyett's picture


I did not mean to put words in your mouth. Maybe I was projecting my distrust of government :-)

Even on the essential services you mention, I can make many factual cases where the service is not being provided equitably or efficiently. Thankfully in more cases the opposite is true.

Also, I could make a great factual case that government health care as an essential service makes sense IF we trusted government to perform. Therefore I am back to my original thesis of we have government that frequently does not seem to work in our best interests and it is up to us to find the folks that will make it work. And once we find them, keep an eye that they are not overwhelmed with their self importance or make shallow attempts to deceive us.

Randy Boyett

Randy, just because it ain't a Cadillac doesn't mean it ain't a car! You trust the government to fight wars, run the FAA, pump water into your house, shoot people up to the moon, and lots of other stuff! It't ain't gotta be great, just good enough. I used to live in a couple of socialist paradises with government healthcare. It wasn't Mayo Clinic, but it was good enough for most of what ails ya!

Sam's Club has whole cooked chickens for five bucks!

Randy Boyett's picture


I wish I was smart enough to figure all of this our. I don't consider myself a socialist. But I also do not think I am an "as long as I am okay everyone else doesn't matter."

And I know that many abuse the system that tries to help those in need and those that abuse it should get their hinneys to work - if their were any jobs.

Like I said, I'm not smart enough to have a solution -

see Maddy Mike sees government as it is and ask why. I see it for what it could be and ask why not. (borrowed without permission)

Who's gonna be in the Super Bowl?

Randy Boyett

Rando the Truth Commando, as I have said, we all have our roles here, and in the universe! Yours seems to be digging up evidence on politicians that desire to wiggle-waggle with the truth! Keep that up and we will be fine!

On the Superbowl, the Packers no doubt! From the AFC, you can never rule out Pittsburgh or New England, even when they don't have the greatest teams. The Jets could still sneak in, but I will go with the two Ps--Packers and Pittsburgh, just because Big Ben knows how to get them there.

citizenal's picture

I am trying to learn and become more informed myself. It just seems to me that we have a few thousand years of history that seem to show us that the nature of man is to be enticed easily by greed, power and lust. The Founders recognized this and tried to set up a model of civil government with checks and balances for this reason. The more power we centralize in government the more we lose the checks and balances and the more we attract egomaniacs and power hungry sycophants. Health care seems to be the new front to put a HUGE chunk of our workers and economy in government hands. That means more voters who will be incentivised to vote for more government. It just doesn't seem to be wise to me. I am always puzzled by the statistics published that show other countries with single payer systems do better than we do yet as much as I have traveled I have never met anyone in any of those countries that I consider to be an independent type of person who likes it and doesn't envy us. I agree that the math does not work - if we will force a business (a hospital) to treat someone who will not (often this is a choice not 'forced' on them) or cannot pay and then force a taxpayer to pay for them the system cannot work. There is no incentive to pay for your self. Yet, this inherently does not seem just - which is the same reason used for paying for everyone who doesn't pay for themselves. Why is it just to rob me to pay for another? Indeed these are tough questions but I think, as we work to build a just society, we should focus on private enterprise solutions and not government ones.

and well written thoughts. I don't understand how anyone can support the socialized medicine idea. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The more the government heaps the social issue solution on the backs of those who create wealth (including jobs) the further our country will fall into the abyss which is socialism. Look no further than Europe for clues.

[quote] IF we trusted government to perform. Therefore I am back to my original thesis of we have government that frequently does not seem to work in our best interests and it is up to us to find the folks that will make it work .
And once we find them, keep an eye that they are not overwhelmed with their self importance or make shallow attempts to deceive us[/quote]

We have to scrutinize those who want to be our leaders and then VOTE for those who will work for us -and not special interests, etc. We have the right/ responsibility to vote, and Americans are squandering that responsibility by not voting! Sad. Less than 50% of eligible voters actually voting is inviting failure in government. VOTE !!

and many of those 50% that do vote don't have a clue of what or who they are voting for or the implications of that vote. There should be a qualification standard before one can vote. You should at least have an assemblance of how the government works. If one is too stupid or lazy to know what the issues are, they shouldn't get to vote. As my favorite radio personality once said,

“We have to do something to get the fools and the ignoramuses out of the voting booth in this country.”

Randy Boyett's picture

David's Mom

I think the quote says it all. We have to support the principles this country was founded on - even when it hurts.

I think Maddy is right that too many people go into the booth without a clue as to what their vote means. But it is something to correct going forward through education - not removing rights. When we do that, we don't have a democracy. Any Political Science major would know that.

But as you point out, an even worse problem is those who do not value their rights and privileges. What are they thinking?

Randy Boyett

your sacred books! We have to tax everyone to high heaven so you can get your free fix at the library! Just like Heroin Park in Switzerland!

BTW, do you think the police should be booting the 99%ers from the parks after 10PM? I don't think the Constitution said anything about free speech and peaceably assembling only being in effect between the hours of 9AM and 10PM!

I don't watch TV, but I caught about 10mins of CNN at a local eatery this AM. Boy, the people they let speak on there are pure propagandists for their side, whichever that may be! Made me sick!

Times a wasting!

Robert W. Morgan's picture

I get that Nuk, I really do and like you i am put off by the silly things this council has tried to regulate.
Of course PTC has a strong history of letting 3 citizens spout off before council to make an imaginary problem one that needs a new regulation, so that is not new, but it sure is annoying.

For my part, anybody that supports Obamacare, Obama or thinks that more spending is the answer to our national problems is a complete uneducated fool. I doubt Ms. Learnard falls into that category but there is help on the way in case her mind wanders again. In March the Supreme Court is going to rule on Obamacare and they will certainly kill off the idea that the government can force you to buy insurance or anything else. Once that is gone, the rest will crumble slowly and by election day 2012 it will be a distant memory.

Just think , little more than a year from now - new President, new mayor, certain majority in the House and possibly the Senate. Herman Cain will be VP or DefSec. Lynn Westmoreland will be appointed CIA Director, Scott Bradshaw will be the city's new Mayor (or at very least the EDC), Joe Lieberman will be Secretary of State. Condoleeza Rice will be on the Supreme Court. Dept of Education, Commerce and the EPA dismantled. All things possible under our second divorced President ever and the only one called Newt.

Live free or die!

Randy Boyett's picture


That is a heck of a crystal ball. Can you tell me where I left my keys?


Randy Boyett

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Glad to help.

Oh yea, one other thing - transportation tax passes metro wide. Fayette votes no. Fayette doesn't get any new roads.

Live free or die!

Randy Boyett's picture


Thanks - there they were. Maybe we should think about a trip to Vegas?

OBTW - I do not plan to vote for any tax increases per the transportation plan and I am hoping that is the feeling region wide. I do think we need to be in ARC for what I hope are factual and realistic reasons. But I do not support any additional taxes until I think that they are spending what they have wisely.

Randy Boyett

Gotta agree with the sentiments of the dead guy and NUK_1 here. The socialist/democrat answer is always to throw more government at the problem. They believe (and I am sure I am plagiarizing someone here) that America is good because of government while I believe America is good despite government.
I am with NUK_1. There are legitimate tasks and necessities for government... maintaining roads for instant. The idea however that every time someone has a belly ache that the government has to provide a solution is what is wrong with this country now. It is not the job of government to take care of every social issue that comes down the pipe, including unemployment, healthcare, etc. If Learnard believes that, I haven't seen it in application locally, and I am not as concerned about those beliefs in local officials as I am in state or national officials.
Obama must go. Socialism is not the answer. And Occupy Wherever participants need to go find a frickin job and be part of the solution!
OK, done now.

Randy Boyett's picture

Absolutes are absolutely wrong.

Governments have the potential to be great and the potential to be really bad (think Syria). Our government certainly cannot be held up as a model for almost any function.But that does not mean that government cannot work under the right circumstances. Starting as a young Republican in college,Atlas Shrugged was the bible. But lately big business tends to scare me more than government. The bottom line is both needs reins and someone firmly holding those reins.

Randy Boyett

I actually think our government, as created, and our Constitution, as written, is indeed a model for all societies who truly want freedom and an unlimited opportunity for individuals to use their God-given talents to succeed. It isn't perfect, but perhaps as perfect as man has ever come.
The problem is when government heads down that slippery road ever so gently and begins eroding those freedoms and opportunities in the name of the public good... that attitude that government knows better for the individual than he knows himself. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. It is hard to go back in the other direction.
That is where we are right now. We have a government and a body of thinking (mostly Democrats) who believe the answer for everything is government. If there is a tragedy at school, the government believes it is their job to bring in counselors and trauma experts to help our children deal with it. If you lose your job, no rush to go out and get a new one. You can stay on unemployment from now til the end of time and sit around and watch TV all day. Don't make enough to feed your family? Not a problem, keep having more babies and the government will give you a place to live and food stamps to buy your potato chips and beer.
What we have is a government that takes individual responsibility out of the equation and provides a safety net for every mistake anyone can make. You and I pay for it Randy and now Obama wants to take more money from those of us who can and have, to give it to those who choose not to. I don't present those as absolutes as I know there are plenty of exceptions.
But if the government would just get the hell out of the way and let the free enterprise system take its course, the natural order of things would fall into place.
Big business scares me too, but mostly because the government won't allow them to stand on their own two feet. They use our tax dollars to bail them out because they are incapable of producing products and services that keep the profits and margins in line with expenses. If the small and local business owner does that, he closes shop. If it's Chrysler, then they get propped up. But why should that surprise us... that's how the Federal Government operates. When you don't have enough money just print some more and borrow more and then try to put it on the backs of the taxpayers.
Randy, you and I should take a long walk one day and I will get you thinking correctly on these issues. If I can't convince you by the turn, I will push you in the lake and keep walking.

Randy Boyett's picture

kinda hard to keep walking on with two broken legs.

Don't get me wrong Mickey - big government scares me as much as big business. There has to be a balance in both. Right now I don't think most government works well. But I think business without boundaries would devastate our country.

I don't think they will make me king for a day so my opinion doesn't count anyway. Maybe the real KING (Mike) has the answer.

Randy Boyett

that makes two of us who don't get to make the decisions. I guess we have to leave it to our elected leaders to make the tough calls, like Mayor Haddix and George Dienhart.

Randy Boyett's picture

That is an unfair threat Madmike - now I'm scared.

Randy Boyett

that Dienhart needs to take note of the results of his efforts thus far,learn some acute lessons and take a more mature tact if he plans on having a positive impact on council. All he has produced so far is a pissed off sitting council, hammering the final nail in the coffin of Allen, and stirring up distrust with the voters. If he is going to hold the olive branch between his teeth, then Dienhart needs to start working on his own communication skills before he blesses the land with his form of peace negotiations.
Way too much controversy from an unopposed (not elected) individual who has yet to take his first breath as a council member. An honest assessment of why he received so many "quasi-no votes" (as the paper called it) would be an admission of pre-election diarrhea of the mouth as the cause rather than his Republican ideology as he wants us to believe.

NUK_1's picture

When you want to start "negotiations" by getting rid of one side(Imker), it makes it very difficult to resume talks when that one party happens to handily beat his opposition in Allen as well as the Dienhart opposition/endorsement that drew the ire of 2 other sitting Councilmembers.

Best thing Dienhart can do is:
a) stay off of here
b) shut up and listen
c) never campaign against other councilmembers when you're running unopposed in your own race unless you know the opponent(s)have a great chance of winning, unlike Allen did. You have to serve with those other councilmembers and you just got off to a terrible start and it was a 180 degrees different than the BS you stated when you announced your candidacy.
d) stop drinking the Haddix Kool-Aid and don't resort to his same tactics(see (a),(b), and (c).

Randy Boyett's picture


So far he is a legend in his own mind. We can only hope he gets it - but is he doesn't he just gets ignored as irrelevant. Time will tell.

Randy Boyett

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content