Pink Pony Lawsuit Against Brookhaven -Novel Theory?

My legal expertise is limited to re-runs of “Matlock,” so we need some legal beagles to weigh in. The Pink Pony (link probably not entirely safe for work) used to sit in unincorporated DeKalb County- but is now inside the city limits of Brookhaven. The city adopted some laws that were substantially different than DeKalb’s codes about adult-oriented businesses, namely that you can either sell alcohol or provide nudie dancers -but not both. The Pony has been in similar litigation before, and reached an agreement with DeKalb County (when the County passed a similar ordinance) that allowed the club to continue offering Live Nude Girls AND booze -in return  for $100,000 in licensing fees per year. According to the Brookhaven Reporter, “The lawsuit claims that the Pink Pony’s settlement agreement with DeKalb County is a contract that allows the club to operate in its current format until 2022.” It also claims up to $48 million in potential damages. Now, the novel theory part…

According to the Brookhaven Post (an anonymous website of dubious provenance) the lawsuit doesn’t just seek to extend the Pony’s contract with DeKalb to the city of Brookhaven, it seeks to dissolve the city altogether. The lawsuit alleges lack of statutory notice of the bill that allowed the referendum on Brookhaven’s cityhood in the first place. Res ipse retainer,Having not been properly enacted, HB 636, authorizing the incorporation referendum, did not become law. Thus, the referendum of July 31, 2012 was improper and void; thus the incorporation of the City of Brookhaven is void.

Seems a little off the deep end, but the entire lawsuit is here, download all 43 pages and look through it yourself if you’d like. Lawyers, any comments you leave below will not be held against you.

 

99 comments

  1. James says:

    Interesting theory. It definitely gives the Pony (only people who have never been there describe it as “the Pink Pony”) negotiating leverage with the city. Kudos to the attorneys.

  2. Stefan says:

    I’ve got some bad news for Brookhaven or whatever Greater Pink Pony is called now. You’ve got a takings problem, a free speech problem, and a Yazoo Land Fraud all wrapped into one. Best be reading Fletcher v. Peck and its progeny and get ready for some hurt.

    • dsean says:

      Interesting take. I view the takings claim as the weakest given “total deprivation” standard. I think the stronger claim is that the prior non-conforming use should have been grandfathered in, but this is pretty far from my practice area.

      • Stefan says:

        Well, truthfully I extrapolated from a news report I read that doesn’t square with the facts as alleged in the complaint, so I’ll withdraw that for now and defer to you. In addition, in what the plaintiffs allege regarding the ordinance is true (that nude is defined as wearing some clothes, and semi-nude is described as being fully clothed) they are going to have a tough time.

        And you just can’t abrogate a contract like that. That’s the Fletcher v. Peck reference above.

        • bgsmallz says:

          FYI- The settlement agreement clearly states that the activity is allowed in DeKalb County. Now…that can’t be construed as DeKalb County as a whole because (a) it isn’t part of the set of powers granted to a county under the constitution outside of the exception that allows the county to provide municipal services and (b) the county did not and does not have the power to bind incorporated areas to a settlement of this type or to dictate municipal services in a different municipality. For example, Decatur was in no way affected by this settlement. The argument that DeKalb could some how bind another municipal body, regardless of whether it presently existed, to a settlement without its consent doesn’t make any sense and is completely out of line with the constitution of the state. The county can’t trump constitutional legislative power by a settlement agreement.

          So getting to your Fletcher v. Peck argument…the city isn’t voiding or cancelling the contract. It isn’t declaring it invalid. Quite the contrary, the city has merely said that DeKalb can’t affirmatively bind it to a contract that the city was not a party to. It isn’t a property issue. It is a duty issue. Go and continue to execute your duty…just don’t do it here b/c it is against the law. The PP would be more than able to continue to go and operate somewhere else in the county…but for the fact that their lawyers agreed unconditionally that they could not move the location as part of the settlement agreement. Ru-roh. Annexation or incorporation is 100% a foreseeable event…the fact that the PP’s attorneys negotiated a settlement that left them zero ability to continue operating in the event such an annexation/incorporation occurred (for example, adding a clause that states something to the effect of ‘in the event of annexation or incorporation the county will use good faith to provide a suitable replacement site OR pay liquidated damages of X’) isn’t a Fletcher v. Peck issue…it is a drafting issue.

          • Scott65 says:

            It seems to me that Brookhaven knowing about the agreement (in fact using the revenue generated in their incorporation statements) should have some meaning. They incorporated knowing this was there and used it to their advantage…I’m not a Lawyer, but that seems kinda fishy to me (no pun intended)

  3. Timothy Parsons says:

    If you take the time to read the whole story, follow the references, and read the petition, it’s not here say. It’s what the Pony cites in their petition. Simple facts. Very interesting if you take the time.

    Best.

    TP

  4. Nick Chester says:

    Wow. I am a little rusty on the State muni law issues but somebody needs to get better legal help. The creation issues are novel but they seem to be valid. Maybe a new city needs better oversight than we thought.

  5. James says:

    I took another look at the specific statute the Pony relies on in arguing that the city was never properly chartered. The statute essentially says that notice of an amendment to a municipal charter must be properly served as set forth in the statute. I don’t think that statute applies here because the City of Brookhaven did not exist at the time and, obviously, there was no municipal charter to amend.

    So maybe that specific argument is no good. Brookhaven will have big problems with the rest.

    Which begs the following questions: (1) who are the busybodies who said “now that we have our city, it’s time to get rid of the Pony”; and (2) why do they have to ruin things for the rest of us?

    • I’ve been going back and forth between reading and a software upgrade I’m doing here. Looks like we’re thinking along the same lines re: amendment to charter vs incorporation of charter.

  6. It is interesting. Reading through it, perhaps someone can clarify on point 26 on page 8. The language says “amending the charter of a municipality”. But I would thinking amending the charter of an existing municipality is different than the creation of a charter of a municipality, is it not? Continuing to read that section, it says that a copy of the proposed legislation has to be transmitted to the municipality. Again, you can’t transmit a copy of proposed legislation to a municipality that doesn’t technically exist, right?

    I completely support the Pony’s being able to continue to operate as they have been, but I’m not seeing 26 as being a valid point. Maybe someone that actually has been to law school can clarify / confirm here?

    • Nick Chester says:

      I would think the whole point is to provide notice of some type. If the notice was by publication then I would think that you are correct. If an amending of a charter requires a certain type of notice (low threshold), then maybe creating a new charter requires a higher standard of notice.?

      • Perhaps creating a new charter does require a higher standard of notice. But the standard of notice for creation of a charter isn’t addressed in the section of the code quoted. It’s like saying the penalty for drunken driving laws should be stiffer than the penalty for speeding but only quoting the code regarding speeding.

  7. I think maybe the best question of all to ask is what was the point of including areas that no one in their right mind ever referred to as “Brookhaven” so they could increase their tax revenue (they did it up and down the board, including commercial zones and excluding poorer residential neighborhoods) and then trying to destroy said tax revenue like this?

    If they didn’t want the Pink Pony operating in Brookhaven, why’d they annex it? Oh yeah, maybe it’s because it’s surrounded by high taxable office parks where no voters actually live.

    • bgsmallz says:

      #1- You come up with a southern boundary that makes any sense other than I-85 and then you can start to criticize it. Seriously…your argument about boundaries is completely asinine. The city of Brookhaven is literally bounded 75% to 85% by other municipalities…Sandy Springs and and Atlanta to the West, Dunwoody to the North, and Chamblee to the East. There isn’t much creativity left. You either bound it to the south by 85….or you cut neighborhoods in half. Yes…drawing lines down the middle of Clairmont Rd and I-85 is clearly a dastardly deed.

      Look, if you can’t afford a map, feel free to use Google…but don’t just spout theories that make zero sense based upon reality.

      #2- The reason you include the PP in the city is because you sure as heck-fire don’t want to leave it to DeKalb. They’ve proven they suck…in fact, they worse than suck. They identified the problem and took a bribe to ignore it. Think about that for a second…DeKalb passed a law that said what you are doing is illegal and then took $100,000 to say, “keep on doing that illegal thing, it’s cool with us.” It’s perfect DeKalb County….spend millions on lawsuits that don’t benefit taxpayers while running and hiding when you face adversity over something that does benefit taxpayers. I promise you that if were some sort of goat rope dealing with county corruption, we would have spent millions before taking a settlement.

      BTW- You do realize it is within walking distance of an elementary school and a high school, right? Nothing to see here folks! Don’t mind those used condoms on the recess field kids because City Hall is getting paid, yo!

      #3- Again, you’re talking about gross revenue and I’m talking about net revenue. Feel free to include expenses at some point in your astute analysis.

      #4- Case in point….the east side of Clairmont is out of the city of Brookhaven and in DeKalb Co. Guess what? The folks that live in Ashford Park who were complaining about the city to start with are now complaining that the city can’t do anything about the night clubs there…where there was a killing a couple of months ago…nothing to see here! Just consenting adults having fun, you prudes! No cost to you…only $$ in the coffers.

      This is seriously so stupid. The costs of these places completely outweigh any sort of bribe they pay in tax dollars or hush money. It isn’t about nude dancing. It is about crime, blight, and property values.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        I think that final Brookhaven limits are reasonable. The Pink Pony however was part and parcel of the area between I-85 and Buford Hwy and Fulton County and Briarwood Road, a 0.5 sq mile area that is 80% commercial.

        • Scott65 says:

          regardless…just watch, this will all quietly go away. The PP has an almost unlimited amount of cash they can throw at this, and I’m not sure a new city wants to expend the amount of resources needed to fight this in court…where I dont see them winning as being a lock. There’s a reason they say money talks and BS walks…hell…take the money…build a park somewhere with a carousel full of pink ponies as a center piece…lol (now THAT would be an exquisite use of tax money)

      • Another Dave says:

        “#2- The reason you include the PP in the city is because you sure as heck-fire don’t want to leave it to DeKalb.”

        I see, DeKalb is corrupt so lets grab the Pony (and by doing so a bunch of commercial tax base) and the do the right thing by shutting down those heathens.

        In another comment you talked about the Pony’s secondary effects. Since it opened here are some of them:

        The Salvation Army spent a few million next door.

        The rat trap apartments across Buford Hwy were torn down and replaced with a new complex.

        A Condominium development was built on the other side of Curtis with units that went, I believe in the low $300k’s before the recession.

        The apartments above the condos were bought by a developer and slated for razing and new development before the recession.

        The neighborhoods along North Druid Hills are full of mini-mansions.

        The City of Brookhaven thought so little of the blighted neighborhood that its Municipal Court is moving into Corporate Square across the street.

        And the final terrible effect of the Pony: The Atlanta Diner, a long stone throw away, has been torn down and a McDonald’s is being built.

        Secondary effects indeed!

      • bobmusicgirl says:

        Oh goodness. If you want to start with the excess of crime going on in the vicinity of a strip club, I highly suggest you look up statistics. I would be willing to bet there’s more crime committed at gas stations than at the pony (where there’s two cops standing outside checking ID’s) correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the only reason you bring up crime is because you’d rather be flogged than go to a strip club. Guess what? This is America where there’s freedom of choice and if you so choose to not go to the pony, nobody will hold that against you. There are people who would like to go and in the same respect don’t deserve the judgment. Atlanta is one of the strip club capitals of the U.S. and for local government to start this battle is a simple way of saying, I’m your daddy now and I want more money than the previous Dekalb got out of this partnership. Truth be told, this type of behavior should be worry some to taxpayers, no business should be in such partnership by way of bribe. This wreaks of unethical fish stench in my opinion.

  8. Timothy Parsons says:

    All. The issue is simply solved. Let sleeping dogs (or Ponies) lie. Case closed. Brookhaven, go have a nice day rezoning and developing land to try to create a tax base that never existed in the first place.

    The people who voted for the city did so with an “impulse buy” mindset. DeKalb is messy. No doubt. We can have better, no doubt. But that comes with booting out the old way of doing things and having a non-CEO form of governance.

    Shame on Elaine Boyer – who represents most or all of the area that won the city vote for Jacobs -for letting those who live under her watch, feel under represented. 16 years. Re-elected over and over again. Or should the blame in large part be placed on those who continually re-elect non- existent representation?

    The Pink Pony WAS the ONLY reason the proponents of the city did not have a deficit in their CVI study. They needed it to get the bill through. Then they could do away with it after their usefulness was used up.

    • bgsmallz says:

      That’s just silly. #1- the tax numbers being thrown around by their lawyers in the run up to filing the lawsuit are bogus. The city doesn’t collect sales tax. The city also doesn’t receive more than $2,500 in property taxes from them.

      #2- per DeKalb’s crimetrac, there were 37 individual crimes in the block of 1800 corporate blvd in the last 5.5 months. Thirty -Seven!!! Plus, multiple sex crimes, drig charges, etc. in the surrounding hotels that serve the PPs clientele. There are two sides to the coin…revenues and expenses. Even if it is $300,000 in annual revenue there is no way that pays for the related costs for providing services to the area.

      But let’s not talk about that…lets make it an issue of old people against nude dancing.

      • griftdrift says:

        Powerful arguments as usual biggie.

        However

        Using crimetrac, there were 41 crimes in the Brookhaven Station Shopping Center area since the first of the year.

        You going to shut down the Hudson Grille, too?

          • bgsmallz says:

            Are you going to give me ‘area’? Because I was only using 1800 Corporate Blvd for my number. Let that sink in….

            To be fair, it isn’t the end all. But to your point…I assume we would agree that type of crime matters. Car break ins are different than pimping, prostitution, cocaine possession, shootings, etc. Second, note that crime isn’t the only standard when looking at secondary effects. The fact that there are crimes at Brookhaven Station without blight and effects on the surrounding land values and rents strengthens the argument that the secondary effects produced by that combination of activity at the PP are real and pose a cost to the community.

            • griftdrift says:

              Specifically, I used a .5 mile radius with Station as the dead center.

              And the blight argument is a good one. But one could point out the area hasn’t changed much in the past 25 years or since Brookhaven consciously chose to annex it, for whatever reason.

              And you are correct, the majority of crimes around Brookhaven Station were property crimes.

              However ( I’m channeling my inner Columbo today )

              When discussing this last year, one of the primary arguments by proponents of cityhood was lack of attention by Dekalb PD to……..property crimes.

              I remember something about a stolen lawn mower.

              • bgsmallz says:

                About 25 years, you say? Hmmmmm…PPony opened 22 years ago, right? You should ask the office space owners, which predates the PPony, how their rents have been affected.

                I can’t speak for anyone and their lawnmowers…but DeKalb buffoonery was the cause for most of the symptoms. This isn’t a Brookhaven problem. It’s a DeKalb problem created by accepting a payoff in exchange for illegal behavior. Oasis is suing Doraville(where is the gnashing of teeth there?), PP is suing Brookhaven, and Follies will ultimately sue Chamblee after annexation.

            • I wouldn’t necessarily think of the two as good comparisons. It seems to me (perhaps this is just my perception) that most areas close to the interstate seem to have more blight and fluctuating surrounding land values and rents – regardless of whether there is an adult entertainment establishment in the area or not. Brookhaven Station is nowhere near the interstate whereas Corporate Boulevard is a stone’s throw from it. I think we can all agree that Buford Hwy (which Corporate Boulevard pulls off of) isn’t exactly known for it’s luxury condos and lack of crime in just about any stretch one can think of at least up until perhaps a certain section of Gwinnett. Am I wrong?

            • Scott65 says:

              Well hell…lets just shut Cheshire Bridge Road down! Oh, thats right, they tried that and it failed.

        • Ghost of William F Buckley says:

          grift, I can say that mainstream businesses, especially those that cater to family (dance studio, insurance sales, fashion retail, etc.) are very sensitive to locations that have liquor stores, nude anything, pawn shops, certain types of bars, and even thrift stores adjacent. What happens is businesses like I mentioned tend to NOT mind being neighbors and then you have a whole host of businesses that place a very real downward pressure on the commercial market. Residences don’t want to be near these places either…

          In the case of the Pony, they are isolated, set back in Corporate Square, so the effect is minimal. If they were gone Buford highway would remain largely unchanged, but maybe the sketchy bars would be less likely to draw from the Pony. These types of establishments tend to feed each other the same clientele.

      • benevolus says:

        Hey, how big of a radius do you have to use to get all those drug and sex crime stats, because I did a half-mile and I only got one prostitution and one marijuana possession and one coke possession, which I suspect wouldn’t be too much different than many other 1/2 mile radii in the city over a 6 month period.

  9. griftdrift says:

    Recalling a discussion I had with a former front pager about creating more government, even if the cause is noble, is still creating more government.

  10. Timothy Parsons says:

    Just an observation for Mike H. Looks like the “anonymous dubious provenance website” has been the source of some traffic for you today. Perhaps your “jab” was ill intended. The Brookhaven Post has video taped EVERY Brookhaven meeting – before and after incorporation. In fact, the city links to their videos. Just an observation.

    http://m.youtube.com/channel/UCZ6X9ZltWR7_K1SSh22YPSA

  11. “In 2007, Pink Pony entered into a valid contract (“Amended Agreement”) with DeKalb
    County, Georgia, to continue to license Pink Pony to operate a restaurant with alcohol
    consumption on premises combined with adult nude dancing entertainment in consideration for
    the settlement and dismissal of numerous lawsuits by certain adult nude dancing entertainment
    establishments in the County. This contract, inter alia, provided for the payment of higher
    graduated licensing fees and an annual payment beginning at $100,000, by each establishment.”

    Sounds like a mafia type arrangement to me. “You pay us $100,000 a year and we’ll let you do business in our neighborhood.” Interesting.

  12. Scott65 says:

    Anyone who has done business with these guys can tell you that they pull in ENORMOUS amounts of cash (and they pay there vendors in said cash). To think that a couple of up tight blue hairs are gonna shut this pony down is wishful thinking at best. Who the hell thumbs their nose at 100,000 dollars???? Especially when you’re a new city…I predict this all goes away very shortly. There will be something “worked out”

    • Rick Day says:

      sidebar: my venue deals with a lot of cash, but not as much as the Pony or it’s competition. We pay vendors (except the liquor distributors- they don’t take cash) in cash because the banks charge $2 per $100 to process (count) cash deposits. Bank of Humongous™ gives us the first $20k a month free, but I can blow through that in one deposit.

      That can add up to a couple of thousand a year in banking fees (in 2012 we paid almost $10k in banking and merchant account fees). So it is not *necessarily* an attempt to hide revenue.

      My solutions were to buy a couple of ATM machines and use our own cash to stock it. Only the bar not the door takes plastic. Not only do we save on merchant fees, but we actually get a nice commission on the ATM sales. The bookkeeper/SO was pleased.

      The rest of it gets converted into a free cashier’s check, then deposited later as a check. Places like the Pony probably do in a week what we do in a month, so..yeah! That is a lot of tax money to contribute. That makes them a solid asset to the city, if you ask me.

        • Rick Day says:

          No you certainly did not. I dropped that line in because there is a general stereotype about club owners feeling bled because of their ‘sinful ways’ so they must ‘tithe’ to society in excessive taxes and fees.

          Some have used way less to justify underreporting, especially in cash intensive businesses like vending and such.

  13. Rick Ztul says:

    Why do you refer to the Brookhaven Post as anonymous? Is Peach Pundit covering Brookhaven and all of its happenings since its creation? Please show me where I can find your video coverage of city council meetings and other notable city related events. Just who is Peach Pundit anyway?

    I do not know who Brookhaven Post is but I do know that they are the only media source covering Brookhaven and they must be doing a good job. When your neighbors talk objectively about their videos and discuss the previous nights online stream of a city related meeting they must be doing something right.

    • I referred to the Brookhaven Post as “anonymous” because there’s nowhere on the site that lists the author’s name nor any contributors’ names. Which makes it “anonymous.” If need to to know who Peach Pundit is, a)You haven’t been around here very long, b)You should call pretty much any elected official in Georgia and ask them, c)Maybe you should read the column on the right-hand side of the page, the part that says “Contributors.” Pick one or all.

      As far as BP being “the only news source covering Brookhaven,” I would refer you to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Dunwoody Crier, and All News 106.7 -news sources that have covered Brookhaven at various times.

      • Rick Ztul says:

        Mike, have the sources you mentioned covered Brookhaven city consistently? No. Brookhaven Reporter is the only media source you occasionally see at city meetings and their coverage is somewhat abbreviated.

        If you attend any of their city meetings you will see a press representative present from BP and the mayor and each and every one of the city council members know who they are. Maybe you should ask the city council just who BP is.

        Or maybe I should state it state it way: b) You should call pretty much any elected official in Brookhaven and ask them who BP is.

          • Rick Ztul says:

            Mike, as long as they simply post factual information and videos, what does it matter? It is not an opinion site. Have you visited BP and found articles you take exception to? Have you had complaints about their site?

          • Rick Ztul says:

            Mike, let’s play a reading game. Read this story:

            http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2013/05/15/lawsuit-strip-club-sues-brookhaven-for-48-million/
            (You may have to scroll down)

            Then read this story regarding the same subject:

            http://thebrookhavenpost.net/?p=4984

            Just curious, which story do you find better researched, factual, and accurate? Does the absence of a contributing author attached to the second story diminish the accuracy and research that went into this story? There is no guessing going on in this article, it is factual. If you look at the copy of the lawsuit included with the Brookhaven Reporter article it is not even signed.

            So we have “reputable” known journalist with a half assed story. Then we have an unknown individual that has really done his homework posting nothing but the facts. So tell me just how relevant are names if the facts are reported?

            By the way, the author of the Brookhaven Reporter won an award recently. This tells you the state of journalism today. But you already know that.

            • By-lined articles are better than anonymous ones. Because if I have an issue with the story, or a question about it, I can go to Melissa Weinman and ask her. That’s called “accountability.” What’s “half-assed” is putting up a story, calling it factual but not signing your name, and then calling a real reporter names.
              Stuff like that will get you banned from this site.

    • BTW… even the domain registration is private. What do they have to hide, anyways?

      Registrant
      Domains By Proxy, LLC
      (480) 624-2599 Phone
      (480) 624-2598 Fax
      DomainsByProxy.com
      14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
      Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
      United States
      [email protected]

  14. James says:

    Here’s a bold prediction of how this plays out: a member of Brookhaven’s city council gets the city to hire a buddy’s mega-firm (think King & Spalding, Alston, etc.) at $500 an hour. Litigation lasts years, the buddy and his firm get rich, and Brookhaven and the Pony end up with a deal approximating the existing deal between the Pony and DeKalb. Welcome to cityhood, suckers!

    • Timothy Parsons says:

      James,
      Would you consider running for mayor for the city of Brookhaven?
      I think the office may be open in 11 years or so. I love me some good ole Brookhaven politics.

      See this article on the Brookhaven Post. A personal favorite.

      http://thebrookhavenpost.net/?p=4244

    • Chris Boedeker says:

      Obv, but this is how it’s done in greater DeKalb too. How many CEOs, Superintendents, advisers of Boards are we paying legal fees for now?

      Bureaucrats don’t fight the bill, and why should they? Almost none of it is their money.

  15. drjay says:

    don’t most businesses get grandfathered in if their zoning as part of a county doesn’t necessarily mesh with that of their new jurisdiction during annexing or deannexing situations—why was the pony, erm pink pony different in this case?

    • Dave Bearse says:

      If not grandfathering, the agreement may apply to DeKalb County successors, whether explicitly articulated in the agreement or not.

    • Scott65 says:

      I know Sandy Springs was first established they tried to get rid of some strip club on Roswell Rd a while back just because they changed the name (not the incorporated name…nothing changed there) on the front of the building. I know because I spent many, many, many hours designing the sign and redesigning to fit the ever changing demands of the “evolving” city code which seemed to change daily. It went to court and Sandy Springs lost because it was obvious they were changing the code only to exclude this business. I got paid and haven’t thought about it since…so I dont know if its still there, but point being is they couldn’t force the club out…dont know if thats relevant, but its a story I am well acquainted with.

  16. Scott65 says:

    Has anyone noticed not a single FEMALE (that I know of) has posted in this thread…..just sayin’…

    • Harry says:

      Why should females be concerned if a strip club is in the neighborhood where their husbands and boyfriends go to drop their money and come home drunk with STDs?

      • Rick Day says:

        I can personally attest that alcohol is not a source of STDs, good sir!
        Also, women frequent these establishments as well, sometimes with their SO and sometimes with friends or even *gasp* alone! Are you hatin’ on dancers are diseased sluts who are clueless to the term “no thank you”?

        Allow me to buy you an excellent prime rib meal at my great neighbors at Cheetah’s Aleuvian Restaurant, with optional tittys on the side.

        It’s OK Harry. No sex cooties will jump out on ya. I’ll protect ya!

  17. EnuffGovtAlready says:

    My “out there” theory or hunch; some developer has their eye on a section of Buf Hwy like NE Plaza/P Towne Apts and they need certain conditions before they can pull together investment. They need a malleable (small) city govt so they help create one. They need a clean platform of acceptable (low profit & willing to sell) businesses in the immediate area to attract follow on investment and they need current low income housing shut down so that their version of affordable housing is profitable. Nowadays why wait on the free market when with the right lobbying you can create the right environment in a year or two. My guess is the shopping center and the aparments become some kind of Atlantic Station/Town BLVD redevelopment. The Pony still being the only “kink” in the plan has gotta go. It’s a far fetched notion but I like it…In reality this probably just a dumb move by novice politicians trying to make momma proud. Dunwoody outlawed all businesses devoted to carnal desires so Brookhaven thinks it must follow suit.

    • Ghost of William F Buckley says:

      There are carnal words in the Dunwoody Code that would make a pro blush….

      By far, this is the most scintillating, spirited, and lively thread on PP in awhile. In one place we can read all about:
      – fab restaurant recommendations,
      – threats of being banned from PP {E Gad, perish the thought…},
      – outing of a blogger {+69 bgsmallz} and, last but not least,
      – commercial real estate advice!

      “If it ain’t in Peach Pundit, it ain’t warth knowin’ –

Comments are closed.