School Board Buys 113 Acres
Recently the Douglas County School Board has purchased a 113-acre tract at the corner of Johnston and Mason Creek Road, just south of Post Road and Interstate 20 – parcel number 01360250018. The land will be used for a new elementary school and middle school. Funds for the purchase likely came from the 2007 school bond referendum that was approved earlier this year by the public.
County property records show that the land was previously owned by Morton L. Olshan, had a fair market value of $675,900 and is all greenspace based on aerial photography. This location was not predicted as a building site out of five that was illustrated on Google Maps. No information of the purchase was available on the School Board’s website. Information about property records is public knowledge and can be accessed online.
Perfect location. Put a school right next to the major I-20 access point for west Douglas County. If the idea is to create the biggest traffic headache for the citizens, this is one of the best undeveloped locations in the county. It ranks right up there with putting the Mall between Highway 5 and Chapel Hill Road.
Bring all the parents to the I-20 on ramp at the same time. Add the never ending additional subdivisions. Add 10,000 houses in Wolf Creek. I hope that the School Board is planning to pay for the planned traffic light and intersection improvements at Mason Creek & Post Road since they are going to cause the problem.
So much for the west side of the County being a respite from poor planning when it comes to traffic.
BTW: If the fair market value was $676K, I hope that the School Board did not pay more than $750K. If they did then someone at the Assessor’s Office needs to explain why.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:37 amMikeH,
That area is not going to have major development because it is all 3 acre miniumum for houses (I-20 to Hwy -166 to Hwy 5)
June 26th, 2007 at 7:01 amThe idea is to NOT put an extra restriction on traffic in a high traffic area. Three main connections to I-20 all converge at this 113 acres and putting in something that will attract MORE cars (for no other reason than Johnny doesn’t want to ride the bus) is just plain stupid.
Besides, as soon as a sewer system gets installed in the west side the density restriction will go away on areas served.
Also, if the District 4 commissioner ever is in favor of repealing the 1 per 3 restriction, it will go away (like Lawrence Barker would have).
When they build Wolf Creek in Carroll, Douglas will still get the traffic when people need to get to I-20.
Anyone who actually believes that west Douglas County will not be developed needs to remember that developers were able to circumvent laws on wetlands and install a mall on them in this county.
Anything goes. Trees today – houses tomorrow.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 ammikeh, well little Johnny or little Jill will habe to ride a bus since this isn’t going to be high school complex. Oh, you can bet your bottom dollar the restrictions will go and houses will be built.
One thing I think you might need to understand about the mall, the county or developer, I don’t recall which one, rebedded the creek under the mall. It actually is better than mother nature built.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm@ Anonymous (7/2)
You are incorrect regarding Anneewakee Creek underneath the mall. Arbor Place Mall was built on a 125 acre natural wetland in which Anneewakee Creek flowed through. During heavy rains the wetland would absorb a majority of runoff from tributaries, thus preventing extensive flooding downstream.
When the wetland was destroyed by the developers and Anneewakee Creek was entrapped into a concrete culvert, flooding increased greatly due to the culvert acting as a channel. Thus many homeowners living along the creek in Arbor Station have been forced to deal with property damage for nine years, while downstream the effects are obvious by higher amounts of erosion.
If the wetlands were left intact, many streams and ponds downstream would still be here today.
BTW, the mall was zoned within Douglasville.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 pmAndrew, very interesting. I would love to read the study(s) done on those wetlands before and after the mall. I would also like to read court documents that the homeowners filed, there must have been a lawsuit or 2. Now, I am not by any means a fan of the mall. In my opinion it has created more problems than it has solved.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 pmTo: Anonymous (July 2nd at 7:42pm):
The young Little Johnny or Little Jill will still attract cars to the schools because Momma or Daddy will be driving them there, which is actually worse than high-school students driving themselves since the car will have to get back out onto Mason Creek Road. Try to go down Chapel Hill Road past the MS & ES in the morning.
The developers did the work to bury the creek. I believe the way that they got around the law was to buy some worthless wetlands (or “development rights” to the wetlands) near the Southside WWTP and “promise” not to develop that land. Interesting Point One: the basic concept of the Federal EPA laws regarding wetlands is that they cannot be destroyed, an in the event that they have to be destroyed, new wetlands must be “created” to offset the loss. In this case the developers promised not to develop other wetlands, which of course, they should not be able to do because of the law. None were “created”. Interesting Point Two: Who owned the land that was protected and would have made money off of the purchase of the land or “developing rights”?
Insomuch as man building something better than nature, I hope that you are not serious. The land that the Mall (and Arbor Station, and Douglasville, and Douglas County, etc.) sits on has been here for 1000’s of years. It is only the things that man makes that disturb the natural flow, flood and ebb of the water that cause so-call “improvements” to be required. Make no mistake, I live in a house and the natural order was disturbed in order for me to live in it. But making conscious decisions that put creeks into pipes so that some local developer can sell some land and we get a traffic headache was, IMHO, wrong. I would also guess most people in the county would agree unless they live, work and play away from the mall and the traffic it causes.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmmikeh, I can’t agree with the traffic, try going n or s on 5 when Alexander let’s school out!
If you have proof that the developers and county got together on a plan to break the law let’s see it and than something can be done. No developer in there right mind would enter into a deal to purchase land and agree to never develop anything on it.
I hate to disappoint you but according to the engineers the new creek bed is better than the natural one. Sorry but the facts are facts.
I do agree that the mall has created problems, problems that the county either knew about and covered up or did not plan for.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:49 pmfrom http://nreionline.com/mag/real_estate_retail_news_7/
I can’t locate a news release related to the setaside on CBL’s site but I have seen and read the aforementioned “environmental wall.”
It does seem unlikely that a developer would set aside 25 acres but if you attend planning and zoning meetings just about anywhere you’ll see that it ultimately makes good business sense to agree to some concessions like this if ultimately they’re going to be making bank on their developed project. Also, these are the kinds of things that make for good press - important if you’re a publicly-owned company, as CBL is, and wanting to keep up appearances for analysts and prospective investors.
Residential developers often enter into agreements with municipalities to install better landscaping, increased buffers, etc. etc. if they’re allowed to build more homes per acre. Like the CBL wetlands setaside, this is an example of playing “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” with the county or city government.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pm@ TMW
The 25 acres mentioned is at the corner of Bomar Road and Simon Road (adjacent to the Kings Bridge subdivision development). Photographs on the “environmental wall” at the mall match up with the area and property records confirm matched to SEC Info for CBL & Associates.
The land is owned by APWM, LLC. - a subsidiary company of CBL & Associates. Very little upkeep is ever done on the tract of land.
This is just a personal opinion, but 25 acres of land on Anneewakee Creek 3 miles downstream does not justify the destruction of 125 acres of natural wetland for a mall.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pmI concur.
Most developers are going to do only what is necessary to get their projects developed. It’s usually all about ROI. A token preservation project nets them good PR and doesn’t impact the bottom line much.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:34 pmAndrew and everyone else here, I have a question that needs answering. Why does the school board build these fine schools (always undersized)? They have the studies, why can’t they build a larger school, like the new Bill Arp Elem, and let the population grow into it? They have done that in the NE US since I was a kid it saves the taxpayers money in the long run.
TMW, you are correct the developers are going to do only what they have to to get their way and it is great PR. Watch, I bet within the next 10 years that 25 acres wont be what it is now. It will be developed into something. If the county entered in an agreement with them they should have taken pocession of the property to make sure it would possibly stay a wetland.
Remember if it is not in writting it is not true.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm@ anonymous
I very lightly touched on this subject before last year and have come back to it concerning the recent school bond that was approved.
Part of the problem is the concentrated overdevelopment of the county in the last ten years that has produced overcrowding in the schools. The School System has stated to me that there are never enough funds to build the schools that are needed to meet the population. The County’s SPLOST excludes schools because of state law, and even impact fees would not help either.
Therefore the School System has relied on school bonds for the past thirty-plus years to pay for new schools, despite overcrowding becoming a problem since the post-WWII era. Defensive tactics, like double-sessions, has constantly been used to sway the public votes since the 1970s to have school bonds.
The accepted means between building schools is to purchase mobile classrooms, which there are over 250 overall the county with some schools already maxed out due to fire codes. Temporary solutions have become routine as history repeats itself over and over.
That is why the School Board has lately been endorsing private/charter schools and building two-level schools (a first in 50 years) in order to reduce overcrowding.
Schools will always be undersized because the system is behind and growth continues rapidly without restraint.
July 11th, 2007 at 5:07 pmAndrew, I have stated before that the school board has the studies and the trends as county government has. Do they not know how to read?
Has the school board realized how behind the times they are? Private/charter schools are fine but what will happen when parents are able to use coupons to move their kid(s) to private schools? They will lose funding. Will they than try to force other homeowners to aborb the cost?
Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat history! Maybe our school board needs to go get an education.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:48 pmWhile it seems the intent here is to do nothing but gripe and complain, the true issue here is the area has grown and in a fashion that is well behind the times as for as other counties surrounding the perimeter. I have to say, rather than griping, how about getting involved. Personally, I have a 13 yr old that has to commute 14 miles to Fairplay Middle School, and will commute almost 20 miles to Douglas County High. I am neither pleased nor looking forward to my child being on a school bus that far or long each day. It would make since to build the schools on the growth side of the county. Limit the cars, as well as keeping the teens off I-20. I have read numerous posts and it seems that most people assume that the county ends at Hwy 5. “We” are out here and we do need schools. “We” pay douglas county taxes as well as taxes to the city of Villa Rica. Between Mirror Lake, The Ashley Group and Brandywine there are approximately 3000 homes built or proposed… all in west Douglas County. The point of this post was that land was purchased. I say it was purchased for good use. Now if I could just find out if the high school will service the west side of the county??????
July 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pmMirror Lake Resident, first you assume nobody that has issues with the county or school board is involved and all we do is gripe. I personally have been involved voicing my concerns and voting to the county and the school board for at least 20 years. Believe me they pay alot of lip service and do what they want anyway. Are you involved yet? Have you voiced your opinion yet?
Yes, Andrew posted regarding the purchase of the land. Was it a wise purchase? Only time will tell, but from the school board track record it will be another waste of tax payers money. The school(s) that will be built will be under sized and 5 years after completion more schools will be needed, most likely in the same area these schools were to serve.
You propose limiting the number of cars, how? Have a car quota system? You propose keeping teens of I-20, how? Are you proposing more laws? Laws stating parents can’t drop off or pickup their kids at these schools? Or are you proposing no traffic will be allowed in that area when school is in session? Are you proposing a law where any teen on I-20 to be stopped and made to give proof they are allowed to drive on I-20? Who would give them the authority?
A more intelligent use of the tax payers money would have been to build schools with future use in mind (not schools under sized) and where growth is projected (not being reactive to the growth). The school board does have the studies and demographics of the county. They need to either learn to read the studies or hire someone who can for them.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:26 pmThe School System knows that more schools are needed in the western region of the county ever since Mirror Lake was devised. The same will happen with the Tributary in the east and in the south near Dog River and Fairplay.
Students are currently attending schools not close to their region, which is becoming a growing trend like mobile classrooms. Until the current processes change, residents should expect the same outcomes as those of years ago.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:58 pm