Mixed-use project at ex-Harry’s Farmers Market site vetoed

45 thoughts on “Mixed-use project at ex-Harry’s Farmers Market site vetoed”

1. I am going to say it again- the City Council must support this project!! We are watching to see which City Council members support progress and the enhancement of a shunned area, versus which ones prefer to watch theses areas fall into a doom loop. We need this project for the vibrancy it will bring to the area, and the tax dollars for our city and schools. I am only going to support a Council and Mayoral candidate who has the vision to protect the future of Marietta. A rising tide lifts all boats. #recallthunder

2. The City Council to support this development. We need new energy in this area. Please override the mayor’s veto. This development is good for Marietta.

   • The City Council NEEDS to support this development.

3. I support this development and think the Mayor should respect his fellow Council Members by honoring their votes. This passed 6-1 and should be approved.

4. We want to attract professionals to the area. Many professionals are living in apartments for a reason and this is not bad. We want them to live in these developments as an entry to establishing roots and home ownership in Marietta. This development will be an asset in attracting professionals to the area but also in bringing in tax dollars for our city and schools. This site has no future for commercial/retail use only. There are too many supermarkets and low demand for stand alone retail. This development will set a very high bar and positively affect the area. If this is not approved, the site could become detrimental to the area and surrounding community, while also providing less tax dollars. Please vote to override the veto.

5. Is it true the Mayor is trying to pull a fast one and change the date of the vote? I heard it was moved. Does anyone know if this is true? The Mayor just vetoes what he wants, changes dates- is this communist China or Marietta. He should respect the Councils 6-1 vote and stop playing games.

6. Is it true the Mayor is trying to pull a fast one and change the date of the vote? I heard it was moved. Does anyone know if this is true? The Mayor just vetoes what he wants, changes dates- is this communist China or Marietta. He should respect the Councils 6-1 vote and stop playing games.

   • I copied your post. What is going on in Marietta? Will you let me know the date of the vote if they respond to you.

7. Shame on you Mayor. Just be transparent. You only like rich people. It sucks I have to leave Marietta to afford housing. I will be at city council mtg on the 13th to voice my opinions. City council needs to step up.

8. Agree with all the comments. The Mayor should not try to override a 6-1 council vote, especially if he didn’t even vote the first time. The Mayor is not the king and should respect his fellow council members. Shame on him.

9. Mayor Thunder VETOED and is trying to deny funding for our schools and city services. Shame on him. School districts in Georgia may receive local revenue from property taxes and from local sales taxes, but Mayor Thunder would prefer to let old shopping centers decline in value and bring down shunned areas event further, than support new development which would lift up our community. He is already talking about budget cuts instead of focusing on investment in our communities. #recallthunder and any other council members who vote against this! Save our schools and city!

10. I just watched the 6-1 stream from marietta in support of this development. When or how can the mayor veto a project if he didn’t even vote? This seems like more of the same old political good ole boy stuff. I would love for this paper to update what is going on in our city. I for one want to get into one of these apartments.

    • Love that you and Thean posted together! Thanks for the heads up on this. Happy Holidays!

11. I just watched the 6-1 stream from marietta in support of this development. When or how can the mayor veto a project if he didn’t even vote? This seems like more of the same old political good ole boy stuff. I would love for this paper to update what is going on in our city. I for one want to get into one of these apartments.

12. Thankful today for our apartment. And can’t understand all the hate on apartments. We recently moved to Marietta and rented an apartment while we looked for a house. We have since bought a fixer upper, and will continue to live in the apartment while we remodel our house. We are committed to the community. The family across from us moved into an apartment because when their mortgage adjusted with the rates increasing coupled with a family medical emergency, they decided to sell. They are responsible and looking forward to buying another house when the time is right. Neither of our families are poor- shame on those making these stereotypes. We both wish we could live in this development, where we could walk out kids to the movies and large grassy areas. The Marietta Mayor and City Council should be thankful for redevelopment of areas that will be beneficial for families for many reason!

13. I can’t believe the mayor hates poor people and tax revenue that much. Shame on you. Marietta has young people that want to live and work in this city without having to sit in traffic for hours. The council represents the people and voted 6 to 1 in favor. You you wanted to vote and or say your piece you should do it in the public square – not behind closed doors. I watched the council meeting stream and just before this development came up – you applauded young people from under privileged schools for learning about Marietta government and how they could be involved then in the same meeting pull this back door stuff. Mayor – are you for rich / older residents or all residents. Marietta needs young blood that goes to our local restaurants- stop the hypocrisy and rigged system. This is the type of live work play development our city needs and I for one want safe, quality affordable places to live-

14. My original comment was removed and I am not sure why. The Marietta planning commission unanimously approved and the City Council voted 6-1 to approve the redevelopment of this depressed and shunned area. And then the Mayor vetoes? It does not sound like he listens to or respects the voices/votes of the members of the planning commission or his fellow council members. The council members are elected by the people of Marietta and the mayor should respect a 6-1. I am sure my comment will be removed again but it’s time for a recall.

    • Your comment was not taken down.

15. Young professional here. Graduated from UGA, live in Marietta and so does my fiancé. We can’t afford to buy a house right now. They are too expensive and mortgage rates are too high. Help 7.5-8%. We are actively saving money to by an our first house and make Marietta our home. We are active members of our church, a couples bible study and a running club to name a few. We want would live in these apartment, and maybe purchase a townhome as we work to move into home ownership.

16. We need to protect the future of Marietta and allow upscale mixed use development. I fully support this redevelopment as the old, big box centers have gone the way of the dinosaur. We need new apartments and retail to remain a vibrant, thriving city. The mayor and the city council need to vote for this development and the future of Marietta.

17. I agree the Mayor and City Council should be recalled if they continue to block development. Big box stores are closing and sit empty, which causes more stores to close. It’s a doom loop. Retailers want to go in new, busy, mixed use centers. Whole Foods left and went to Kennesaw. We need to give businesses a reason to come to Marietta or we are going to continue to lose them and the tax dollars they bring. I am wholeheartedly in favor of this project.

18. It’s time to recall the Mayor! He favors letting old and outdated shopping centers sit half vacant, when we could have vibrant new retail and restaurants. I love mixed use developments and have considered downsizing to a townhome. 6 council members voted in support! RECALL THUNDER!!

19. Quality retail and restaurants are moving to mixed used developments and old shopping centers are being left to die. Why would we want to keep underutilized and obsolete empty shopping centers? Young high earners, who are the futures homeowners and citizens of Marietta, and baby boomers want mixed use development for the quality of life. Both of these groups tend to eat out more and spend more money in retails stores. A large number of Boomers are downsizing from large single-family homes to smaller housing units such as apartments and townhouses. By vetoing this redevelopment, the Mayor is saying he prefers vacant obsolete strip malls filled with dollar stores and self storage, lower tax revenue, and urban decay. Personally, I want a vibrant community with new development.

    • Let’s recall Thunder! And any other council members who want to watch Marietta rot away. We need to protect our property values!

20. The planning commission and the City Council both approved this development and it is crazy that the Mayor vetoed a project that the people want. We need apartments and townhomes to bring in the next generation of home owners to Marietta. We need quality development to continue to make Marietta a great place to live. Shame on the Mayor.

    • Let’s recall Thunder! And any other council members who vote against what the people want.

    • Well then, as engaged Marietta citizens, we should insist that the developers raise their game and enhance their dreadful concept. Why do the developers get a pass? This is our community. You said “we need quality development”. EXACTLY. But this does not look like quality. This looks like cold, institutional dreck to stack renters. People should not jump at the first cheesy offering thrown at the community by developers with fat margins and slick marketing. Critics of Tumlin’s decision to reject what looks like a dense, substandard concept, should be glad he is trying to uphold a standard that will enhance the community–not another potential Franklin Road nightmare that took decades to lift up. Surely people don’t want just ANYTHING put up? This rendering looks mostly like asphalt. And I must say, it doesn’t make sense that Tumlin is against developing the area–that would be completely crazy. But much needs to be considered. Think strategically. This area is so undesirable from a residential perspective, it’s obviously irresistible for some developers to exploit it with a cheap move to get in and put up substandard rental stacks. And that could sink the area further —versus building something attractive, walkable and inviting (including some percentage of lease to buy options) that would encourage MORE quality development to join in to revitalize the area. The wrong kind of project could sink the location’s opportunity to actually bloom. “5 large buildings” doesn’t sound inviting. This project needs to be considered more holistically– transforming from ugly to inviting–stylish, engaging, shops, plus green space. I believe that’s exactly what the mayor is trying to do—weigh this through a smart and strategic lens, density, aesthetics etc, I mean why on earth would he veto? For fun? To unleash citizen wrath? This is the kind of location that can go either way. I feel sure this mayor has more allegiance to enhancing Marietta than the developers that some appear anxious to get behind without even having seen the big picture. This topic has gotten hot. I think we need to see the full suite of renderings, detail studies, not just a perspective plan view. Plus I think the journalists covering this story should include more info on ‘WHY’ Tumlin vetoed, rather than just let it steam. Why not a 5 question interview with Mayor Tumlin –he can lay out his perspective. Then everyone could get the context to fully inform their opinion, whether yay or nay.

      • Have you seen the plans and the submission? You must be rich because not everyone can afford a 400k+ house. So I completely disagree with you. I think this development does look inviting and will bring new energy to this area. I have heard the Nut place in this shopping center is getting evicted because they have not paid rent. We need mixed use with apartments so there are enough customers to support the stores. Online shopping is killing many retailers so they need more people in an area to survive. This development is walkable and they are adding sidewalks to upgrade the area at their own cost. And the developers have provided everything the City and the Council asked for and cut down the units of apartments down dramatically, which I think is a mistake. Were you at the meeting because I was. They have changed and changed their plans to meet the needs of the city. I think you and the Mayor- maybe you are same person- are just biased against apartments. 6 City Council members voted FOR this redevelopment and the Mayor did not even vote in the meeting. He also waited until a day after the meeting to veto. Can he even really do that? Why didn’t he do it in the meeting? I do agree the Mayor should be transparent.

        • No, I have not seen the plans beyond the rendering here –like I said we need to see more. So you think this rendering looks attractive and inviting? You like the massive parking space with the 5 large buildings? All I know –from what I see here, and from what I know about the distressed area–is that if this development is intended to jump-start or ‘transform’ such a beleaguered location, extra effort should be designed into it. This looks uninspiring and institutional. It needs more inviting community feel with authentic green spaces, with lit pathways, landscaping design, including benches to visit and relax. Point of reference, I saw the proposed mixed use concept “Marietta Boulevard” renderings published a few months ago and it looks like they’ve accomplished some of this feel. Regarding Tumlin, so what if the mayor waited a day to think it through? Obviously he had concerns which is why he waited. As mayor, he is chief steward in guiding Marietta’s growth and expansion. It’s easy to be popular by going-along to get-along, it’s 10x harder to stand on principle resisting the group for what you feel is right. Especially where the money temptation drives many politicians to rubber stamp development proposals, when they should be more circumspect. That’s the job of any elected chief executive worth his salt. I do think Tumlin needs to better explain his position and there should be a reality-based, eyes-open conversation about this. And more than this single example–he needs to communicate his point of view regarding the ‘apartment controversy’ generally. It’s become a hot button. Why not roll out the stats–how do apartments fare? How can residential quality be sustained over time instead of declining? Perhaps it’s time to reimagine ‘apartments’. Historically, too many apartments have been rapidly put up as a quick hit money maker–developers flooded Marietta with them in the 70s, 80s and inevitably they fell under revolving corporate ownerships–with many falling into poor condition, gentrification and fostering unsafe environments. That’s why I feel that ‘ownership’ in some form–maybe some kind of cooperative ownership– is an x-factor that could likely make the difference to sustaining quality for residents and communities. Ignoring the way too many apartments cycle downward needs to be discussed–there needs to be fresh thinking. And no–I’m not “the mayor.” Never met the man.

          • There was a conversation about this at the City Council meeting, which you did not attend. There were presentations, and citizens and Council Members spoke. There was NO opposition to this project, even the Mayor did not vote against. This project needs to be approved. The planning commission and the Council voted in favor.

          • There are great community members who live in apartments and awful members of our community that live in houses. You say you want a safe environment but want to let these old shopping centers fall into disrepair. Mixed use developments centers, like this one, are the future of apartments and communities. These development has a dog park, green spaces, walking trails and sidewalks. All of the things you say are important. I think you should have studied this more and come to the meeting because all of this has been asked and answered. I think this is inspired and inviting and will be good for our community and especially this area.

21. I agree with Mayor Tumlin. Kudos that he has the fortitude and presence of mind to stand up against the apartment push in Marietta which primarily benefits developers while ultimately dragging down the community.

    • So, you think outdated shopping centers filled with dollar stores and self storage centers are going to uplift our community? You have it backward. High quality mixed use development is going to protect our community.

      • You think adding more apartments to already-apartment-saturated Marietta is good? It NEVER turns out good. Especially in an depressed, already shunned and struggling retail area like this. Think again.
        What would be a true uplift would be for a innovative developer to build attractive, affordable semi-detached homes (not rental units) with a flexible terms lease-purchase option that will go to owner-occupied buyers only (not another buy to rent scheme). Invested residents are who we want to attract to our community for obvious reasons. When any of us own, we care about community more. Think strategically. I have nothing backward. I am thinking forward about how to help first time or credit-handicapped buyers build pride and value within an attractive mixed use environment. All too frequently, quickly thrown up apartments are investor schemes to stack and pack people for fast return while ultimately, overtime, (proven again and again) dragging down communities and lives.

        • You said it- this is a depressed, retail shunned and struggling area. So, blocking development is only going to lead to a doom loops. More stores leave, less foot traffic, more stores leave, then less amenities in the community leads to decreasing property values as people move closer to vibrant areas. And it sounds like you are saying that anyone who can’t afford a house is not invested in the community? Serially.People live in apartments for many reason- one of the main being they are saving money up to buy a house. It sounds like you discriminate against apartment renters. And I think you are the one in favor of scam developer schemes. All of these rent to buy, ‘owner occupied’ housing schemes are not working. They are owned and developed by large limited liability companies to make money. The ‘flexible terms’ don’t exist and just allow these advantage of less sophisticated buyers. Yes, they are innovators, just at money making and schemes. The only entities that allow more flexible terms are government housing units.

          • Truth: we are overly saturated with apartments in Marietta. Too often they gentrify and the renters are the losers. And yes I do believe owners are more invested in communities than renters, because as owners, they are more in control of their own lives. This is truism from time immemorial. Your attempt to frame me as ‘discriminatory’ is a transparent and predictable trope to shut down debate. Resist resorting to personal insults. Of course people live in apartments for many reasons. High salaried millennials can afford the sky high rents of slick one bedrooms and studios–many like the ‘not tied down’ fast moving lifestyle– but many average earners crave and need solidity. It’s hard to see a mixed use development going into this particularly challenged quadrant drawing trendy millennials–but because I imagine the rents will be high, the marketing must capture that target. Undoubtably it will be marketed as perfectly situated between the charming historic Marietta Square and the exciting Battery District–I know the shtick. I believe if this really about lifting the community (and not just a typical quick hit make the money, take the money and run) the concept should be more of ‘home town’ strategy –housing like a scaled down Smyrna Grove charm but smaller and semi-detached for affordability and something that will endure –now THAT would be truly transformative. If this concept as designed struggles, as just another typical apartment centric concept with transient residents coming and going, it can turn into a boondoggle. We need more owner-centric, affordable options. We to attract people to establish roots and build their own stake to help them and help Marietta flourish. I am positive this why the Mayor wisely and courageously put the brakes on it. He recognizes the overrun of apartments in this city. This multiuse concept should be reworked to make it an authentic project designed to enrich and grow, better for the residents and better for Marietta, NOT to line the pockets of developers that could care less about the future of our community.

        • The Cons of Rent-to-Own
          1. Higher chance of losing money: If you decide not to buy the property after signing a lease-purchase agreement, then you may lose money. Not only have you already paid the non-refundable option fee, but the seller can also keep the money you’ve paid in rent that was going to be used for your down payment.
          2. Missed payments can void your agreement: Failing to pay rent can result in the whole agreement being voided by the seller.
          3. Requires a mortgage once the lease ends: While rent-to-own agreements allow you to prepare your finances to own a home, be aware that if you don’t have a mortgage approved by the time the lease ends, then this can void the original agreement and leave you without a home.
          4. Leaves the buyer responsible for the seller’s debt: The way you handle your finances matters, but the same applies to the seller. The original property owner could stop making payments on their mortgage or local property taxes, which would leave you responsible for any outstanding debt that’s on the home once you become the new owner.

        • If you read the submission – there are for sale town homes and they reactivate the run down home across the street. How you seen the quality this developer builds? Really nice. Think what this does for teh value off the retail around it.

          • Where are the perspective views? If this map rendering is any indication, this concept is completely blocky, sterile and institutional, vast parking space for a sea of cars with no walkable pedestrian ‘village’ feel. It looks absolutely like stack and pack rental warehousing. A high margin/quality shortcut concept. All of those anxious to see this unattractive behemoth go into that unattractive quadrant should insist that the concept be beautified and made more village like–with lease to own options to give it a chance to grow. Or it could fall to the fate of many like it before –especially in this developer frenzied atmosphere to exploit the Battery/Square cache. The Mayor wants quality projects for the citizens and the community–not cynical, money-making schemes.

22. This is an insane idea. The traffic on Powers Ferry between Roswell Road and the Loop is already horrendous at the present time. For those of us living off this road, we already have to sit and wait sometimes more than 5 minutes just to exit our homes onto Powers Ferry Road. This road was expanded years ago to it’s max. All these additional cars and truck would be disastrous to this area.

    • So you would prefer vagrants hanging around outdated and empty shopping centers? Just look at what’s happened to Williamson Brothers across the street. Maybe all of he traffic you are talking about is because we are having to go to neighboring cities for upscale retail, instead of being able to walk. This development is not going to increase traffic.

23. Mayor Tumlin, let’s unite for Marietta’s future. Accent Marietta Crossing isn’t just about buildings; it’s about community, jobs, and prosperity. Employees living near work, a thriving city—it’s a win for everyone. In times of budget constraints, this project brings in millions. Let’s make this choice in service of Marietta, its people, and a brighter tomorrow.

    • It’s always time for budget constraints but with a booming economy, low unemployment and rising tax revenues Marietta is a position to require higher quality and lower density housing. The mayor was smart to veto the plan to keep Roswell road from becoming an apartment corridor with thousands of apartments and the long term ramifications that brings.

      • So you would rather have obsolete shopping centers that turn into self storage and dollar stores and lower our property values, than high quality redevelopment?

    • Let’s recall Thunder!!

Comments are closed.