WeLoveCanton.org

If there ever was a controversy in Canton, GA, there may be none larger than the current debate.  If you have not heard by now the controversy surrounds Dr. Michael Anderson relocating his practice to East Main St.  This prompted some residents in the area to begin fighting the proposal of a commercial business moving up East Main St. Residents began putting up signs and forming associations to stand against the commercial business.  This then prompted Anderson to counter with welovecanton.org.  Now it seems to just be an all out fight, with both sides claiming victory  and confusion over what has to be approved??? Maybe some of you can help clarify the next steps in this drama.

I want to open this discussion up to readers of this blog, let’s hear your thoughts.  I just want to add I know Dr. Anderson and his wife, they are my daughter’s pediatricians and while the Dr. is a bit quirky, I believe he is a very capable doctor who honestly desires to provide “old fashion” (pardon the cliché) care for Canton’s children.  I personally interviewed with him before my daughter was born and as he started his practice, and I firmly believe he has my daughter’s best interest when treating her.  So yes I respect him and I would love for him to be able to renovate and practice in historic Canton.  Now fire away!  Should Anderson be allowed to move?  What is the law?  Is it already zoned properly?  What does property ownership mean?  How are we to interpret the CBD? Is there any conflicts of interest between the opposition and city council members?

Comments

[Larry]

All I know is the next meeting is Sept. 7 at Canton City Hall, 7pm.

[brad]

I have worked with Dr. Anderson in the past when he was looking for space for lease near the hospital. From my interactions with him, I can attest that he has needed and wanted to expand his practice for at least 2 years. He has diligently considered other alternatives, including 2 spaces I had represented for lease. Given the costs of tenant improvements and lease rates, I can not blame him for purchasing versus leasing.

It appears he bought property that was zoned for his intended use and he should be allowed to continue under the rules of the CBD. If the rules require additional public hearings, then the opposition will get a chance to have a say. But if not, then I don't understand why this caused such an uproar? Perhaps the opposition should have opposed the CBD rezoning of these properties back in 1998 and not waited until now to have their voices heard?