Thank you, News Times, for your continuing, balanced reporting of this topic.  

For many, the Wrights Crossing's proposal for building 1500 houses on active farmland outside of the City's UGA is a non-starter with numerous (and appropriately) fatal flaws. The driver for this JPA expansion is clearly the City's desire to enable the development. Is endorsing the JPA engagement endorsing Wrights Crossing, but merely more indirectly than approving the developers application?  Both the proponents and opponents of the development can agree on one point:  of course the JPA discussions are a pathway for it.  So, does voting yes on the JPA imply yes on Wrights Crossing?  

We believe that Wright's Crossing presents a deeply false choice of housing verses agriculture.  We support both.  We strongly encourage the Commissioners to reject Wrights Crossing, and to make clear that the JPA is not a back door into it.  Time and effort much better spent.   

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.