You may have seen the email doing the rounds this past week, commenting in support of a slate that includes Mayor Hollie Steil, Dan McAfee and Dee VanCamp. I felt compelled to respond because I also received the email and it’s MY campaign for mayor that promises greater transparency and has been skeptical of the existing plans for Sky Valley.
I don’t know who else received the initial email, so I’m posting my response, sent yesterday, in this open forum.
Dear Peggy,
I received the thoughtful email you’ve been passing out to Sky Valley voters this week. As a Sky Valley resident, voter and candidate for Mayor, I’m grateful that you and I both acknowledge the uniqueness of the beautiful place we’ve chosen to call home.
Allow me to quote you: “I see so many examples of transparency that I don’t know how it could be more so.” For background, I developed a healthy skepticism of government during my career at the state’s largest newspaper, followed by my service as a public policy analyst at the state’s premier think tank. It’s why I have championed government transparency for decades.
I believe that voters and taxpayers deserve to know where and how the government we elected spends and proposes to spend our hard-earned dollars. It’s why I’ve promised that as mayor, I will ensure the city checkbook is available online for viewing. We can open our personal checkbook online anytime. The City checkbook is our checkbook. This is not a campaign gimmick: I have been promoting this approach for a long time.
You say you have held discussions with Hollie, Dan and Dee. They are but three of the fine candidates running. I’m disappointed you haven’t reached out to me, as the candidate championing “open government and transparency.” I received your email, so obviously you have a way to contact me. Perhaps you missed my first Meet and Greet, the week I announced my candidacy for mayor.
Have you chatted with any of the other candidates running in Sky Valley’s November 4 municipal election? As a reminder, along with Dee VanCamp, new City Council candidates are CareySue Beasley, Beth Pence, Jesse Price and Jonathon Smith. I look forward to meeting you at the upcoming candidate forums; please feel free to reach out to me individually.
As for the septic-to-sewer project: Again, I cite my background in public policy. Having dealt with government for decades, I don’t believe I have ever seen the goalposts moving as much as I have with this proposal. As I said in my platform published on the Sky Valley Neighborhood page, I am “skeptical that costs will stop at $5 million, that only connected users will bear the cost, and that this exorbitant response is needed.” I stand by that statement.
To repeat: The goalposts are moving on this proposal, as far as size, capacity and location. Individual property owners have yet to be informed they are part of this sewer mandate, whether their septic system is fine or problematic. It’s a reasonable expectation that the City conduct a Needs Assessment, not just an economic feasibility study. You and I disagree on whether “the need is evident.” I ask further: Is this sewer proposal to solve a revenue problem or a septic problem?
To reinforce: My platform also cites fiscal responsibility: You may have seen the August 2025 water system rate study and financial report by EMI, the same consulting company that conducted the sewer feasibility study.
“If the city were to implemented (sic) the proposed capital projects with the new well and tank this would require an additional 6-30% uniform rate increase to the recommended rate structure. … Comparatively, a uniform rate increase to the existing rate structure would have to be increased as high as 68-121%.” (My itals.)
In other words, EMI proposes a massive increase in our water bills, especially if the city adds a planned $400,000 well and a million-dollar water tank, and this is separate from EMI’s “recommended rate re-design or balancing the existing cash flow deficiencies.” (“Deficiencies?” See what I mean about the need for transparency?)
We’re not Washington. The City is required by law to balance the budget. I have heard time and again that unless we get more revenue, we’re likely to go under. I propose that just as we must in our households, we take a good look at our budget before we look at increasing our obligations, whether in infrastructure, finances, or facilitating developers. It may be that Merrill Trust does NOT intend 30,000 square feet in retail development. But that is certainly what is stated in Harrison Merrill’s letter of intent included with the City’s application to the Appalachian Regional Commission for the $2 million grant for sewer.
Finally, I am not aware of any candidate on this slate suggesting that the City change the zoning for the developers’ land, so I don’t understand this bogeyman of litigation. As a survivor of apartheid South Africa, I am a strong proponent of private property rights.
I maintain that the City should be at the table for these developer discussions, and that we require an impact study on their proposals. It’s my understanding that nobody from the city – official or resident – was represented at the March 2025 charrette that yielded architect Lew Oliver’s “concept” plan for the developing the land, with its outrageous density. I hope that changes.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond. I look forward to answering your questions and those of any other voters, and earning the support of all Sky Valley residents in this month before the November 4 election.
Kind regards,
Benita Cotton-Orr
2 responses to “Response to a Sky Valley Resident’s Email”
Excellent points! Excellent questions that many property owners and tax payers share! After watching, via Zoom, yesterday‘s Q&A, its disturbing to me that so many of these questions remain unanswered with it being just a few weeks from election day. I totally agree with Benita’s statement regarding how the goal posts seem to keep moving.
Benita – I have tremendous respect for you as a person and your accomplishments thus far. We have socialized in our homes and at other venues. I consider you more than an acquaintance and certainly someone with whom I’m friendly but I haven’t known you nearly long enough to call you a friend. And make no mistake – I question even my closest friends if I have concerns about something they’re doing. I’m not a “yes woman” for anyone
I have posed questions to you which were only answered by other questions or “don’t you worry about it”. (You left off the adjective phrase “your pretty little head” but it still smacked of tremendous condescension).
I think it is fair to question the time demands of your business and your now TWO other political roles – chairman of Rabun Republicans and advisory committee/panel on eliminating Georgias income tax) and whether this leaves sufficient time for you to guide the city through the next several years. “Don’t you worry about it” is no kind of answer. I believe the citizens of SV deserve to know how many hours you can devote to the role. No one has more than 24 hours in a day.
I have seen you out and about in Sky Valley since you became a candidate more than in any of the past 2-3 years. You are regularly out of town in Atlanta or elsewhere. You have yet to be involved in other LOCAL committees or community efforts or leadership roles in SV that I am aware of.
I am also not appreciative of the “sight pollution” of your plethora of signs. You’re running. We get it.
Nor do I admire your veiled accusations against the city council and mayor and their integrity or truthfulness, a behavior which several candidates have adopted as well.
As for the bogeyman of litigation, as you put it, you seem incredibly naive to think that the developer is going to roll over and reduce his plans where and when they comply with the existing zoning. My understanding is the zoning allows for a lot of what he’s proposing, if not all, and asking him to reduce his footprint, and therefore profit, is sort of ridiculous in my opinion.
I’m just not convinced that your candidacy is based on a real commitment to SV and not just another rung in your political ladder.