A proposed youth/senior center in Stockbridge has become the subject of a public spat between City Council members.

  During a July 15 special called meeting for consideration of the city’s SPLOST project list, Elton Alexander made a motion for the center to be designed by the city’s on-call architect/engineer as a shovel-ready project. That motion was seconded by Neat Robinson, but it failed by a 2-3 vote with John Blount, LaKeisha Gantt and Alphonso Thomas voting against.

  Alexander expressed his displeasure with the vote on Facebook the next day.

  “In a 2-3 vote the Stockbridge City Council rejected moving forward with the youth/senior activity center design delaying the project to an undetermined date,” he wrote on his “Because We Care Henry County-Atlanta South” page, which has more than 20,000 followers. “It takes leaders who will act to move projects like the youth/senior center forward.”

  The city’s communications office released a July 22 statement titled “Social Media Posts Mislead the Public.” It contained comments from Blount and Gantt as well as a strongly-worded opening statement that would appear to express the position of the city as a whole.

  “An increasing number of Stockbridge residents have contacted the city expressing concern about a number of recent social media posts and e-mails that falsely suggest that the Stockbridge City Council and certain of its members are opposed to the establishment of a youth center or senior center within the city,” the statement began. “These statements are demonstrably false and should be ignored by the public.”

    The statement noted that the proposed center has been included on the city’s SPLOST list and that “in recent months, the members of the City Council have repeatedly voiced their support for such projects.”

  “It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that any member of the City Council opposes a Youth or Senior Center in Stockbridge,” Blount was quoted as saying. “I trust that the people of Stockbridge will ignore these politically motivated lies.”

  “I look forward to the day we can break ground on these exciting projects,” said Gantt. “I am just focused on getting things done in a responsible way and not lying and pandering for political purposes.”

   Alexander was not mentioned by name in the press release, but he fired back on social media later that day and sent a July 25 statement to the Times via email.

  “It is clear with this sham of a press release Councilman Blount and Councilwoman Gantt are embarrassed and trying to shift the focus from undeniable FACT they voted against moving forward with design on the Youth-Senior Center, now delaying the project to a undetermined time as I said,” he wrote. “Moving ahead with the design now will make the project shovel ready when funding is identified. From the time funding is identified it will take 28 months to 3 years before the project could be completed at the earliest since design will have to be completed. At this point, who knows when design for the project will be completed?”

  Alexander also stated that $15 million in SPLOST IV money is still in the bank, but a council majority led by Blount and Gantt has moved far too slowly and not one major project has been completed in seven years. He used the city’s proposed amphitheater as an example, saying that it should have broken ground earlier this year and now he hopes its development will start in August.

  Stockbridge has 20 percent of its projects completed under the current SPLOST, which is in its sixth and final year, while McDonough has completed about 75 percent of its projects, according to Alexander. He blamed this on the city’s current tendency to undertake “one project at at time.”

  This is not the first time Alexander has raised the ire of fellow council members with his public statements. The council voted in January to censure and reprimand him after saying that it “has received numerous complaints from Stockbridge residents, city of Stockbridge staff, the media and other governmental and civic organizations regarding various aspects of Mr. Alexander’s behavior.”

  Alexander responded at that time on his Facebook page, stating that a previous investigation costing the city $10,000 found no wrongdoing on his part and the most recent action by the council is simply an attempt to stifle his free speech rights. The city’s ethics board ruled previously that any statements made outside an official City Council meeting are protected, he said.