Gwinnett Buzz

I wanted to touch on the controvery surrounding Gwinnett County school superintendent, Alvin Wilbanks.  I intiially saw the AJC article about the disproportionate number of discipline cases for black students in Gwinnett schools but decided not to blog on the matter.  Commenting on issues involving even the slightest racial angle is difficult because so many on the left are too often quick to tag any comment that does not toe the line of political correctness or person making such a comment  as “racist.”  Not having a strong opinion on the story, I opted not to comment.  Such a review by the board was certainly warranted because examination of a such a statistical anomaly involving a racial group is needed to ensure that no racial bias is present.  The school did not seem to be pursuing an agenda to inject racial bias where it may not be present given this observation by James Taylor, executive director of academic support:

Citing a recent study about states and discipline, Taylor told the school board that only one state — Idaho — does not seem to be having problems with disproportionate discipline. He also said that family structure, schools, zero tolerance policies, socioeconomic factors and teachers play a role in discipline.

However, Idaho turned out to be fuse on a powder keg of controversy for Superintendent Wilbanks:

“Do they have any blacks in Idaho?” asked Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks. “They don’t have many.”

If you are asking “So, what’s the big deal?”, I agree with you.  Apparently, however, some people have taken this comment to be “racist” and are offended.  If there were an actual racist comment made, I could understand that some might wish for Wilbanks to resign.  While I read this comment and, obviously, could not hear how it was said, there is prima facie conclusion that Wilbanks’ statement was racist.  Rather, this is another case of the misapplication and lack of understanding of what racism truly is.  Racism is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another.  Can anyone reasonably see such an implication in Wilbanks’ question?  Even if we apply the less strict definition in which prejudice and power result in opression or discrimination, the comment again fails to meet muster as a racist statement.  While Wilbanks certainly did not phrase his question as well as he could have (asking the percentage of the population of Idaho comprised by blacks would have been more appropriate), that does not equate to racism.  In fact, the bulk of the concern seems to be centered around the fact that some people were offended.

Ah yes, that clarion call to action in modern America - ensure that no one is never, ever offended.  I am not suggesting that we should go out of our way to offend people.  In fact, I strongly doubt that Wilbanks was intending ot offend anyone with his question.  As such, for what is he supposed to apologize, a response sought by the Gwinnett chapter of the NAACP?  Should he apologize if anyone was offended by his poor phrasing?  Perhaps.  While I applaud Gwinnett NAACP President J.P. Portalatin for not going to the extreme of calling for Wilbanks’ resignation, Portalatin’s comments are certainly overblown:

“This type of rhetoric not only dishonors Gwinnett County Public Schools, but casts a cloud on the abilities of Superintendent Wilbanks and the school board members to lead the school system effectively,” Portalatin said.

Casts a cloud on his ability to lead Gwinnett schools?  For that comment?  For a man with a record of reaching out to minorities?  Quite obviously, Poralatin’s assertions are not supported by the reality of the sitaution.  After a meeting Monday between Portalatin and Wilbanks, no apology appears to be forthcoming.  An apology if someone was offended would be reasonable but anything beyond that would be impossible assuming there was no intent to offend or denigrate a race.   In fact, if Wilbank’s remark was as characterized by school board member Robert McClure, then Wilbanks should not be expected to offer an apology of any kind.

Dr. Robert McClure has said Wilbanks was simply seeking more information about Idaho demographics during the presentation.

At some point, people must stop caving in and cowering in the face of unwarranted charges of racism, and, in turn, apologizing for things they did not do and, an action that implies some degree of guilt.  In fact, levelling flimsy accusations of racism does a disservice to those who do suffer from actual racism and oppression.  Situations like this one is a racial version of crying wolf.  When we are constantly bombarded with infensible accusations of racism, we become desensitized to such charges and when the charges are warranted, we risk not giving those legiimate claims the attention and response they deserve.

I want to apologize to my readers for a paucity of posts this last week.  Unfortunately, this will probably continue to be the case for the next couple of weeks.  With football season upon us, I have some additional demands on my time during this time period (i.e. football games!).  I will try to update the blog as often as possible, but, rest assured, I have every intention of returning to my normal level of posting by mid-September, if not sooner.

Thanks for reading!

You knew this would happen.  It was pretty much inevitable.  As a result of the crematory flap, the threat of lawsuits now hang over the City of Snellville like a dark cloud.  City Attorney Michael Williams figures the city can bat 0.500 against these suits.  I am not an attorney, but I think Williams’ assessment is about right.  In my opinion, the likely outcomes of these two lawsuits are fairly obvious.

One one hand, the residents near the proposed crematory have gathered money for an attorney and have been a general thorn in the side of the Snellville City Council.  However, as I have asked here before, what exactly is the legal point they would make?  The council is under no legal obligation to enact ordinances to prohibit a crematory from operating on the property in question.  Perhaps, the residents do have an argument about diminished property value but, not being an attorney, I don’t know if that would pass legal muster either.

On the other hand, Chris Nuzum, owner of the crematory, would appear to have a pretty solid claim against the city if the council does not call a halt to its games and issue a Certificate of Occupancy in short order.  Nuzum has followed the rules but now a few members of council are using his property in a game of political football.  Even Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer sees this in saying, “Basically, we didn’t follow our own rules and we denied him the right of due process.”  I am not a fan of suing at the drop of a hat, but, when it comes to holding the government accountable for infringing on property rights, I am all for calling in the attorneys.  As such, I am glad to see that Nuzum is considering seeking restitution of any lost revenue from the City of Snellville.  Hopefully, the council members most responsible for these games will wind up losing more votes from other residents in Snellville who have to pay these games than the votes that would be gained by playing politics for crematory opponents.

Finally, I want to highlight a point made in the article.  I am not sure if there are any stragglers that do not see the political game here, but in case a few remaining Snellville residents think that the council is just doing its job, I thought this was very instructive.

The council doesn’t usually get involved in the permit process, overseen by the planning department.

This morning I stopped at the Snellville Chick-fil-a for breakfast on my way to work.  As I came around the back of the building, I noticed construction equipment working on the side entrance that was the subject of much controversy earlier this summer.  I can only assume that the restaurant has decided not to fight the decision of the City of Snellville and is going to return the entrance to its original state.  If anyone has any definite information, please post it.

I have received a request to make it possible to subscribe to the Buzz via email.  I did attempt to install this feature but the plugin I was using did not work properly.  However, there is a blog feature that allows you to receive to my posts via an RSS feed.  RSS feed ttechno-speak “messages” that are sent out from the website when new posts are published.  These feeds along with feeds from other sites can be viewed in a feed viewer such as Google Reader, Bloglines or numerous other applications or websites.  Just click on the “RSS Posts” button under “Subscribe to the Buzz” on the left sidebar.

If setting up a feed reader is not something you are comfortable doing (or is frankly too much trouble), I have found a website that allows you subscribe to a feed and have those messages forwarded to your email!  The site is called RSS FWD and is very simple to use.  Simply go to the site, enter www.gwinnettbuzz.com and follow the straightforward instructions!  The first time you subscribe to a feed at RSS FWD, you will receive a confirmation email that you must accept before you will start to receive Buzz posts.

If you have any problems or questions just comment on this message below.  You can email me if you prefer, but, by posting in the comments, others who may have the same question can learn as well!

Thanks for reading, and I hope this makes it easier for you to access the great Gwinnett Buzz content!

The Georgia State Board of Funeral Service has issued a license to Chris Nuzum to operate his crematory in Snellville. I found one of the pieces of documentation that the state board reviewed quite interesting:

On Tuesday, the Georgia State Board of Funeral Service reviewed his application, the inspection report and the certificate of zoning issued by Snellville before giving Nuzum the go-ahead.

If the city has already issued a certificate of zoning, why is Councilmen Robert Jenkins still raising the question of whether the location is appropriate for a crematory? Furthermore, if there is such a major concern about the health and environmental impacts of a crematory, why didn’t the council undertake its current research before creating a zoning code that permitted such a use in that location?

If you had any doubts that the council was acting out of pure politics, those doubts should be fading by now.

Monday night, the Lilburn City Council denized a rezoning request for senior citizen housing and office and retail space at the intersection of Killian Hill and Arcado roads.  Now, you may be expecting another harangue against government abuse of property rights and political games by politicians.  If so, you should read one of the numerous others posts on the Buzz that make those points.

View Larger Map

I should note at the outset that I do not have many details regarding this proposal, so I am limited to what was reported about last night’s hearing by the AJC and the Gwinnett Daily Post.  However, based on this information and looking at the aerial imagery of this intersection, my initial reaction is that I would side with the residents in their opposition.  This development does appear to be out of character for an area that is almost exclusively dense residential (though you will note, this did not stop Gwinnett County schools from plopping the new Trickum Middle School and all the traffic it generates in this area - but that is an entirely different post).  However, I do want to highlight some of the comments that were made last night and discuss their importance with respect to property rights.

As reported by the Daily Post, the developer questioned the legality of the current zoning on the property.

“The R-100 zoning is unconstitutional,” Scott Peters of Match Properties said. “The property has no economic use as is. We attempted to reach a consensus with the opposition.”

This point is key.  Even if the land use does not fit the area, if the property truly does not have an economic use as R-100, then Peters’ claim of unconstitutionality may have merit.  The zoning could legally amount to unreasonable seizure of economic value by the City of Lilburn.  I certainly do not have enough information from two newspaper articles to assess the validity of this claim, but it is a point that, at a minimum, deserves careful consideration.

The residents who spoke in opposition made some claims, as well, that are demonstrative of the points often made in land use cases by nearby residents.  The AJC reported this comment by Thor Johnson, president of the Lilburn Business Association:

They came for a residential area “that was family friendly, where you can go to church right up the street. That’s what they want, and so when someone comes in and says we want to build a commercial entity here, we say no.“

That is an illogical statement.  What one group of property owners wants trumps what another wants?  Who says which “want” is superior?  This is precisely why land use decisions cannot be made solely on what any given property owner wants or does not want.  I am not suggesting that the desires of a community are unimportant, but wants and desires are not legal standards on which land use decisions have to be made.  Furthermore, property rights are not subject to what anyone else wants.  Like other rights, they are inherent to the property owner and not subject to the whims of others.

Johnson went on to say:

“We believe that it’s a domino effect,” Johnson said. “If you allow commercial development in a residential area, your property values will go down, subsequent things will change” and eventually, schools will be overburdened and unable to provide a top-notch education, he said.

This is hardly a cogent argument.  Does Mr. Johnson have proof regarding the property values claim?  Aside from the recent difficulties in the housing market, falling property values in recent decades in a rapidly developing Gwinnett County have not seemed to be an issue.  Thus, I have difficulty believing this assertion.  Also, how does a senior center and a few commercial offices overburden the schools?  Are septuagenarian retirees going to middle school and high school now?  To be fair, this is not a quote by the AJC, so perhaps Mr. Johnson made an effort during his statement to draw a connection between this development and increased demands on the schools.  Regardless, I would point out that the schools are a service to the residents of a community; the residents do not serve the schools.  The utilization of schools should not raise a bar to anyone’s property rights; rather, the schools should adapt to serve the needs of the community.

So, if I agree with Council, why am I highlighting claims of the applicant and questioning the positions taken by the opposition?  First, I cannot be completely sure that the council made the fair choice given the limited information available.  The points highlighted above could be crucial should information arise that calls into question the ruling of the city council.  Second, the comments by the opposition serve as examples of the weak claims often made by opponents in land use cases.  In this case, I sense that their opposition is warranted even though their arguments carry questionable merit.  Ensuring that the council made its decision for the proper legal reasons and out of the proper respect for private property rights is crucial.  If they made their decision simply out of a desire to pander to voters, then this motivation will likely be used to infringe on property rights in the future.  As such, the motivations of government in any circumstance are not beyond question by citizens so that we can assure that that government does not overstep its authority, now or in the future, with respect to our rights.

When I thought I could not find much more to say about the Snellville crematory controversy, I read the account of Monday’s night meeting and I could not wait to get to my keyboard.  The latest meeting did not just feature a figurative assault on property rights but also an alleged threat of physical assault.  Councilman Robert Jenkins alleged that Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer “[asked] the councilman to ‘take it outside.’”  While I certainly do not sanction physical threats, I find Jenkins’ statement that he “will not be bullied” to be rather ironic.  He rightfully does not want to be physically bullied if the incident with Oberholtzer occurred, yet he is perfectly willing to play the bully to crematory owner Chris Nuzum and Nuzum’s property rights.

City Manager Russell Treadway provided a summary of his research on the the environmental effects of crematories.  I don’t want to be too critical of Mr. Treadway because he is not an elected official and is effectively caught in the middle of this political vaudeville show staged by Jenkins and Kautz.  However, as the individual who is reportedly conducting the research into this question, a question over which Snellville’s authority is not even clear, I have to question if he has the necessary credentials to assess the body of research on this topic.  Mr. Treadway’s background is in government management not scientific research.  Is he qualified to assess which research is reliable and which may not be?  However, in reality, this question is immaterial because the history of this case clearly shows that this investigation is not about scientific matters, but rather it is about politics. Councilwoman Kelly Kautz said “The bottom line is that there is the potential for pollution with this crematory.”  What Kautz should have said was, “The bottom line is that we have stepped in a hornets nest and these residents are going to vote me out of office if I do not give into them no matter whose property rights get trampled.”

The time to be concerned about whether a crematory was an appropriate use was when the city established its zoning code.  Once the law is in place, residents and property owners alike should be able to count on the rule of law being upheld.  The rule of law is critical in our system to ensure that our rights are protected from the tyranny of the majority.  To attempt to set aside that law - a law that has been followed appropriately by a property owner - in order to protect political power is simply un-American.  Sadly, rather than being held accountable in the next election for this assault on property rights, Jenkins and Kautz have a better chance of retaining their seats by sacrificing Mr. Nuzum’s rights on the altar of political gamesmamship.  I just hope that Mr. Nuzum tracks every last cent that this charade costs him.  While there is likely no way to seek restitution from the local residents who have egged on these politicians, I hope he is willing to sue the City of Snellville for these costs as well as any punitive damages allowed by law.  Standing up to abusive government practices and demanding that our rights be upheld and seeking full restitution is the only way we can hope to slow the assult on property rights.

Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful has reached for your hand and in order to grasp it firmly.  The non-profit group has begun the process to implement Gwinnett County’s socialized garbage program.  See, the Gwinnett County Commission doesn’t think that you are capable of deciding which garbage service best meets your needs, so they are going to be so kind and simply assign a garbage hauler to you.  Thanks, guys!  I have no idea how I get by each day without the Gwinnett County government right there beside me all day long to tell me what I should do.
I don’t know about you, but I am perfectly capable of choosing companies with which I do business and with being responsible in taking care of my responsibilities as a homeowner.  Folks, this will not stop until you set your foot down, get involved and demand that the government stop invading every nook and cranny of your life.   Stop tolerating the ceaseless expansion of government!  Educate yourself and speak up!

Since the primary runoffs wrapped up last week, I have not been actively updating the Buzz.  I think I subconciously needed a bit of a break and my attention was distracted by other things like debating on TalkGwinnett! (which is very quiet the last couple of days as well!) and discussing Georgia Tech football on The Hive.  As such, you may be some dated articles, but there were a few things on which I wanted to make some quick comments.

First public school for girls inducts first class
Ivy Preparatory Academy is the first state charter school to open in Gwinnett County.  I applaud Ivy for providing school choice to Gwinnett parents who may not be able to afford the higher costs of many private schools.  I firmly believe that competition drives organizations to excellence, so I hope that schools such as Ivy will ultimately improve the quality of Gwinnett County Public Schools as well.  I note that Ivy is all-girls school.  I have no issue with this, whatsoever.  I just hope that the inevitable opponents will keep this mind if an all-boys academy is started in Gwinnett at some point.

Hot discussion expected on crematory’s impact
Expect more political gamesmanship tonight as the Snellville City Council hears about possible environmental impacts of the controversial crematory.  Given the lack of expertise of Snellville councilmembers on this subject , I expect this to be little more than a continuation of the effort by some members of the board to cover their political backsides from irate residents.  Let’s just hope that crematory owner Chris Nuzum, who has complied with the law, does not become a casualty in this political battle.

Ethics panel probing Bannister
Apparently, the state has some questions about Commission Chairman Charles Bannister’s use and reporting of campaign contributions.  Interestingly, the ethics complaint that resulted in these questions was originally filed by TalkGwinnett! contributor Paul Allen.  Allen’s complaint raised questions about Bannister relationship to political activist Joe Newton who has been a vocal critic of former Commission chair candidate Lorraine Green.

Central Gwinnett football star released after pot arrest
It seems that Central Gwinnett Black Knights star running back Diante Drake has found himself in trouble with the law for marijuana possession for the second time in less than nine months.  Drake’s latest arrest came last week.  I understand and strongly advocate the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”  I want to emphasize that Drake has not been convicted of either charge and, compared to many other crimes, marijuana possession is fairly minor.  However, this quote caught my attention:

Drake…is expected to have a strong senior season.

Not if I were head coach at Central Gwinnett.  If I were in charge of Black Knight football, Drake would be off the team until this matter was cleared up, I don’t care if he were the star running back or a third team guy that only gets in during mop-up time.  I am a Central grad and have said since high school, “Once a Black Knight, always a Black Knight!”  I would love to see Central have a great football season.  But high school football has a purity and innocence that college lacks.  These are kids.  If first year Central coach Ed Stokes wants to set an example early on for his new team, Drake should be suspended until this matter is resolved.  If it turns out that he is convicted, he should not be allowed to return to the team.  If he is cleared, then let him play what is left of the season.

Playing a high school sport is a privilege and such an action by Stokes would reinforce this.  We routinely see college athletes who are out of control and wind up being coddled by coaches and boosters who are more interested in winning than teaching players life lessons about character and doing the right thing.  In fact, coddling athletes who break the rules teach the wrong lesson!  Let’s not let this culture creep in and ruin high school sports.  C’mon, Coach Stokes!  Do the Central Gwinnett family proud and help teach a life lesson to young Mr. Drake much more valuable than any high school football win.