Gwinnett Buzz

Two weeks ago, I told you about a CBS 46 Investigates news story on the Beaver Ruin Park land deal.  Since then, I have educated myself more on this deal and am now able to offer some insight on what this situation says about Lorraine Green and her qualifications to be Commission Chairman.

The central question in this controversy is whether Gwinnett County overpaid for the Beaver Ruin Park property bounded by I-85, Beaver Ruin Road and a parcel of land that fronts Satellite Boulevard.  I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on various apartment development and valuation information I dug up online.  The valuation depends on the ability of the property to be used for an apartment complex of fairly high quality (I used figures available from a Post Apartments annual report from a recent year) with around 300 units. The $4.6 million valuation on the property does seem justified so long as that parcel could be developed as apartments.  This factor is key because if that land could not be used for apartments - whether because it is not technically suitable or due to lack of necessary governmental approval - then the future profits from an apartment complex that are required to support the $4.6 million valuation would not be realizable.  As such, the land likely could not be valued at more than the $2.9 million amount assigned by the county tax office.  The question that must be asked is this: could the landowner realistically expect to develop apartments on this property?

In a post at TalkGwinnett!, Gwinnett political observer Bob Griggs discusses the expected outcome of a reported lawsuit filed by the prospective developer over the zoning denial on this property:

An appraisal for sale, on the other hand, can take into account a future use that affects value. This case is a perfect example; Mason had sued the county over a rezoning denied. The county had reportedly been notified that Mason was going to prevail. He claimed that he could build apartments on the tract.

The highlighted comment is very key, for if the county knew they were going to lose a lawsuit, then it would be appropriate to value the property assuming apartments could be built.  I have not been able to independently verify this assertion, so I cannot confirm that such a notification was made to the county or whether the claim that apartments could be built on the tract are accurate.  If either of these were untrue, then it is readily apparently that the county grossly overpaid for this property by approximately $1.7 million of taxpayer money.  This would hardly be defensible by the park’s champion, Lorraine Green, even there was nothing crooked about the deal.  However, even if both of Griggs’ claims are true, that does not allow Lorraine Green to keep the dirt off of her hands from this land use decision.

If the county was going to lose the court case and apartments could be build on the property, then Gwinnett residents must ask why did the county deny the rezoning in the first place?  Why would Lorraine Green have led a stand against property rights in her district?  In this scenario, the request to build apartments would have been quite obviously justified given an expected court decision that would favor the developer.  Apartments, despite how much they are demonized, are needed businesses that provide a service to many respectable Gwinnett residents.  If the county were to lose the suit, why did the Lorraine Green willingly waste our tax dollars in an effort to deny a citizen his property rights?  Well, Lorraine tells us precisely why she did so in talking to CBS 46:

“This is about keeping a promise, a promise to my constituents that we would not put any more apartments in the district,” Green said. She says Gwinnett County bought the land so the county could control development and stop apartment construction.

There you have it.  In order to play politics, to pander to those voters who would trample on property rights to satisfy their own personal preferences, Lorraine Green was willing to waste your tax dollars and mine.  What is worse, she showed so little respect for property rights that she was willing to use these rights as a political football.  Even if a zoning denial was justified on Beaver Ruin Rd., a statement by a commissioner to effectively promise a blanket denial of any applications for a legal business automatically implies no respect for property rights.  There is no way an elected official can reasonably be fair about property rights when she has made a promise to deny a request before she has even heard the merits of a particular application.

Now, in order to give Lorraine Green a chance to come out of this land deal with her reputation intact, let’s step back and consider another possibility.  If the county was destined to lose a lawsuit - set aside the above argument for a moment - and the $4.6 million was a fair value for the property, was a park an appropriate use of such high value property?  Another poster on TalkGwinnett! who resides near the Beaver Ruin Park argued that that area was underserved by Gwinnett County parks.  Might this land be one of the few remaining chances to provide a park to that area?  As such, would the county have been justified to pay a premium to ensure that area residents received the same benefits as others around Gwinnett?  I decided to take a look at this possible justification.

Within three miles of the Beaver Ruin Park site are the following five Gwinnett County Parks and Recreation facilities:

1. Singleton Road Activity Building
2. Cemetery Field
3. Pinckneyville Park
4. West Gwinnett Park and Aquatic Complex
5. Shorty Howell Park

If the search radius is pushed out to five miles, the following facilities are added to the list:

1. McDaniel Farm Park
2. Sweetwater Park
3. Bethesda Park
4. Harmony Grove Soccer Complex
5. Graves Park
6. Best Friend Park

Thus, within a five mile radius of the Beaver Ruin Park site, there are 11 GCPR facilities. That is underserved? I realize that one has to take density into consideration, but that is a large number of choices for someone who lives adjacent to Beaver Ruin Park.  Let’s compare this to parks within the proximity of Sugarloaf Parkway and US 29, hardly an unpopulated area.  Within approximately three miles of this intersection are the following facilities or parks:

1. Sweetwater Park
2. Gwinnett Historical Courthouse
3. Lawrenceville Female Seminary

Only one bona fide park within this miles of this major intersection.  This is compared to three bona fide parks (four if Cemetery Field is counted) within the same distance of Beaver Ruin Park, one of which even includes an aquatic center!  If we look within five miles of Sugarloaf and US 29, we add the following:

1. Ronald Reagan Park
2. Rhodes Jordan Park
3. Bethesda Park
4. Collins Hill Park

So within five miles of this major intersection there are seven GCPR facilities, but two of those are buildings, so really only five parks.  This versus 11 within the same radius of Beaver Ruin Park.  Thus, I think the notion that the Beaver Ruin area is underserved by parks can be put to rest.

This brings us back to the original question, was the Beaver Ruin land the “tremendous buy” Lorraine Green tells CBS 46 it was?  Even assuming the valuation is valid and apartments could be built there, did the county need to buy such expensive land for an area that has numerous park options in a fairly close vicinity? Or was the land purchase more evidence of Lorraine Green playing politics with our tax dollars at the potentially demonstrable expense of property rights?  One other exhibit helps us come to a conclusion.  You can look at the site plan for this park here.  Lorraine calls this a “passive park.”  What this site plan shows me is a park that has had just enough improvements to justify calling it a park.  In other words a park with just enough improvements to justify wasting tax dollars to allow Lorraine Green to play politics.

So with all this evidence, even if nothing was technically corrupt or unethical, how can someone defend the actions of Lorraine Green on this land deal?  To do so requires at a minimum one to support trampling on property rights or wasting tax dollars for political gain.  Furthermore, do we really want a Commission Chairman that would force a property owner to go to great expense and difficulty to simply exercise property rights that are obviously his? I am sure the “Greenbama” backers will find some way to defend her actions as they continually do over at TalkGwinnett! but I think most reasonable Gwinnettians can quite clearly see where Lorraine Green stands when it comes to your property rights.

The Beaver Ruin land deal is a losing situation for Lorraine Green all around. It was either an abuse of taxpayer dollars in overpaying for a piece of property or it was an abuse of government authority in interfering with the rightful property rights of a landowner and then wasting tax dollars to continue the political gamesmanship.  At the end of the day, Lorraine Green has shown in this one case why the citizens of Gwinnett should very firmly say “No!” to her in tomorrow’s runoff and select Charles Bannister for a second term. Even if you are not too thrilled with some of Bannister’s campaign material, what is more of an affront - slimy political mailers or an abuse of government power that disrespects property rights?  One might just not sit well with you, the other might one day take money out of pocket.

Tags: Beaver Ruin Park, Bob Griggs, developer, election, finance, government, Gwinnett County Commission, Gwinnett County Parks, land use, Lorraine Green, Planning and Zoning, politics, property rights, property valuation, real estate, Real Estate Development, Taxes

Related Posts