« Thoughts on last week's candidates forum - Commission Chairman »

Last week, I attended the candidates forum sponsored by the Gwinnett Village CID for county commission candidates at Meadowcreek High School. This post a week late and I apologize for that to Buzz readers. I am learning that providing thoughtful commentary and doing more than simply posting links, takes more time than one would think. However, I am committed to providing quality insight on Gwinnett issues and happenings and I will strive to improve these turnaround times!

The forum hosted candidates for County Commission chairman and District 1 Commissioner. In this post, I will focus on the chairman candidates. The forum lasted for an hour and a half with candidates offering 60 second answers to various questions posed by the moderator, Channel 2 reporter and Duluth resident Rachel Kim. As such, there were far too many questions and responses to go over each and every one. What I hope to provide here is an overview of my general impression of the candidates, analysis of positions that should be closely examined by the voters, and highlights of their comments.

All three of the chairman candidates - Charles Bannister, Lorraine Green and Glenn Pirkle - participated in the forum. Though I hate to give her credit, Green had the best "stage presence" and was the most well-spoken and passionate. of the three. Bannister often provided short, terse answers that lacked any real passion. Pirkle - well, I am sure he is a nice man - was out of his element and simply seemed out of place. Normally, you would expect a "citizen" candidate with virtually no chance of winning to be someone who is hoping to draw attention to particular issue that is not receiving significant focus from the frontrunners. Pirkle did not even seem to have such an agenda. In my opinion, unless he demonstrates more awareness and understanding of all the issues in the race, he should not be included in any further forums.

Overall, Bannister and Green sounded similar on many issues such as transportation and traffic, illegal immigration, and crime. Regarding TADs, which the commission recently added to the July ballot, both Bannister and Green effectively agreed that this tool would not be for every situation but would allow Gwinnett County to focus on redevelopment or job promotion. Also, both candidates agreed on the importance of addressing illegal immigration. When asked about enforcing ordinances regarding overcrowding in single family homes, both noted limits on the number of people that can live in a single dwelling. While I understand the point of this law is address essentially bunkhouse-style living arrangements in single-family homes, I am concerned that the government could technically bar a family from living together. While most families don't have eight immediate relatives living at in the same home, a husband and wife, two elderly parents, and four kids, would place such a family at the legal limit. Green noted that the ordinance did not target such a situation, but with the lack of common sense sometimes seen in enforcing laws, I can imagine headlines of the county forcing Grandma to be tossed out to comply with maximum resident ordinance. Though I do have some trouble with the government dictating private family living arrangements, I do applaud efforts to address quality of life issues, especially those that touch on the periphery of illegal immigration. However, if the government infringes upon the right of a single law-abiding citizen or family, then it would be better to fore go such laws. However, Green and Bannister did not agree on all points. The pair sparred over the actual number of cops added to the police force since 2005 when both took office. I have to admit I was not clear on Green's point, but she definitely took issue with the net addition to the police force, noting a significant number of officers had left the department during the period. While their views on these matters were fairly innocuous, both again displayed a taste for the overburdening presence of government in land use.

Being an event sponsored by the Gwinnett Village CID, an area where revitalization and redevelopment are prominent issues, these topics were leading themes. Both candidates threw out troubling sentiments such as controlling growth and inserting government decisions in place of market decisions. When asked if the current zoning code was sufficient - a code that I would propose is far too extensive and should be reworked to focus on the concept of material impact - both candidates supported changing the code. Green even referred to the code as a living document. I received the distinct impression that neither were favoring reworking the ordinances to enhance private property rights but rather to instill more government control. Regarding redevelopment, Green again displayed her penchant for government decision-making in suggesting that brownfield development be made easier while greenfield development made harder. (Message to greenfield property owners - forget trying gain economically from your property because the government would rather give an advantage to other property owners.) Green further commented that she did not know if the economics were there to support high-rise development in Gwinnett. I would suggest that it is not her or the board's place to determine whether the economics exist. That is a financial and business decision best left to the free market. If there is a business case for such a development, let private industry make that determination and have the government only ensure that the land use does infrnge upon the property rights of others. I do agree that I would personally prefer to see empty retail centers revitalized or redeveloped as I would assume would most Gwinnett residents. The question is how do you encourage this without stepping on property rights? A better approach would be to give incentives for redevelopment without overtly restricting greenfield development. Leave this to a market decision which would factor in any relevant incentives. This is a far better option than a government prohibition. Bannister's position seemed to come closer to this ideal when he suggested the creation of overlay districts that allow for by-right building where property is already appropriately zoned.

While neither Green or Bannister offered a complete package, Bannister continues to be the preferred choice in this race. His apparently less stringent views on government intrusion in land use coupled with his desire to cut taxes, continues to place him as the best of the choices for commission chairmain.