Lilburn and Norcross seeking annexations

Two Gwinnett cities are seeking to annex nearby area in order to grow their communities.  Last week, the AJC reported that Norcross would its increase land area by about 50%, adding 4000 residents in the process.  Last month, the AJC reported that Lilburn was seeking to grow, a move that would make it the second largest city in Gwinnett.  The annexation would double Lilburn's population to 24,000 and more than double the city's land area.  

The question I would like to ask of Norcross and Lilburn is why?  What is the justification for enlarging your cities?  Lilburn City Manager Bill Johnsa says, “It’s time for Lilburn to grow.”  "Time to grow" is not a compelling reason to add a layer of government to an area.

Maybe it has to do with the shape of the cities.  Norcross' annexation would "[square] off the city."  Lilburn would benefit from a smoothed city border as well:

Also, smoothing rough Lilburn boundary lines would “give us some consistent boundaries, so if you’re going down the road, you know properties on both sides are in the city,” said Doug Stacks, city director of planning and economic development.

(Yes, that is the same Doug Stacks that ran against Mike Beaudreau last summer for District 3 commmissioner.  If anyone questions whether I can be critical even of someone I support here is your evidence.)  Having a city limit down the middle of a road is hardly a compelling justification for expanded government.

I figure the most likely reason is money. Though Norcross mayor Bucky Johnson notes that his city's proposal would be revenue neutral, Lilburn may stand to gain financially from its expansion.

Lilburn would add $1.9 million a year in property tax revenue, with the inclusion of 4,800 residential and 188 commercial parcels.

Couple this with the fact that Lilburn wants to join the ranks of Gwinnett cities with bloated city hall buildings and we may be onto something.  (The question of why, in the depths of a recession, a city government intends to spend $8 million on a grandiose city hall is a question that could be an entire seperate post!)  While money does not explain Norcross' motivations, revenue seems to be the most likely reason that it is "time for Lilburn to grow."  After all, never discount the propensity of government to grow and expand its sphere of influence.

Just this week I argued that we should be eliminating small municipal jurisdictions not growing them.  Except for the largest cities, I fail to see why a community should fund an additional layer of government.  Case in point, Johnsa points out that Lilburn's "city services — including police, planning and code enforcement — also would grow."  Doesn't Gwinnett County already provide those services to the area that would be incorporated into the city?  While Lilburn will spend more to provide these services, Gwinnett will likely be unable to scale back its costs to a matching degree.  The net effect of this growth would be greater overall governmental inefficiency.  There is a reason businesses merge, one of which is to eliminate inefficient duplication of tasks.  Government is doing the polar opposite.

What is not clear from the article is whether impacted residents get to vote on this Liliburn annexation as residents near Norcross will.  If those directly impacted choose to vote this in, I have much less alarm over a government power and revenue grab.  However, I still fail to see an a strong justification for either Norcross or Lilburn's initiatives.

Gwinnett Buzz commission endorsements

The Gwinnett commission races in the general election are really not all that exciting.  Despite shifts in the county's demographics in recent years, Gwinnett is still a primarily Republican county.  Thus, I do not expect the two Republican incumbents to have much trouble regaining their seats.  Nevertheless, the Buzz is a blog that takes a stand, whether popular or not, so I would like to make formal endorsements in both the Commission Chairman and District 3 Commissioner races.

Commission Chairman

The Gwinnett Buzz endorses Republican Chairman Charles Bannister to retain his seat as head of the Gwinnett County Commission. The Buzz was a supporter of Chairman Bannister during this summer's primaries and nothing has happened to weaken this backing.  Mr. Bannister has done an adequate job as Chairman these last fours years and has earned the chance to continue in this role.  He has placed an emphasis on tax cuts, a position that will be welcome as we face the risk of the increased federal taxation in the coming years.

Commission District 3

The Gwinnett Buzz endorses Republican Commissioner Mike Beaudreau to retain his seat on the Gwinnett County Commission. Now, if you are a long time reader of the Buzz and followed the often intense primary campaign in July, you know that I was a strong supporter of challenger Doug Stacks.  As such, you may be stunned to see me endorsing the very candidate about whom I wrote several harsh critiques.  If so, neither you nor my friends in the Stacks campaign should worry.  I would still back Doug  today if he were in the race.  My positions on land use and property rights have wavered not at all.  However, our time to defeat Mike was in July.

The District 3 voters spoke loud and clear that they preferred Beaudreau to Stacks.  I don't like that, but I can accept that.  I endorse Commission Beaudreau out of political practicality. First, Mike is a known quantity.  Whether we agree with him or not, we know where he stands and we know what to expect.  Democrat challenger Earn Herndon of Dacula is quite the opposite - an unknown.  Given the track record of the Democrat Party, I would expect that Herndon's positions on land use and property rights are likely similar to those held by Beaudreau, if no worse!  Second, Mr. Beaudreau is a good person.  Setting politics aside, he is active in his church and community.  Having spoke with him in the past, I can attest that has an approachable personality.  In this day and age of self-serving, arrogant politicians in a sea of political bitterness, such traits count for something.  Finally, there is the practical reality that we do not want to allow the Democrats to gain even a single seat on the Gwinnett County Commission.  We need to stave off massive increases both in our property taxes and in the size of county government as long as possible.

Thus, all of these reasons points to a single logical conclusion.  Endorse the Republican and support the party.  That does not mean that you nor the Buzz should not remain vigilant and hold Commissioner Beaudreau accountable for his votes in the upcoming term.  This does not mean that you nor the Buzz, if Beaudreau does not change his positions, should not strongly consider any primary opponents in 2012 should Mike run again.  However, if on no other day than November 4, 2008, Mike Beaudreau deserves your vote and the Buzz urges you to support the incumbent Republcan commissioner.

Thoughts on the GOP runoff and looking ahead to 2010 and 2012

I thought I would finally weigh in with some thoughts on the outcome of the GOP runoff Tuesday night.  I am thoroughly thrilled that Chairman Charles Bannister defeated Commissioner Lorraine Green.  I view this as a victory, if only symbolically, for private property rights in Gwinnett.  While I don't think most voters really think carefully about property rights, I do think that, as chairman, Green would have be less of a threat to specific zoning cases as opposed to her term in District 1.  However, with her poor record on property rights and apparent preference for more government, I am glad that such positions were not rewarded with a higher seat.  Charles Bannister may not be the perfect candidate or Chairman, but he has done an adequate job for four years and I feel much more comfortable with him in the center chair.

I did hate to see Bruce LeVell fail to defeat Shirley Lasseter in District 1.  Bruce ran, in my opinion, by far the cleanest, most positive campaign in Gwinnett this year.  Hopefully, this will not be the last time we see his name in local politics.  As for Lasseter, she was not my first choice, but I am pleased to see her as take over Lorraine Green's seat instead of Carol Hassell.  I am cautiously optimistic about Lasseter's stance on property rights.  I think she is likely to be a definite improvement over the previous two District 1 commissioners.  Of course the last two wound up running for Chairman, which brings us to some very early predictions for 2012.

I think there is a definite chance that Charles Bannister will call it a career in 2012.  He would be 73 in four years.  If he does hang up it, I fully expect Mike Beaudreau to throw his hat into the Chairman's ring.  Mike is young, has "politician good looks" and has a history of organization leadership roles including the Clemson College Republicans.  I have to believe he has higher political aspirations than just being a district commissioner.  I would not be entirely shocked if Lorraine Green made another go for it given how close she came, but after four years of not having to deal with the political grind, she may not want the hassle all over again.  I also have to speculate whether  Lasseter will be groomed by Bannister to run for Chairman.  I have read on Gwinnett political message boards that Bannister and she are "allies."  If that were to happen, races for both the District 1 and 3 seats would be thrown wide open to new faces.  Could Bruce LeVell have another go?  Would Doug Stacks return?  While 2012 poses some interesting potential scenarios, we cannot forget that Districts 2 and 4 will be contested in 2010.

This next election for those seats could pose an enormous sea change in Gwinnett politics.  The AJC published an article today on Gwinnett becoming a majority-minority county.  I found the following analysis very pertinent to these projections:

The changes in Gwinnett's racial and ethnic makeup will also affect the ballot box eventually.

State Sen. Curt Thompson (D-Norcross) represents one of the most diverse districts in the metro area. He has said he has to campaign in Spanish, Korean, Hindi, Vietnamese and Mandarin to keep his seat.

Could 2010 be the year we see the Democrats gain a seat on the commission for the first time in decades?  Bert Nasuti's District 2 is comprised of Norcross and Lilburn, two areas that have experienced a significant demographic shift.  I don't know if we would see a Democratic commissioner in 2010, especially if Nasuti runs for reelection, but I think this will be the first district to fall to the Democrats.  I seem to recall that current District 4 commissioner Kevin Kenerly said during his last campaign that this would be his last term.   Even without an incumbent should Kenerly not run, District 4 is likely fairly safe for the GOP as there is a significant portion of the district north of Lawrenceville going toward Sugar Hill and Braselton.

While we cannot know what will happen in the next four years, I think the one thing we can expect is a definite change in the composition of the Board of Commissioners.  While we saw a very bitter and contention chairman's race this summer, the differences between Charles Bannister and Lorrine Green will likely pale in comparison to what we could expect from the Democrats if they manage to get their hands on the three of the five commission votes.  That could well make even the most ardent opponent of Lorraine Green and Mike Beaudreau, embrace them!  Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, this ride is bound to very interesting and maybe even a bit bumpy.

Beaudreau, stop being a hypocrite

Mike Beaudreau wants Charles Bannister and Lorraine Green to play nice in campaigning for the commission chairman runoff race.

Dispatching an e-mail to both incumbent Commission Chairman Charles Bannister and fellow Commissioner Lorraine Green, who faces Bannister in a runoff, Beaudreau asked the opponents to sign a "clean campaign pledge." He asked that they focus their campaign from now till the Aug. 5 runoff on "their vision for the county."

During his campaign, Beaudreau says he talked to "people who were just disgusted by the volume of negativity and the lies."

"Kettle?"

"Yes, this is Kettle."

"Hey, this is Pot.  You're black."

Does Beaudreau really want to talk about politicians engaging in negativity?  As I type I am looking at a mailer from Beaudreau.  He accuses his opponent, Doug Stacks, as having plans that are "out of step with homeowner interests" and that Stacks could not even "talk about his real agenda."  No negativity there.  On the reverse, Beaudreau attempts to smear Doug's legitimate profession as a real estate broker, listing Doug's profession in comparison to Mike's "stand" on development.  I guess this is supposed to positive.  The mailer, listing the AJC as a source, says that Doug Stacks is a "high-density growth advocate."  I have not seen anything in the AJC, including a June 16 article that Beaudreau prominently references on the mailer, that suggests that this is anything but spin at best.

I am not trying to refight a race that is over.  Beaudreau won by a very large margin and I accept that.  However, Beaudreau accusing other candidates of negative campaigning rings a bit hollow given that he has used similar tactics.  I have said that, so long as it campaigning is grounded in truth and offers sources, I do not have a problem with so-called negative campaigning.  However, I get very irritated when politicians say one thing and do something else, whether it be implicitly as Mike did with the campaign donations or explicitly as with negative campaigning.

One thing that is worth pointing out is various pledges commissioners and candidates are making.   Beaudreau made a couple of promises in his email:

"[Beaudreau agreed] to stay out of the race if both candidates agree to the pledge and keep their word.

If not, he would endorse the one who will — "and bring a few thousand Gwinnett residents with me."

Lorraine Green's response to Beaudreau was that she "heartily agreed and would absolutely agree to make such a pledge."  Bannister has not formerly responded but his campaign manager said the chairman would " run an honest, issue-based campaign."

Let's see if these politicians keep their pledges.  I think the one most likey not to keep his pledge is Beaudreau.  I do not anticipate there being an ounce of difference in the next two weeks to what we saw from Bannister and Green leading up to the primary election.  As I said above, this is fine and does not necessarily violate a "clean campaign" pledge.  However, I expect that within a week or so Beaudreau will wade into the waters of the chairman race again waving a big green flag (pun intended) finding some way to claim that Bannister is not running a clean campaign.  In fact, this would be a brilliant campaign tactic in favor of the Green camp as it would allow Mike to endorse Green, something given his and Green's views on government regulation in land use, I suspect Beaudreau is just itching to do.  Furthermore, it would garner press coverage of a commissioner just off a sizable victory accusing Bannister of running a dirty campaign.  If this is what happens, this tactic hopefully will not be enormously successful as the thousands of voters Beaudreau promises to bringare likely already full-fledged Green supporters.

Primary election night in Gwinnett!

Normally a primary election is simply a step on the road to elected office, but in a county such as Gwinnett with a predominantly Republican voter base, the primary is often the election that determines who will represent the people during the coming term.  Tonight some candidates tasted victory, several tasted defeat and still others hang in limbo as they face the opportunity or threat of a runoff.

I spent this evening at the Doug Stacks election night gathering at Lil River Grill on the square in Lawrenceville (beautiful restaurant, if you have never been there!).  While the results from District 3 were not as we had hoped, it was a good time to meet people and make new friends.  (To any Buzz reader I met tonight, it was a pleasure meeting you and I hope that you have found something in the Buzz that will keep you reading past the election.)  Unfortunately, Mike Beaudreau will go on to represent the district for another term assuming the nearly impossible does not occur in the general election where he will face Earl Herndon.  I am disappointed but I was realistic.  I understand the mindset of many Gwinnett residents and expected them to buy into Beaudreau's candidacy.  That is the their privilege in a country where we elect our leaders by popular vote.  However, the majority does not always rule.

Yes, the majority carried the night and they do rule in selecting the District 3 commissioner.  Where they do not rule is in taking away our private property rights.  A victory does not give Beaudreau, homeowner activists, or any other government official the right to deprive of us our private property rights.  For that reason, we have laws to protect those rights from the tyranny of the majority.  Hopefully, Mike Beaudreau will see that being fair to all that come before the Board of Commissioners is the way to govern in his second term. I hope that Mike gives me the opportunity to applaud his decisions and celebrate the fairness of his judgment in the next four years.  If not, my goal for the Buzz is to remain a watchdog and advocate for property rights.  On a lighter note, I do understand one thing more clearly after tonight.  I now can appreciate why Neal Boortz always talked about why Hillary getting elected would be a boon for his radio show.  The Buzz promises to be a much more interesting place if the next four years of Mike Beaudreau match the first four.

District 3 was not the only commission race tonight.  In the crucial chairman's race, as I write this post, Charles Bannister is mere tenths of a percentage point away from winning the Republican nomination outright and moving on to the general without a runoff.  Incumbents do not generally do well in runoffs because all those who voted for opponents were dissatisfied enough to choose another option.  This was precisely what happened in 2004 when Bannister took then-Chairman Wayne Hill into electoral overtime. That summer, I fully expected the anti-Hill voters backing third-place finisher Marcia Neaton to flock to Bannister.  They did and Bannister won the runoff after finishing second in the primary.  This time the role is reversed and Bannister faces the prospect of being the incumbent in a runoff, this time against Lorraine Green.  An interesting twist is that Lorraine Green is somewhat of an incumbent as a sitting commissioner.  If the numbers hold and these two face off in three weeks, projecting the outcome is tricky.  Glenn Pirkle, with all due respect, was not a serious candidate and is not clearly labeled as a "developer candidate" or a "homeowner candidate."  I suspect his voters were simply saying  "none of the above."  The question would become were PIrkle supporters generally more opposed to Green or Bannister?  The margin plays in Bannister's favor.  With the chairman mere fractions from a 50%+1 majority, Green would have to pull nearly 100% of Pirkle's voters to win a runoff.  I find this highly unlikely.  However, the runoff is a new election.  Turnout becomes key as voters have to trudge back to the polling place for possibly just that one race.  Whichever candidate's supporters are more energetic and motivated could prove decisive.  Lorraine Green has her vocal supporters who seem to be motivated not just by support for her but dislike for Bannister.  Are Bannister's backers equally as passionate about him?  Given that the chairman's race was probably the biggest draw on a fairly sparse Republican primary ballot, I suspect that many of the today's voters will be inspired enough to vote again.  I expect it would be a close runoff, but I would take Bannister in an absolute squeaker.

District 1 is almost certainly going to be a runoof between Shirley Lasseter and someone.  The question is will she face Bruce LeVell or Carol Hassell?  I don't suspect it much matters.  With 94.6% of precincts reporting, Lasseter has just over 42% of the vote.  There is not an incumbent so that factor in projecting the runoff can be tossed out the window.  I suspect the vast majority of votes in this race were cast in favor of a candidate as opposed to against another.  With few voters of the "anyone but Shirley" perspective, I look for the third place finisher's votes to be fairly evenly distributed with Shirley Lasseter emerging as the District 1 commissioner replacing Lorraine Green.  ("Replacing Lorraine Green" - if Bannister can just get over 50% tonight, that is a very sweet-sounding phrase!).  I am not a huge fan of Shirley but I am even less of a fan of Carol Hassell and would gladly take Shirley in the runoff.  I still hold out hope that Bruce LeVell can hang onto his less than 100 vote edge over Hassell to get in the runoff and then find a way to win but, I think that would be an uphill battle.

A quick note.  TADs appear to be on the way to approval by the voters and GOP voters say no to MARTA while Democrats say yes.  In total, MARTA barely fails.

Do you really know Doug Stacks?

Gwinnett political observer, Bob Griggs, recently sent out an edition of his newsletter entitled "Do you REALLY know Doug Stacks?"  Reading his newsletter, Bob is obviously not a supporter of Doug Stacks.  However, some of the points he makes about Doug are either spin or opinion and demand a response.  I am grateful, however, to have comments from my commission endorsements quote in Bob's newsletter!  I just wish he would have characterize my views more accurately:

A local pro-developer blogger endorsed Stacks, saying about Beaudreau: "Mike has been beholden to homeowner special interests and basically brags about this." But even the blogger had to admit: "...Mike is the kind of person we need in politics."

Interesting.  I did not realize that I am a "pro-developer" blogger.  I thought I was just an advocate for property rights!  As much as some in Gwinnett don't want to admit it, developers have property rights too.  Thus, I guess being fair to developers qualifies as being "pro-developer."

In addition, I did say Mike Beaudreau is a the kind of person we need in politics. Bob, however, left out the balance of my comments that outlined Beaudreau's questionable brand of conservatism and how his own record makes him undeserving of reelection. If Mike were up for Man of the Year, he would have a much more credible candidacy.

Moving onto Bob's other comments on the District 3 candidates:

I believe that Beaudreau has accepted contributions from "developer interests." He and I have had this discussion on a couple of occasions. I have a much stricter definition of "developer," it seems.

While I cannot speak for Doug Stacks, I did an analysis of Mike's contributions. I came to the conclusion that Mike may not have taken donations from developers directly (a donation from MHC Development notwithstanding) but he sure seems to have taken donations from those that benefit from developers. Bob only quotes a portion of Mike's promise regarding developer contributions. The full comment on Mike's website is:

In order to avoid conflicts of interest between the citizens he represents and those who stand to gain financially by the decisions he makes as commissioner, Mike has refused to take campaign contributions from developers, and will continue to do so in the future.

That smacks of splitting hairs to me. Perhaps Beaudreau has not violated the letter of his promise, but I ask, does it not appear that he may have violated the spirit of his promise? I won't go into the detailed reasoning here - you can read my previous analysis for that - but basically I would not care who his donors are, developer, developer's interests, or Joe Citizen had Mike not made an issue of it and then danced on the periphery of his promise. I am not suggesting he has done anything unethical, but we must question why the discrepancy, explicit or implicit, between his promise and his actions.

Bob then goes on to contradict himself on several points.

Bob apparently supports my conclusion on the donations when he says that Mike has taken donations from developer interests.  Given that, why does Bob not seem to have any serious issue with Mike Beaudreau taking such donations while simultaneously criticizing Doug Stacks for taking development money?

Bob also says that Mike has not hidden any donations because he disclosed them on his campaign finance forms.  Doug Stacks has dong likewise as Bob notes yet Bob accuses Doug of "purposely [hiding] his campaign contribution report?" This makes no sense. Perhaps Doug did wait to the last possible day to file, but isn't that what the purpose of a deadline is? Bob's issue should be with Gwinnett County elections office and its deadlines and time to post the forms online.  However, Bob implies that Doug Stacks has done something underhanded by being in compliance with the county's requirements.

I am not an expert on election finance by any stretch, but ,reviewing past disclosures on the Gwinnett Elections website, it appears that candidates in active campaigns file quarterly reports. The Mike Beaudreau report which I analyzed and which is being questioned is dated March 31, 2008. I note that Mike Beaudreau nor Doug Stacks has a June 30 report posted as yet.  Did Mike have to file a June 30 report? If he did and even if he filed it on June 30, no such report is posted.  So assuming both candidates have to file a second quarter report, why the criticism for Doug Stacks when no June reports for either candidate have been posted?

Now let's look at Bob's list of reasons not to vote for Doug Stacks:

1. Wow. Doug is a real estate broker. The horror of having an legitimate profession!  Mike Beaudreau is in sales?  I deal with sales people all the time in my job?  Should I toss a blanket characterization on Mike because of his legitimate career?  To hear the Gwinnett anti-private property rights crowd talk, real estate brokers are down there with drug dealers and ladies of the night on the profession scale. Selling real estate, commercial or residential is a perfectly respectable and needed profession. No harm here.

2. Oh no! Doug deals with those horrible, nasty developers! Since Bob dislikes developers so much, I am amazed he has time to keep his website up to date since I am sure he grows his own food, milks his own cows, and makes his own clothes, lest he patronize those terrible stores that...*gasp*...a developer was involved in building.  Better yet, next time someone goes shopping, goes bowling, goes to a movie, or goes out to eat, thank a developer and the businesspeople who have places to operate their business thanks to a developer.

3. Doug works for the City of Lil burn which has its own planning and zoning oversight.  Even on issues the Board of Commissioners might hear that would impact the city, LIlburn is in District 2.  With district courtesy, most if not all of Doug votes for any District 2 issues would fall inline with the District 2 commissioner.  Thus, the threat of conflict of interest is minimal.

4. Bob basically acknowledged that Mike Beaudreau's campaign was financed by developer interests' dollars.The  point?

5. Debunked above.

6. Bob, this is the best you can do? Should Doug just mail out nine pages of a document to every voter so as not to have to do any editing to highlight the pertinent info? This is a silly charge.  Bob has inferred that Doug was trying "to make it look like Beaudreau had received nothing but contributions from developers." That is nothing more than his own interpretation. More reasonably, Doug simply highlighted the material to fit the space.

7. This falls under the live by the sword, die by the sword. Homeowners try to hold hostage other property owners even remotely close to their property. Ever heard the saying "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it?" Well if the homeowners want to be sticklers about the planning and zoning rules and try to block everything they happen to not like, then why shouldn't a developer say "Fine, we will just use this land for whatever the law allows..That ok? Hmmm...looks like it is zoned for a trailer park." The Bay Creek HOA did not have an investment in that property at stake. In fact, aside from their personal preferences, I doubt they had little material gain or loss from this decision. I fully suspect their opposition was more about what they liked and did not want in their area. Well that is why we have private property rights. My rights should not be infringed unless it harms another; someone not liking something is not enough of a reason to block those rights.  I don't live far from Bay Creek or the strawberry fields. They are nicel but I don't own them and I have no right to tell the owner that he has to keep using that land for strawberry fields. I can vote with my wallet and patronize the business (which I don't mainly because I don't care to play farm laborer for a morning!) but that is all I have a right to do.

The value of a strong and broad tax base

I was reading an article yesterday about the financial challenges facing the new city of Milton, GA in North Fulton.  One characteristic of Milton is seen to be a contributor to their problems:

Only a small portion of the city is commercial property, which hurts the revenue base.

Those of you in Gwinnett who have bought into the anti-growth agenda and the candidates that back this idea should keep this in mind.  For those in District 3, Doug Stacks has raised this very point, that growth contributes to a strong tax base for the county government.  Do we want to find ourselves in a few years having to make similar choices as those in Milton?

I voted early yesterday

Yesterday, I saw on AJC.com that early voting had started for the July 15 primary.  Having taken a vacation day, I decided to go ahead and cast my ballot and avoid the hassle of integrating voting into my schedule on a work day on primary day.  I went to the Gwinnett County Elections and Voter Registration office in the converted Wal-Mart on Grayson Highway in Lawrenceville.  I am pleased to report that Charles Bannister and Doug Stacks will receive at least one vote each for the primary!  I encourage everyone to educate themselves before going to vote.  I may not agree with the choices some voters make, but I hope they can at least defend the reasons why they are voting for a specific candidate or how they answer a ballot question.

I want to add that this was the first time I have been in the new county offices in the old Wal-Mart.  I think this is a model for using existing space for government needs rather than building new facilities.  I don't know the cost figures but I have to imagine that converting the old Wal-Mart was more economical than developing a new government building from the ground up.  There was plenty of parking (restricted parking for voters) and the office was spacious and modern.  Hard to believe it used to be a Wal-Mart for many years!  I salute Gwinnett leaders who chose to pursue this option for needed additional space for the Gwinnett County government.

Gwinnett Commission: The Buzz endorses...

With just over a week until the GOP primary, the time has arrived for the Buzz to makes its endorsements in the Gwinnett Commission races: Chairman, District 1 and District 3.  For anyone who has been following this blog, these endorsements will not come as any great surprise.

Chairman

A week ago I thought I might come down to the wire on this contest.  I have long realized that this race was really between Charles Bannister and Lorraine Green.  Glenn Pirkle is simply in over his head and is not a serious candidate in my estimation.  As for Green versus Bannister, I eventually recognized that Charles Bannister's tax relief plan was superior to that proposed by Green in that it provides relief for not only homeowners but also the businesses in Gwinnett that provide goods, services and job to county residents.  Even if Green's plan were better on paper, her flip-flop on tax cuts in less than a two-month period forces one to question whether her proposal is simply a campaign tactic that would be set aside if it threatened the government services that she consistently backs.  Lorraine Green advocates change for Gwinnett, but this raises the real question in this race - what change do we need that she can really provide?

A glance through Green's Plans for Change is a merely list of more government regulation.  That is not the change that Gwinnett needs.  I recently asked a friend who supports Green to tell me one thing that Charles Bannister has done wrong as Chairman.  The best he could articulate was that he does not like Charles and that Charles is satisfied with the status quo.  Given the changes that Green supports, the status quo is preferable.  Yes, Green is a better speaker than Bannister but if style was more important than substance I would be on the Barack Obama bandwagon.  The bottom-line is this - Charles Bannister's job performance during his first term has earned him an opportunity for a second.  He has done an adequate job and he does not bring the downside of Green's flip-flop on tax relief and support for more government.  The Buzz endorses the re-election Charles Bannister for Commission Chairman.

District 1

District 1 features a three-way race between Carol Hassell, Shirley Lasseter and Bruce LeVell.  I early on dismissed Lasseter as an option in this race.  Her performance as mayor of Duluth in the aftermath of the Runaway Bride fiasco soured me on her as I felt she unfairly piled on Jennifer Wilbanks.  Lasseter was also mayor during the development of the enormous Duluth City Hall.  Duluth's new City Hall appears to be larger and grander than the courthouses for many counties in Georgia.  Gwinnett needs elected officials who will be more responsible with taxpayer funds and Shirley Lasseter's City Hall is a testament to poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars.  Lasseter only confirmed my assessment of her candidacy with her performances in two candidates forums I attended.  She simply does not project the image and presence required of a commissioner for a county the size of Gwinnett.

Carol Hassell was also unimpressive in the candidates forums.  She was flat and uninspiring.  However, the knock on Hassell's candidacy is her stand on the issues.  Similar to Green's change agenda, Hassell's Ideas for Tomorrow has a strong lean to additional government regulation in land use, precisely the problem Gwinnett needs to be moving away from.  Long-time Gwinnett political observer Bob Griggs characterizes Hassell as having a "reputation as a fairly-liberal 'tree hugger.'"  A liberal tree-hugger who supports more government regulation?  Gwinnett should run, not walk, away from Carol Hassell as District 1 Commissioner.

You might assume this means that the Buzz backs Bruce LeVell simply by process of elimination.  Even if this were my rationale, given his opposition, this would be a more than justifiable cause for casting a ballot for LeVell.  However, Bruce LeVell also happens to be the strongest candidate in this race.  Bruce was the most passionate and well-spoken candidate in the forums.  Bruce focuses on the real issues that Gwinnett needs to address such as crime and public transportation.  LeVell's experience on the MARTA Board of Directors and advocacy for light rail makes him qualified to lead Gwinnett at a time when questions about transportation will be paramount.  Finally, LeVell's background as a successful small businessman should give him a greater sensitivity to balancing needs of business and homeowners in land use decisions.

The choice in District 1 is easy.  The Buzz endorses Bruce LeVell for District 1 Commissioner.

District 3

The choice in District 3 is the easiest of all the seats.  Mike Beaudreau's first term as commssioner has been a blow to private property rights and the free market in southern Gwinnett.  This is a real shame.  I visited Beaudreau's Facebook page yesterday and reading that, I cannot argue that Mike is the kind of person we need in politics.  If he were running for the State Legislature where individual land use decisions do not come into play, I suspect I would be a supporter.  However, Beaudreau is not running for state office or Man of the Year but rather District 3 Commissioner.  Therefore, we have to consider his record over the last four years and that record is seriously wanting.

Mike has been beholden to homeowner special interests and basically brags about this.  As a result of this bias, he has failed to protect the property rights of anyone other than homeowners, which is a serious matter because when anyone's rights are violated, a dangerous precedent is established.  Mike has hampered the ability of his constituents to take advantage of the latest in wireless telecommunications services with his unreasonable and continued opposition to cell phone towers.  Beaudreau also supported the mandatory garbage pickup plan adopted by the Board of Commisioners, a program that substituted government decision for your freedom of choice.  Though Mike promotes "holding the line on...property...taxes," he supported the deal to bring the Richmond Braves to Gwinnett despite the possibility that county backing of the project could result in a tax increase.  Mike Beaudreau claims he is a conservative but are limitations on property rights, restrictions on the free market, and a possible property tax hike the type of conservatism that most Gwinnettians support?  True conservatism seeks to protect our rights and limit the influence of government in our lives.  These are conservative ideals that Mike Beaudreau's record do not reflect.

Doug Stacks is a political newcomer.  He does not have a long history as a career politician.  However, this is not a problem as I do not think potlical experience is mandatory to be a county commissioner.  In fact, we should not be afraid to embrace the American concept of citizen representation.  The biggest skill required of a county commissioner is common sense and a willingness to be fair to all members of the Gwinnett community.  This is not to say that Doug would not bring valuable skills to the position.  Doug has experience as a planning professional which should give him a deeper understanding of all facets of land use decisions and an appreciation for balancing the needs of all parties involved.  Doug understands that reasonable commercial growth enhances the tax base and helps to avoid placing an excessive burden on homeowners to fund Gwinnett County government.  Either of the tax proposals of the Chairman candidates depend upon a vibrant business community to work.  Doug's approach would enhance the ability of a sales tax-based system to satisfy the funding needs of the county government.  Finally, Doug is a long-term Gwinnett resident.  He stands with those of us who know Gwinnett not just as where we live but as home.  When Doug says he has a "vested interest" in his community, I have little dificulty believing that to be the case.

The choice in District 3 is crystal clear.  The Buzz endorses Doug Stacks for District 3 Commissioner.

Primary campaigns heat up

Not living in District 1, I don't get the mailers from the three candidates in that commission race, but based on an article today in the AJC, but it sounds like things are getting pretty heated.  Carol Hassell and Shirley Lasseter are apparently going at it toe to toe with Bruce LeVell observing from the sidelines.  As I have blogged previously, I don't see any of these candidates as political superstars, but I have been the most impressed with LeVell when I have seen him in candidate forums.  However, I was not crazy to hear that he had sent out a mailer in Korean.  Nothing against Korean people, but this is precisely the type of thing I have talked about in English, please! We should do everything legally possible to promote the use of the English language in America rather than empower the use of other languages in the public arena.  This does not really change my view that Bruce is the best choice in District 1, but I am disapointed to hear of this campaign tactic.

Speaking of campaign mailers, are those things not incredibly annoying?  For over a month now, I have routinely been met with Charles Bannister's smiling countenance when I open the mailbox.  Now Lorraine Green, Mike Beaudreau and Doug Stacks are taking up residence in my mailbox as well.  I don't really put a lot of credence in political mailers as there is no real depth to the arguments they make because they are mostly spin.  They are always going to portray their candidate in a favorable light and often portray opponents in an unfavorable light.  I noticed a perfect example of this over the weekend when I received mailers from State Senate District 45 Republican primary challenger, Peggy Armstrong, whose mailer outlined a list of alleged ethical violations by incumbent Renee Unterman.  The background was a very unflattering, haggard-looking picture of Unterman.  Unterman's mailer, however, touted her efforts to pass a bill that allows Georgians to freeze their credit including a photo of the Senator with WSB radio consumer advocate, Clark Howard.  In addition, there was a photo of a fresh, pleasant looking Unterman.  I could not help but chuckle at the stark difference in the photos on these two mailers. It's all about the spin.

If you want to really understand the issues in a race, you have to do your homework, read up on the issues from various sources of news and information.  If you are getting all your info from the candidates themselves, you are not truly preparing yourself to cast a vote in a particular race.  Voting is important and we routinely hear pleas to get out the vote.  Participation is encouraged, but I would prefer to see people go to the polls only if they have knowledge of the candidates and their stands on the issues.  I can accept someone voting for candidates I oppose much more readily when someone can articulate why they support that candidate.  When people vote based on hype or shallow information without really understanding a candidate's positions, in my opinion, they are doing an injustice to the privilege we have to vote for our government leaders.  If you want an example, just check consider some of the support Barack Obama is getting right now.