Suwanee P.D. to resume using radar 1 March

The Suwanee Police Department will resume its revenue enhancement efforts via radar speed enforcement on 1 March.  After the recent agreement between local municipalities and Gwinnett County regarding the provision of various services, local police departments can resume using radar for traffic enforcement.  Suwanee must wait for reinstatment of its radar permit because its previous permit had expired.  

Here's a real knee slapper from the Gwinnett Daily Post article:

City leaders have said the need for it to return is primarily for public and highway safety, and not revenue generated by citations.

Umm...yeah.  I wonder if they said that with a straight face?  Apparently they think we missed the recent news that the absence of radar from Gwinnett roadways last year resulted in no significant increase in traffic accidents.  As I said above - Suwanee will resume its revenue enhancement efforts via radar speed enforncement on 1 March.  Watch out if you pass through the city - the City of Suwanee desperately needs wants your money.

Gwinnett government wants you to provide free labor

I could not help but chuckle at this one.  On the other hand, maybe I should just be shaking my head.  The Gwinnett County Commission has recently set a goal to obtain 1,000,000 volunteer hours per year from citizens through the Volunteer Gwinnett program..  These hours would be spent assisting the government in performing functions that it apparently doesn't have the funds to do itself.  Commission Chairwoman Charlotte Nash said that the program would allow citizens to "give back" to our community.  

I always find that phrase - "give back" - a little misleading.  Perhaps I take it too literally, but to "give back" implies that something has been given to me.  What exactly has the Gwinnett County government given me?  Sure, they provide a variety of services, some of which I don't need nor want, but I pay for those services via my property tax payment each fall or by my tax payment on my car at my birthday.  The Gwinnett government doesn't "give" me anything anymore than Best Buy "gives" me a Blu-ray when I purchase a disc at the store.

Don't misunderstand me.  I am not suggesting that volunteering is not a worthy thing to do with your time.  However, there are many organizations for whom you can provide the limited hours you have available to volunteer.  You could volunteer at your church or with many community non-profits that rely on volunteers to survive.  One excellent option for professionals is CCT Atlanta.  While such opportunities may not technically meet the definition above of "giving back," they sure come a lot closer than a government that has the legal right to simply take money from you.

I know that Gwinnett's tax revenues have been hit by the economic downturn as well as the housing crunch.  However, one cannot discount the role of the failed leadership from the Bannister commission in the financial condition of the Gwinnett County government.  Tell you what.  I will be happy to volunteer a few hours cleaning up my local park when I see the County Commission sell Gwinnett Taxpayers Stadium, aka Coolray Field, and recover all the taxpayer dollars that were sunk into what is essentially a business facility for a multi-million dollar private enterprise.

Charlotte Nash - new Gwinnett Commission Chairman

Charlotte Nash has easily won the special election to replace resigned Gwinnett County Commission Chairman Charles Bannister.  Nash avoided a runoff by garnering 56% of the vote.  Larry Gause was a distant second with 26%.  Only 5% of registered Gwinnett voters turned out for the election.  Let's hope that Ms. Nash can provide effective leadership to lead the board out of an era of corruption and big government.

For Commission Chairman the Buzz endorses...

...no one.

Why?  Because none of the candidates overly excite me and not one of them jumps off the page as someone I would really like to see running the county commission.  Personally, since I have been following county politics, this is the most ho-hum slate of candidates in a commission race that I can remember.  I would hasten to add, however, that three of the four candidates are not highly objectionable either.  As I have discussed previously, all of the candidates have positives and negatives.  (See my previous thoughts on this race, here, here and here.)

Charlotte Nash: I felt Nash displayed too narrow of a perspective on the airport privatization and commercialization question when she suggested that her position on the issue would be more heavily influenced by those people living in the immediate vicinity of Briscoe Field.  Conversely, I really appreciated her answers regarding the board structure in light of recent corruption on the commission.  I was also impressed with a campaign mailer in which she pledged not to raise taxes.  She took a similar stance recently in speaking against a commission resolution passed earlier this month which essentially amounted to another property tax increase.  Finally, her opponent Larry Gause claimed she would be a "Wayne Hill clone."  Gause apparently meant this as a criticism but I take this as a major endorsement.  I have never equivocated that I strongly feel Gwinnett voters made a mistake in 2004 by choosing Charles Bannister over Wayne Hill.  This comparison of Nash to Hill is ironic given the fact that Nash was endorsed by Mike Beaudreau who I see as a near opposite of Hill.  Nonetheless, I would tend to agree with Bob Griggs that Nash is a strong choice for commission chairman, though I cannot go so far as to endorse her.

Will Costa: Costa was initially my first choice based on his position on the airport, a position which I felt was the most friendly of the four candidates to property rights.  I was very much impressed with his views of limited governent.  However, I was taken aback by his support of more and/or larger muncipal government in Gwinnett, a position that seems to contradict limited government.  I am also surprised at Costa's advocacy of light rail, apparently under government control. I have no problem with light rail as a transportation alternative.  I have a big problem with the Gwinnett County government delving further into the transporatation business.  If a private business wants to operate light rail, fantastic!  But I do not want taxpayer dollars potentially being tied up in, to use a Griggs phrase, a "government boondoogle."  That all being said, I am still intrigued by Costa.  While the positions cited above do seem to contradict his limited government views, I would love to see a voice on the commission truly commited to decreasing the size and influence of the Gwinnett County government.  Thus, Costa will get consideration as I make my final decision tomorrow.

Duane Kissel: To me, Kissel is the "invisible man" candidate in this race.  He is there, but you don't really notice him.  I agreeed with his statements on the airport but was not clear regarding his thought process in arriving at those views.  Regarding commission structure, he had an interesting idea about terms limits for commissioners but I am not sure how well thought-out this stance is and whether, as chairman, he could practically have any impact on implementing such a restriction.  I think I am pretty decided that Kissel will not receive my vote.

This brings me to the one candidate I have come to view as the villian of this campaign, the one person for whom I have great distaste as a candidate and for whom I can say with absolute certainty that I will not be voting.  In fact, he is the only candidate in the race I would strongly caution Gwinnettians about supporting.  That candidate is Larry Gause.  Initially, I had mixed feelings on Gause's stance on Briscoe Field.  However, in general, I saw him much like Kissel - there but generally invisible.  Then I started seeing smoke.  I received an email making various claims about dirty politics by Gause.  I did not publicize this release becasue I could not be certain of the claims.  But I now see Griggs as well as the BanishBannister.com website making similar arguments.  The charges I found most offensive regarded Gause's alleged dishonesty.  Griggs reported that Gause was dishonest about his employment on his campaign financial disclosures as well as his connection to unsavory political consultant Bill McKinney.  BanishBannister.com claims that Gause has displayed the Georgia Right to Life logo on a political mailer though he is not endorsed by the organization.  This apparent dishonesty really galls me because Gause has emphasized his military service.  Isn't one key part of military life honesty and integrity?  While I thank Mr. Gause for his service to our country, I find it highly offensive that someone who promotes their duty would then engage in questionable behavior even in the political arena.  While I cannot independently verify the information reported by others, for me, there is far too much smoke surrounding Larry Gause not to wonder just how much fire is there.  I am absolutely certain I will not vote for Gause and I would urge Buzz readers to tread cautiously before casting a vote for him.

While I cannot make an endorsement in this race, I can offer a short list: Charlotte Nash or Will Costa.  I think Gwinnett would be best served by replacing Charles Bannister with one of these two individuals.  I hope everyone will vote tomorrow, but I would encourage you to be informed before you visit your polling place.  Voting is an important responsibility.  Too often people are simply encouraged to vote, but being prepared to vote is not emphasized as much as the act of voting itself.  As we saw in the election of President Obama, casting an uninformed vote can have severe negative consequences, so if you are going to vote, be informed as you make your decision.  Don't just rely on my opinion above but seek out other sources of information.  When you cast your vote for your candidate of choice, do so knowing why you are choosing that person to lead our county out of the morass of recent years.

Commission citizens' forum Monday night in Lawrenceville

As posted on the Gwinnett County web site:

The Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners wants to hear from you! Please come out to the last in a series of Citizens' Forums with the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners on Monday, March 7 at 7:00pm. The forum will take place at the Gwinnett Historic Courthouse located at 185 Crogan Street in Lawrenceville.

Come meet your district commissioners and share your thoughts on how to meet the needs of Gwinnett County's residents and businesses. A brief presentation about the County's financial outlook will be made and the floor will be open for your thoughts and ideas. Your commissioners want to hear your input.

Maybe you can beat City Hall

Earlier this week, I higlighted a potential abuse of eminent domain by the City of Dacula.  I am very happy to be able to use the word "potential" because the Dacula City Council did the right thing and declined to legally steal Sam Hinton's property in downtown Dacula.  Criticizing elected officials when they do the wrong thing is easy, but all too often we fail to praise them when they do the right thing.  Setting aside the concern that this matter should have ever gotten this far, I do want to publically applaud the following members of the Dacula City Council for their "no" votes: Tim Montgomery and Gregory Reeves.  Also, casting the deciding "no" vote after the council tied 2-2 was Mayor Jimmy Wilbanks, saying, "I am not going to make this decision by myself.  This is a property right, so I’m going to vote against the motion.”  

Mayor Wilbanks was exactly right - this was about property rights.  Which is why Dacula voters should ask Sue Robinson and Wendell Holcombe why they voted to abuse eminent domain power to force Mr. Hinton to sell his land to the city?  Are their votes indicative of their general view on property rights or do they feel there is a legitimate, critical need for the City of Dacula to take this property from its owner?  Councilpersons Robinson and Holcome, the residents of Dacula deserve a very clear understanding of what precisely are your views on the use of governmental power with regard to property rights.  The Gwinnett Buzz would be more than willing to publish an article by either of you discussing your views and an explanation of how you voted as you did.  You can contact me on the contact page above and I will publish your comments unedited.

Whether you avail yourself of this avenue or some other, I urge you to explain yourselves to your constituents.  Last fall, Americans showed that they are no longer complacent with elected officials who tread on the people.  Thursday night's vote will not simply slip into the fog of memory prior to the next election.  If Ms. Robinson and Mr. Holcombe refuse to defend this vote, I am confident that the good people of Dacula will respond accordingly when they next visit the ballot box.  Similarly, while one vote does not give a pass to Councilmen Montgomery and Reeves or Mayor Wilbanks, these gentlemen deserve credit for protecting the cherished and crucial American right to property.

The City of Dacula is trying to steal Sam Hinton's property

View Dacula Eminent Domain in a larger map

The City of Dacula wants to build a new park in downtown.  The proposed park would be located on a site comprised of four parcels of land including a lot owned by Sam Hinton.  The city has already purchased three of the parcels. There's a small problem, however: Sam Hinton does not want to sell his property at Second Avenue and Wilson Street.  That should be the end of it, right?  Not to the Dacula City Council.  They are not taking "no" for an answer and apparently think that, because they want to build a park and because they have bought the other three properties, that they should just be able to take Hinton's property against his will.  In the world of you and I, that is called "stealing."  In the world of government, that is called "eminent doman."

At tonight's city council meeting (7 p.m. at City Hall), the council will consider whether to force Sam Hinton to sell his property to the city.  There is no other way to characterize this move but as an unconscionable power play by council members.  Hinton offers other reasons as to why building this park is an unwise move but those rebuttals are unnecessary (though, I will note, he makes some valid points).  The fact that Mr. Hinton does not want to sell his land, land that has been in his family for well over a century, is reason enough that the City should not build the park.  

The City's response is that they need the Hinton parcel to access city property during construction of the park.  The City might have an argument had Hinton purchased the lot in bad faith in order to block park construction.  However, the City purchased the other three parcels for the park before they secured the Hinton property.  Why should the purchases made by the City obligate Hinton to sell his land?  They should not.  The City might also have a legitimate position if access to their property was entirely precluded by Hinton's property.  However, though I cannot be sure that the property lines shown in the above map are accurate, there is no property in the vicinity of Hinton's lot that lacks street access.  Sorry, city council members, but not having enough space to carry out the project you envision should not allow you to effectively steal a man's property.  

To be sure there are cases where eminent domain is used in a legitimate manner, cases where a government has critical need for a particular piece of property.  The United States Constitution permits such "takings" in the Fifth Amendment.  That being said, all too often governments abuse this power (see my Recommended Reading below, Government Pirates, for numerous examples).  I see this case as legal theft since this park is not critical - no matter how you define critical - to the citizens of Dacula.  If I walk into my neighbor's house and take an autographed football for which he has refused my offers to buy, even if I leave a check for the true value of the ball, do you think a court would turn me loose simply because I paid for the stolen property?  Highly doubtful.  So, why should we not expect our elected officials, even if they can do essentially the same thing legally, to follow the same standard?  Taking Hinton's property, despite its legality, violates the spirit of the rights that defines America.

The irony of this abuse of power is that just two years ago, officials of this same city were opposed to a move by Gwinnett County to designate the area surrounding Dacula as rural, a move which they felt would be a drag on economic development in the area.  This was a property rights issue and the city was correct in their position.  Now, hypocritically, that same city is set to deprive one of their long-time citizens of his property rights.  Dacula residents, do you demand better leadership from your city council?  Do you expect them to honor and respect basic property rights?  If so, it is incumbent on you to be heard, to loudly tell your elected officials to not take Sam Hinton's property.  If you can, show up at the council meeting tonight.  If you cannot make it, call city hall (770-963-7451) or email them (citydacula@charter.net).  Make them understand that if they take Sam Hinton's property against his will, you will take away their jobs at the next election.  As we saw last November, America has had enough of politicians trampling all over our freedoms in the name of big government.  Apparently, the Dacula City Council missed that message.  Make them hear it and stand up for your neighbor, Sam Hinton, and his basic American rights as a property owner.

Gwinnett to consider privatization of planning

The Gwinnett County Commission has created a committee to examine whether some of the county planning department functions should be privatized.  The committee was formed after new District 4 Commissioner John Heard initially pushed "to consider allowing private professionals to approve building plans."  Heard later yielded to a more broad-cased review.

I am encouraged to see a new member of the board quickly moving to examine the size and scope of county government.  I am discouraged, however, that the lone dissenting vote to forming the committee came from the other freshman commissioner, Lynette Howard of District 2.  While Howard has a valid point that the department is already lean on costs due to "downsizing along with the economy," what is the harm in examining whether outsourcing may be appropriate?  The committee may decide that privatization is not warranted.  Dekalb County considered a similar move but found that, after the downturn, "fee revenue recovered enough to support the department."  In fact, for a department that is conducting an essential role of government (and, to be fair, we could debate whether planning and zoning should be a role of government), if that department can cover its costs through fees collected from those using its services as opposed to being funded by general tax dollars, such a structure should be a model for government to follow.  

Where I must question Howard is her other reason for opposing the committee:

“I don’t want some building not being built to specifications of safety,” said Commissioner Lynette Howard, who cast the lone vote against creating the study committee.

Why can only government ascertain whether a building is built to the proper safety specifications?  What characteristic of government imbues it with an ability to discern safety issues that an unbiased, private third party does not have?  If the reviewer of building plans were paid and/or hired by the builder, then I see a cause for concern and a potential conflict of interest.  However, simply privatizing this role into an unaffilitated third party does not create such a conflict.

I don't really take issue with the Gwinnett planning department.  Rather, I think the planning department often, wisely and fairly, recommends approval for projects that ultimately are denied by a politician.  Nevertheless, I will typically support an objective analysis of whether any function of government can be made more effective and/or efficient by outsourcing it to a private enterprise.  For pushing for such an analysis, I heartily applaud John Heard.  I only wonder why Lynette Howard would oppose this analysis.  I just hope that this is not a sign of another big government Republican on the Gwinnett County Commission.  We have had more than enough of those in recent years.

State legislators considers bill that pits trees versus billboards

The Georgia General Assembly is considering a bill that would allow "billboard owners could clear-cut state-owned trees from in front of their signs."  While this is not a Gwinnett specific issue, with major highways such as I-85, GA Highway 316, US 78, and US 29 running through the heart of our county, this legislation is absolutely relevant to Gwinnett County.  

I am a strong supporter of business, and I feel that government often goes too far in impeding the ability of companies to conduct business.  However, the need for empowering industry does not extend to allowing businesses to exercise control over property that is not theirs.  This bill would allow just that.  True, this law would not give sign owners rights over private property.  But if I live beside government property, I cannot just go walk on that land and destroy trees or other natural elements because they do not suit me.  

The bill does provide that an arborist would have to identify trees older than 75 years old which would be protected.  However, the arborist would be paid by the billboard owner.  Outdoor Advertising Association of Georgia executive director Conner Poe notes that the arborists would be honest in doing their job.  The vast majority would.  However, being paid by a party with a financial stake in your decision does open the door to conflict of interest.

Both sides of this issue will cite a variety of reasons the bill should or should not pass.  Businesses will cite potential lost jobs, environmentalists will cite the negatives of losing swaths of trees.  Both arguments are immaterial.  This comes down to property rights.  You should have a right to do with your property as you see fit so long as that does not infringe on your neighbor's right to do with their property as they see fit.  However, regardless of the owner, you do not have a right to exercise your will on property that is not yours.

Unfortunately, the bill passed the House today.  I do not know which, if any, Gwinnett legislators supported this bill, but I intend to find out and publicize a list of those would have limited respect for property rights.  The lesgislation now moves to the Senate.

Candidates debate commission structure

(Note: I am not clear whether this story relates to last night's Commission Chairman candidates' forum in Lilburn.  Nevertheless, the views of the candidates is what is important, not where they were made.)

As part of the its report on its investigation into Gwinnett County land deals, the grand jury whose work prompted the resignation of both Commission Chairman Charles Bannister and District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly recommended a reorganization of the the Gwinnett County Commission.  The grand jury split between recommending making all commissioners full-time or expanding the size of the board.  Turns out, the four candidates are split as well.  Their comments have caused to me to reconsider my order of preference after last week's candidates forum.

Though Charlotte Nash was my least favorite choice based on her position on commercial aviation at Gwinnett County Airport-Briscoe Field, I agree wholeheartedly with her assessment of the impact of the board structure on the recent corruption:

It’s not necessarily the structure (of the commission) that’s the problem,” said one, Charlotte Nash of Dacula. “It’s the behavior of the commissioners that has led to this situation.”

Precisely.  If Kenerly accepted the bribe of which he is accused, it was not because being part-time did not allow him enough time to propriety of accepting a bribe.  Nor would the extra pay from being full-time have made the financial incentive of $1 million less attractive.  As Nash said, the alleged action of Kenerly was solely due to his choices and was unrelated to the structure of the Board of Commissioners.  I further agree with Nash that the fact that part-time commissioners hold "real jobs" keeps them in touch with the average Gwinnett resident.  However, despite opposing full-time commissioners, Nash is apparently not opposed to expanding the board to seven members.  I do not take extreme exception with this recommendation.  I think the grand jury has a point that "smaller districts would reduce commissioners’ workload and provide better representation of each district."  That being said, I would tend to agree with Larry Gause that the structure of the baord as it currently stands is fine.  

Duane Kissel does favor making all commissioners full-time, though Kissel made a suggestion worth considering: limiting commisioners to two terms.  I always struggle with term limits.  If you have a good leader, why do you want to get rid of him?  While I supported Bannister in 2008 against Lorraine Green, I still firmly believe that Gwinnett County would have been better off had Wayne Hill been reelected in 2004.  Conversely, if you are saddled with Mike Beaudreau like I am in my district, the prospect of knowing he could not run again next year is very appealing.  

The candidate who disappoints me the most on this issue though is Will Costa.  Costa was my clear first choice after considering his views on the airport.  However, though he favors expanding the board rather than making commissioners full-time, his larger position regarding the structure of Gwinnett government is completely unacceptable.

But Costa believes the ultimate solution would be to incorporate more of Gwinnett County so commissioners have less power. Smaller governments that are closer to the people will be better able to serve their people than one large county government that tries to be all things to everyone,” Costa said.

A Libertarian advocating more government?  While there is some merit in theory to the idea that municipal governments are closer to, and therefore, more responsive to citizens, there are larger concerns that override any possible benefit.  (I say "possible" because I am not sure that city politicians are significantly more responsive to the needs of their constituents than are county commissioners.)  What about the additional costs to the taxpayer for services that are duplicates of the county (e.g., planning, police, etc.)?  Another problem with municipalties sprouting like mushrooms is the burden placed on companies trying to do business in Gwinnett County.  As I wrote a year ago regarding a potential City of Peachtree Corners:

The last thing Gwinnett needs is an addition to the patchwork of zoning jurisdictions and code enforcement authorities. This adds complexity and, in turn, cost for businesses that have to deal with yet another jurisdiction as they try to serve local customers. Given the reputation of many small-town zoning boards, this additional layer can result in desirable businesses being prevented from opening shop in these communities. If businesses cannot serve a community, residents suffer by not having sufficient local amenities.  Also, as happened in Milton, GA, potential revenue shortfalls are even possible if enough commercial taxpayers are denied access to the area.

Even if Costa is not suggesting new municipalities but rather expansion of existing cities, his support of greater incorporation causes me to seriously reconsider my opinion of his candidacy.

As for who I support for chairman, the debate on commission structure complicates that and I am not sure I have a clear front-runner.  Property rights still outweigh most considerations so that argues that I should pay more attention the candidates' positions on the airport.  Fortunately, another forum will be held on March 8 at the Gwinnett Chamber of Commerce.  Hopefully, a clear front-runner will emerge at that time if not before.

View Larger Map