Economy delays movie theaters

A little more than a year ago, Spotlight Theatres announced plans for a 12-screen cinema in Loganville.  Access Loganville is now reporting that the facility, originally scheduled to open this summer, will be delayed until 2010.  This would explain why I have seen no construction at the site since the announcement.  Yet another casualty of the current economic malaise.

Gwinnett approves long-range land use plan

Last month I highlighted how Gwinnett County's proposed long-range plan was unfriendly to the property rights of Gwinnett property owners.  Unfortunately, the Gwinnett County Commission approved that plan Tuesday.  The City of Dacula remains concerned about the impact of the plan on economic development in the area surrounding the city.  That vocal champion of property rights, District 1 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau (readers new to the Buzz should note the heavy sarcasm of that comment) had this to say with respect to Dacula's concerns:

But Commissioner Mike Beaudreau, whose district includes Dacula, said the plan is more about the county's long-term viability than short-term goals.

"It's trying to steer the growth in the future to the areas that have the infrastructure," Beaudreau said. "That's something citizens have been calling for for decades."

I wonder if those citizens "calling" for this plan have economic stakes in the land near Dacula?  Driving growth toward existing infrastructure sounds great if you are not one of the those landowners.  Besides, doesn't government exist to meet our needs (i.e., develop the infrastructure citizens need) rather than for us to serve government (i.e., focus our economic choices around what the government has built)?  This plan effectively limits the economic uses of these parcels of land.  Limited choice depresses value which negatively impacts the wealth of landowners.  Given that land holdings are often a major component of someone's personal wealth, this plan could be a significant drag for those impacted.  Furthermore, there is the valid concerns of the City of Dacula regarding economic development in its area.  Fortunately, Gwinnett County does seem to be willing to listen to Dacula's concerns:

Despite the approval Tuesday, which came after state review of the plan, the county's discussions with Dacula will continue. A mediation hearing is scheduled for the dispute, and County Administrator Jock Connell said leaders could choose to amend the plan based on the results.

Let's hope Gwinnett County will be as receptive to all landowners harmed by this plan even if those individuals do not have the weight of a city council behind them.

Store opening dates for North Logan Commons

Access Loganville has the scoop on the grand opening dates for several major stores in the North Logan Commons retail center in Loganville.

Dollar Tree - Scheduled to open their Loganville store on Tuesday, 2/24 or Wednesday 2/25


Best Buy - Scheduled to re-open at their Loganville location on Friday, 2/27


PetSmart - Scheduled to have a “soft opening” on Monday, 3/2 followed by their grand opening on Saturday, 3/7


OfficeMax - Projected to have a “soft opening” on Thursday, 3/5 followed by their grand opening on Saturday, 3/7

More quality growth coming to Loganville!  Welcome to the new members of our community!

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?

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.

Oh no! Those awful developers are improving quality of life again!

For a few months now I have seen the sign that Loganville is getting a Lowe's at US 78 and Brand Road. Early in the construction, I noticed that the building closest to US 78 was too small to be the home improvement center, but a few weeks later I noted the early stages of construction of a much larger building further back on the property which I took to be Lowe's. I just assumed that the front building was an auto parts store or something similar. This morning I was passing by the site and noticed the new architectural touch to the building nearest the road - it looked suspiciously like the triangular shape on the front of a Best Buy! I then noticed a large sign I had not previously seen which announced that, indeed, the new development - North Logan Commons - would include a Best Buy! A little research back home revealed that the center, which is scheduled to open next spring, will also include a Dick's Sporting Goods, PetsMart and Office Max. A companion development, South Logan Commons, is slated to open across US 78 by 2010. The developer, Faison Enterprises of Charlotte, NC, has a property summary page with a leasing brochure that provides more information on the complex.

First, even though I have lived near Loganville for eight years now, the growth of the area still amazes me. I find the transformation of the area absolutely fascinating. When I was in high school in the late 80s, Loganville seemed like such a far away place. It seemed like just a little town with nothing there. The most notable thing about Loganville was Maxie Price Chevrolet which, as long-time residents will remember, made famous the phrase "Whur's Loganvile?!?" Now, we are getting a Best Buy! Setting aside the fact that I had never heard of Best Buy when I was in high school, had you told me back then this area would change like this, I would never have believed it.

The real point I want to make, however, is the convenience and amenities that development brings. With the addition of these stores in Loganville, residents of both Gwinnett and Walton in surrounding area no longer have to go to Snellville to visit these stores. This saves time and fuel as well reducing miles driven and, in turn, congestion. Aside from going to Barnes & Noble at the Avenue Webb Gin as well as some restaurants (Loganville's restaurant line-up is still pitiful), I have little need to make trips to Snellville. I suspect that a buddy of mine who lives much closer to this new center than I, will love the convenience this brings. But wait! He was just emailing me this week that he is "anti-growth." Hmmm...on second thought, John, you should just keep driving to Snellville since you are opposed to growth and development. I would hate for you to have to compromise your anti-growth stance. Same goes for Mike Beaudreau. Next time Mikes wants a CD or a DVD, he should make the drive to Snellville since it would just be wrong to patronize the businesses of a terrible, greedy developer. Sames goes for all the homeowner association activists in the area. They rail on development, so wouldn't it be hypocritical to take advantage of the conveniences?

The next time you hear the tired and often inaccurate blanket characterization of real estate development as being a detriment to a community take a minute and consider a project such as North Logan Commons. Are the benefits such a development will bring to the Loganville community really a negative like the anti-growth crowd would have you believe? I say a resounding no. I firmly believe that having these conveniences close to home will only improve the quality of life in the southeast fringe of Gwinnett.
View Larger Map

Put yourself in your neighbor's shoes

I was having an email exchange with a friend who has bought into the whole "quality growth" argument. When I pointed out that Lorraine Green was bad for business (thinking of my analysis of her vote against a Lawrenceville business owner Timothy Roe in the April), he responded with a comment that I hear often and find so frustrating: "we've got enough business." This is a common refrain of people who oppose something - they position the government to place limits on the free market behavior of whatever they oppose. I find it distressing that, in a country of opportunity, people are so willing to cede their economic freedoms to the government. We are seeing this now as some politicians are suggesting that corporate executives - private employees I would emphasize - receive too much salary. Other politicians tell us that there is a reasonable amount of profit that a business should earn. They also tell us that certain people make enough money and don't need all of their earnings. This line of thinking manifests itself in Gwinnett as we have enough business.

I can - and often do - use high-flying rhethoric on the virtues of economic freedom and the inappropriateness of government limitations on the free market. However, in the America of 2008 where we have seen a marked decline in our love of freedom, these arguments often come across as superfluous and disconnected from daily life. In attempting to make this point to my friend, I thought perhaps this would resonate better if he could see these issues with him at the receiving end of government oppression of his economic freedom.

John has recently started his own business so I used this as a vehicle to drive a hypothetical scenario. What if the government said "John, we are sorry but we cannot issue a business license to you for your accounting firm. Gwinnett simply has enough tax professionals. You are just not going to be able to open your business in Gwinnett." What about the money he may have invested in computers and software, the effort he had invested in learning and honing his accounting skills? What about his entrepreneurial hopes and dreams? How would he like it if the Gwinnett County government told him that and prevented him from doing what he wanted to do when it didn't hurt anyone? This is effectively what happens when Lorraine Green or Mike Beaudreau rule against a permit request or a rezoning citing the nebulous concept of smart growth or the subjectively created land use plan.

I further extended the scenario to include a situation where the county might deny a business a chance to operate out of a home. John's dad runs a computer repair shop from his home. Yes, the business generates a small amount of traffic but nothing that would reasonably impact his neighbors. The nature of the business is not one that would otherwise disturb others if it is conducted from within the home. Again thinking of Commissioner Green's ruling against Tim Roe's business, I asked John to consider if someone had complained about business traffic at his dad's computer repair shop and used the Gwinnett County Commission to tell him he could not operate his business there? Would that be a fair use of government authority? Would he support the government shutting down McNair's Computer Repair?

In general, I wanted John to put himself in Tim Roe's shoes and think about how Mr. Roe felt having Lorraine Green unjustifiably tell him that he had to shutter his truck rental business. In April it was Tim Roe. What if in 2009 it is John and his accounting business? It may seem reasonable to use government to oppress business when you don't like what is being oppressed, but tomorrow the tables may be turned. If you are considering voting for Lorraine Green or Mike Beaudreau, put yourself in Tim Roe's shoes and think about how you would like either of these two telling you could not do something that didn't hurt or bother someone else. If you vote for either, you are only allowing them to continue making their decisions which chip away at our precious freedoms and property rights.

Note: I have changed John and his dad's names as well as their business to protect their privacy.

So just who is Doug Stacks?

I twittered this question earlier today.  It has been almost a month since candidates qualified for this summer's Gwinnett primaries and we have yet to hear much - well, anything - from Doug Stacks.  Stacks entered the District 3 Commission race as a challenger to incumbent, Mike Beaudreau.  While I was not too optimistic about the chances of unseating Beaudreau, the fact that Stacks has been nearly invisible means that Mike is running virtually unopposed.  (Ok, technically, there is a Democrat in the general election for District 3 this fall, but in Gwinnett County, the winner of the GOP primary in July can pretty much hang up the campaign walking shoes as that race will be over.)

This evening I googled Mr. Stacks and this is basically what I found.  He is currently the planning manager for the City of Lilburn and has held this position since March.  But wait - what's this?  Very interesting.  Mr. Stacks represented Crown Point Property in the Strawberry Fields rezoning fight near Loganville last fall.  I find this very exciting!  No, no, no!  Not because I think a developer should always get his or her way.  I have stated on many occasions I believe in the concept of material impact, and that necessarily implies that a developer will likely not have all their proposals approved.  Rather, what I find exciting is that Stacks may not come to the commission with a default bias against developers that Beaudreau's "community friendly" or "homeowner friendly" growth position implies.  I am encouraged becasue during the Strawberry Fields debate, Stacks reportedly characterized development as "progress."  Could Stacks be a commissioner that will be more receptive to the reality that developers are a legitimate members of the Gwinnett community who bring a lot of value and amenities to our county?

I could not agree more that development brings progress, because the benefits that development has brought Gwinnett residents have been significant to the continued improvement in quality of life in Gwinnett.  If not for development, we would still be shopping from cramped 30-year old Kroger stores, waiting to buy gas at the few two-pump island stations that were allowed to be built, feeling frustrated at the paucity of housing options due to lack of new, modern construction, and having a single, aging regional mall from which to shop.  Yes, whether we want to admit it or not, we all enjoy the benefits of development in Gwinnett County and it is time that we had a commissioner that represents all members of the Gwinnett community, not just a subset of homeowners who want to freeze Gwinnett in time the day they buy their home.

I would like to invite Doug Stacks to come on the Gwinnett Buzz to outline his positions to the residents of District 3.  Mike Beaudreau will likely win reelection, however, he should not be able to just "walk into the endzone."  He should receive enough of a challenge so that he must defend his votes of the past four years.  Mr. Stacks, you are the only hope District 3 has in 2008 of regaining our private property rights and our business-friendly environment.  Don't forfeit the game to Team Beaudreau.

Beaudreau impedes business again

Another proposed cell phone tower, another denial by Mike Beaudreau.

The May public hearing was a fairly ho-hum night, but these two cases really provided for a banner night for the District 3 Commissioner. Before I outline Mike's missteps tonight, let me first start by publicly thanking the Board for having the courage to continue having an invocation before the hearing. In a society that finds so many ways to try to remove Christianity from the public square, having an invocation before a government meeting was refreshing. Despite my differences with many actions taken by our commissioners, I congratulate them for their strength on this point.

Tonight the board heard the case of the proposed T-Mobile cell phone tower near the Lenora Airport (2008-0435-TSP-2008-00010). There was significant opposition present, but their arguments were weak and did not offer a rational reason to deny the T-Mobile's request. Unfortunately, as with other tower applications in District 3, logic and reason could not carry the day when pitted against a politician's natural inclination to pander to voters. T-Mobile's representative, Michael Sullivan, made several key points. Sullivan noted that cell phone towers are not exactly attractive but neither are other needed community infrastructure including power lines and wastewater treatment plants. He further outlined how restricting cell phone towers to commercial areas - a nation that Mr. Beaudreau seems to support based on a comment he made in a 2007 hearing asking why towers were proposed for residential areas - is impractical and not beneficial. He closed by noting that tower placements are driven by engineering practices.

The fun then started with the opposition taking their turn to address the board. Speaking for fellow pilots based out of Lenora Airport, a local resident presented the board with a series of photos and diagrams. The biggest impression I received from this presentation was to question whether a land use that has to negate the private property rights of so many nearby properties should, itself, be justified. I also found a certain amount of irony that the pilots are claiming that a tower which two studies have found did not pose a threat, was more dangerous than having airplanes take off and land in the extremely close proximity to nearby subdivisions. This fact brings into question the point made by the following speaker who raised the typical cell tower bogeyman - property values. First, what is more disruptive to a homeowner, a plane taking off or landing over your head or a cell phone tower a half-mile away that is built in a stand of trees? I find the property value argument particularly questionable when nearly $300,000 homes backing up to high tension power lines have little problem selling. If a home will sell with a large power pole in the backyard will sell, then where is the rational expectation that a distant cell phone tower will take away substantial value? Also, if such visual clutter was so damaging to value, why would builders willingly give up tens of thousands of dollars in home value by building new subdivisions near such eyesores? Given this, I find little credence in the property value argument. Finally, the last opposition speaker brought up the other common cell tower bogeyman, health effects. Never mind that the FCC has guidelines addressing what makes a tower installation acceptable from an electromagnetic exposure standpoint. Making this speaker's comments even harder to take seriously was a tone that held a touch of radicalism by including phrases such "plume of radiation" and "human test subjects." She even managed to get in a comment that seemed to imply that studies done in countries with socialized medicine were more reliable, further coloring he comments as more about pushing an agenda than addressing true concerns about public health. Fortunately, the T-Mobile representative effectively countered the opposition's arguments.

Sullivan pointed out that T-Mobile had commissioned studies that were completed based on Federal Aviation regulations, not feelings, emotions or one-in-a-million or worst case scenarios. As has been reported, these studies have shown that the FAA would not have taken issue with this tower were it a public airport. Sullivan noted that planes are not supposed to be below 1000' at the location of the tower. He further added that if a plane were at that flight level near the 126-foot tower, the tower itself would be just one of many potential obstructions including trees and power lines. Finally, in probably his strongest rebuttal, Sullivan pointed out that Gwinnett County had permitted seven tall structures without a half-mile of Briscoe Field including one owned by Gwinnett County.

After Sullivan's presentation time expired, Beaudreau offered a glimmer of hope that, at long last, he might actually find a cell tower he could not reasonably deny. He asked Sullivan about lighting the tower and Sullivan indicated that, though the tower was not required to be lit, T-Mobile would be willing do so. Having made this offer of compromise, I had faith, hope, that Beaudreau would do the right thing and fairly serve the interests of all residents in his district including a business that provides a vital service to his constituents. However, this was not to be, as Beaudreau's question served only as a misdirection to his subsequent statement and vote.

I should have realized that we were in for a typical Beaudreau denial when he noted the opposition had made valid points, a claim that while perhaps not quite laughable, was a stretch. Despite noting in another case later in the evening that he was not an engineer, Beaudreau effectively made an engineering judgment when he claimed that T-Mobile had not presented a case for needing a tower in that area. Despite evidence presented by T-Mobile and the lack of an opposition RF engineering analysis, Beaudreau, the man who is "not an engineer" decided that T-Mobile's need for the site was not proven. Not only does this thrust Beaudreau into the role of an engineer, it further implies that he is able to make determinations as to the competitive needs of a private business. Furthermore, Beaudreau notes the existence of several non-residentially zoned parcels in the vicinity which would be better suited to a tower than the R-100 parcel on which the tower is proposed. Suitability of these sites is also subject to an engineering (as well as zoning and commercial) analysis. To make this suggestion again implies an engineering conclusion as to the claimed suitability, a skill that has that Beaudreau acknowledges he does not possess. Beaudreau closed with some hand-waving regarding the number of towers the board has approved in recent years. However, this does not justify his decision in light of the facts presented in the public hearing. Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to view the May public hearing video which you can access via the link on the left and consider the points made yourself.

The reality is that Mike Beaudreau continues to vote to interfere with the provision of telecommunication services in District 3. While I am a subscriber of another carrier and am not personally impacted by this decision, as a resident of Gwinnett I am disappointed that my commissioner continues to put the interests of local residents would have not shown they would be materially impacted by a proposal ahead cherished private property rights. I am also concerned because Beaudreau represents areas of Gwinnett County that are still on the frontier of the telecommunications revolution. Many of the latest technologies and services which are available in densely populated areas of downtown Atlanta, Dekalb County, and even western Gwinnett County are still to come in the fringes of District 3. As telecom companies continue to roll these services to the edges of metro Atlanta, will Mike Beaudreau be there limiting the access of his constituents to these services all to pander to a subset of local homeowners? Even if you have no interest in next generation wireless services, what about the negative impact of Beaudreau's decision on the right of property owners to economically benefit from their property?

Perhaps, you find yourself agreeing that you do not want to look at a cell phone tower and you have no problem with Beaudreau's opposition. I ask you to consider that situation of you making a reasonable request to the Board of Commissioners for a use of your property that brings you financial gain and does not materially impact your neighbors. However, for whatever reason, your neighbors oppose your request for reasons that amount to little more than personal preference. How would you feel when Mike Beaudreau (or any other commissioner for that matter) says that he recommends denial for your request, thereby potentially costing you thousands of dollars per year? What happened this month could one day happen to you. Think about that as you follow the District 3 Commission race over the next two months. Consider whether you want a commissioner that opposes progress under the guise of "homeowner friendly" or "community friendly" growth, or whether you want a commissioner that has the backbone to stand up for private property rights and represent not just homeowners but all District 3 residents and businesses. The time is now for Gwinnett residents to say enough to the efforts of some homeowners to handcuff other homeowners and residents in our efforts to see Gwinnett continue to progress as a great place to live, work and play.

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.