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.

Oberholtzer to challenge Beaudreau

Last week I wrote about District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau's reelection bid.  In that post I asked who would rise up to challenge the incumbent.  Former Snellville Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer will be one challenger, officially announcing this week his intention to toss his hat into the race.  Mr. Oberholtzer contacted the Buzz and provided the following press release announcing his candidacy.  I have blogged about the mayor as well, though not as extensively as I have about Commissioner Beaudreau.  I cannot say at this time that I will ultimately support the mayor, but I am glad to see a seasoned opponent step up to oppose Beaudreau.  

Jerry Oberholtzer's Candicacy Announcement:

Former Snellville Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer to run for Gwinnett County Commissioner

Snellvile, GA

Jerry Oberholtzer, who served twelve successful years as City Councilman and Mayor of Snellville, will bring his governmental experience and savvy into the race for Gwinnett County Commissioner representing the 3rd District that stretches from Braselton, through Dacula and Snellville, to the DeKalb County line at Stone Mountain.

Oberholtzer 52 and Roxann , his wife of 30 years, have lived in the district for 29 years – almost their entire married life. They have three sons, Jerry and Matthew, both Clemson University graduates, and Paul, a graduate of North Georgia State College and University. Son Jerry and wife Jessie, have the Oberholtzer’s first grandson.

Jerry, a professional civil engineer and Clemson graduate, is a twenty year volunteer on the Northeast Georgia Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Roxann is a long term employee of the Boy Scouts and all around mom to scores of scouts over the years.

“Knowing how to govern effectively, building consensus, treating constituents with courtesy and respect and sticking to Republican principles will be the hallmark of my campaign and service.” said Oberholtzer.

“Good Schools, low crime, attractive neighborhoods: I want to build on those things and make them better. added Oberholtzer. “I know we’ve had our share of problems in Gwinnett, but when the cook burns the biscuits, you don’t need to remodel the kitchen. Gwinnett’s Third District needs a new cook.”

“Dishonest land deals, unbid sweetheart contracts, airport proposals that ruin neighborhoods and grand jury investigations have resulted in a disconnect and a loss of faith in government.” continued Oberholtzer. “ These are tough economic times and just saying NO to everything, like Mike Beaudreau has done for eight years, isn’t working. Being negative drives away business and pours a cold bucket of water on progress and job growth. I’ll work to make Gwinnett the most business friendly county in Georgia.”

“I intend to use this campaign, not to complain about problems, but to offer real solutions. People who live here already know what the problems are: they want real leadership to show them the way to a better Gwinnett. I have the proven ability to keep taxes low, balance the budget, protect our neighborhoods and provide real-­‐time, honest solutions to the traffic problem.” said Oberholtzer

“I look forward to a spirited campaign, grounded in the issues, leading the way to a new direction for Gwinnett. A direction that focuses on the people already here; the people that have worked hard, paid taxes and built our communities. So at the end of four years, we can say to our children and grandchildren: We left Gwinnett better than we found it.” concluded Oberholtzer. 

Beaudreau to seek reelection

District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau announced Friday that he would seek reelection for a third term to the Gwinnett Board of Commissioners.  Beaudreau is last remaining commisioner from Gwinnett's fiscal debacle in 2009 as well as the socialized garbage fiasco.  (Though Shirley Lasseter joined the board in January 2009 after her election in November 2008, many decisions had largely been made that would result in the budget deficit.  As such, I cannot hold her as accountable as the remainder of the board members of that time.)  The other commissioners at that point - aside from Lasseter - either resigned or did not stand for reelection, thus denying voters the opportunity to fire them for a job poorly done.  Beaudreau is the last chance for voters to hold the Bannister board accountable at the polls.

Beaudreau, like any good politician, will attempt to spin away any responsibility he had in those messes and, for socialized garbage, attempt to defend his primary role in trampling on your economic freedom.  And, to be fair, at least for the fiscal issues, Commissioner Beaudreau often did have a more fiscally responsible voice than did his fellow board members.  He also had a more open-minded view of the economic opportunities for revamping Briscoe Field for commercial aviation.  However, his staunch support for socialized garbage is, alone, "grounds for termination."  Couple this position with a record that was routinely hostile to private property rights as he played favorites to certain categories of landowners. Taken altogether, the time has come for the voters in District 3 to kindly advise Mr. Beaudreau to focus on his sales career.  As you hear the spin from the Beaudreau campaign, I would urge you to review my commentary on his tenure for a refresher on the real record of Commissioner Mike Beaudreau.

The question now turns to who will stand up to our next District 3 commissioner?  We need a candidate who will stand up and defend property rights for all Gwinnettians, not just special interests that align themselves with an elected official.  We need a commissioner who will continue to be open-minded regarding opportunities for Briscoe Field.  We need a candidate who, even if he or she cannot reverse the indefensible socialized garbage contract, will sincerely promise residents that he or she will never disrespect our economic freedom of choice by supporting such an arrangement.  In other words, we need a true conservative to replace Mike Beaudreau.  I am optimistic that, so long as District 3 voters remember the recent track record of the Bannister commission, that, like Barack Obama, Mike Beaudreau will face an uphill slog to retain his seat.

Mike Beaudreau Press Release

Beaudreau to run for Re-Election

Mike Beaudreau announced today that he would run for a third term as Gwinnett County Commissioner in District 3. 

“The last few years have been very difficult for the county and many of its residents,” Beaudreau said.  “Because of the economic downturn, the Board of Commissioners was forced to make difficult decisions about spending and taxes.  My conservative leadership and opposition to tax increases helped get us to where we are today, with our top credit rating intact, and with the lowest unemployment rate of metro Atlanta’s core counties.  Now that we see signs of improvement on the horizon, I want to continue to help move the county in the right direction.”

If he is reelected, Commissioner Beaudreau will continue to promote economic development efforts to grow the county’s tax base and will continue his record of tight fiscal management of the county budget.  He also hopes to build on his seven year track record of expanding transparency in county government.

Mike Beaudreau was elected in 2004 as Gwinnett’s youngest County Commissioner.  During his tenure, he has worked tirelessly on issues important to residents; he remains committed to improving the quality of life by passing stricter development regulations, making government more transparent by promoting ethics reform, and making government more efficient by focusing on key county services while keeping property taxes as low as possible.

Due to reapportionment, District 3 boundaries have changed a bit.  It now includes portions of the Braselton and Chateau Elan areas in the northern part of the county, and still includes Centerville, Snellville, Grayson, Loganville and Dacula.

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.

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.

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

Thoughts on the Commission Chairman race (Pt. 2) - Costa and Kissel

Last week, the four candidates for Gwinnett County Commission Chairman particiapted in a candidates' forum in Buford.  Yesterday, I posted part one of this article offering my thoughts on Larry Gause and Charlotte Nash.  Tonight, in part two, I cover the remaining candidates, Duane Kissel and Will Costa.

Kissel, like all candidates, voiced opposition to commercialization of Gwinnett County Airport-Briscoe Field but left the door open to privatization.  He also agreed with Nash on whether a long-term resolution opposing expansion of the airport would be workable.

I would support privatization as long as it worked better for the county,” he said but added that the function of the airport should remain as is.

This viewpoint resonates with me.  His stance is similar to that of Nash but he does not carry the burden of a Mike Beaudreau endorsement.  To be fair, the article does not shed much light on how he arrived at his opposition to commercial aviation.  His thought process on this remains an open question.  

The views of Will Costa most impressed me of the four candidates.  While his rationale for opposing commercialization is not clear either, his views on privatization indicate a clear preference for limited government, a position sorely lacking among current and recent commissioners.

[Costa] favors selling the airport to a private entity.  “There is no reason we cannot sell the airport to a private firm and say ‘this is how its going to operate’ and put it in the contract,” he said. “Government does not need to be running private entities.

While I am not convinced that Briscoe Field should be sold, I don't think that that is an idea that should be dismissed without further consideration.  What thrills me about Costa's comments is his assertion that government should not be running private entities.  I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect that he would not have been a backer of socialized garbage.  Costa was recently honored with the "George Washington Honest Governement Award" by the State of Georgia Tea Party.  I would encourage you to read his statement in the announcement regarding the proper and limited role of government.  The fact that Costa is a Libertarian gives me brief pause, not because I do not have a definite streak of libertarianism in my views, but because Libertarian candidates often espouse over-the-top positions (e.g., legalizing drugs or prostitution).  However, I do not think these issues would come into play at the county level (nor do I know Costa's views on these topics). I do think that the limited government view of the Libertarian Party would be a breath of fresh on a commission that has shown little support in limiting the influence of the Gwinnett County government.

While, I am not yet ready to make an endorsement in this race, I would say that, as of this writing, Will Costa is my front runner.  There is another candidates' forum tonight in Lilburn.  I will be interested to see what the candidates have to say during that event.  Hopefully, I will be able to make a decision in the next few days, but I am not on a timeline (aside from making an endorsement before the election!).  Electing the proper leadership for Gwinnett County and moving our county back to common sense and ethical government is too important to make a hasty decision.

Thoughts on the Commission Chairman race (Pt. 1) - Gause and Nash

Last week, the four candidates vying to replace resigned Gwinnett County Commission Chairman Charles Bannister in a March 15 special election in a forum in Buford, the four.  The one woman and three men spent the majority of the evening discussing the future of Briscoe Field-Gwinnett County Airport.  (Let me say, this was the first article I have read from the Suwanee Patch and I was very impressed.  The quality of the coverage of the forum was excellent and better than the majority of news you find in the AJC Gwinnett!)

I want to reiterate that, while I generally support the concept of commercial aviation at Briscoe Field, I appreciate the concerns of existing homeowners.  Because I support property rights even more than I support commercial aviation in Gwinnett, I cannot discount that commercializing Briscoe could very well have a material negative impact on airport neighbors who bought their property without any reasonable expectation that commercial jets could be taking off and landing at our local airport.  As such, I cannot take issue with the candidates' unanimous position against commercializing the airport.  So what do we look at to determine what differences exist between these individuals?  I choose to consider how they stated their opposition to commercialization as well as their opinion on privatization, a question on which there was not unanimity.

Larry Gause previously "favored expansion as a way to create economic growth," but "changed his position after realizing the impact expansion would have on nearby neighborhoods."  This indicates to me a fair and open-minded approach to the issue as well as respect for property rights.  This alone speaks volumes about Gause's qualifications to serve in light of some recent and current commissioners' slavish allegiance only to the homeowner perspective on property rights (typically, "Don't buult that near my house!").  Where I take issue with Gause is his support for a resolution that would permanently ban expansion of the airport.  How can we know what conditions will be in Gwinnett County in 35 or 40 years?  What if the commission had passed a resolution in 1975 opposing the extension of GA Highway 316 beyond GA Highway 20 (yes, 316 used to end there!)?  Such blanket bans are short-sighted and ill-advised.  On the topic of airport privitization, I also tend to disagree with Gause's opposition.  While I am not settled that privatization is the best route to take, I lean this direction as I feel the government's role should be limited to essential functions that cannot reasonably be undertaken by a private enterprise.  While Gause's concern that a private management company could make undesirable changes is not unreasonable, a privitization agreement could be structured in a way that there is sufficient oversight to prevent such an occurence.  Overall, however, Larry Gause's views on Briscoe Field do not eliminate him from consideration to eventually receive the endorsement of the Gwinnett Buzz.

Charlotte Nash's comment raised more of a red flag.  She did reasonably state that there could be a negative impact of commercialization on neighboring property owners.  However, her solitary focus on only these homeowners is of concern.

The area that is closest to the airport has to be my priority,” Nash said. “I know there are other parts of the county that have different opinions, but I can’t turn my back on this part of the county. I cannot support commercialization as long as this community feels the way it does.

Nearby property owners absolutely should be heard on this issue.  However, their input should only be overweighted as to whether their use and enjoyment of their property would be impaired due to commercialization.  Though this question is important enough to veto the entire iniative, neighbors' general preference or lack thereof for commercial aviation should not carry any more weight than the views of a resident of Norcross.  Bringing commercial airlines to Gwinnett County is a question that impacts far more people than just nearby residents.  As such, being a position elected throughout the county, the chairman should consider the views of all Gwinnett residents on the larger question of the future of Briscoe Field.  Perhaps this is what Nash was trying to say.  If so, I agree with her, though, I do think it is reaonable for her to clarify herself on how she hears the voices of various parts of Gwinnett County.  However, I do hold other conerns about Charlotte Nash aside from her position on Bricsoe Field.

In reseraching this article, I came across a iist of endorsements on her campaign website.  This list is not alphabetized so I was lucky to run across a name that raised not just a red flag, but a red flag big enough to be stretched across a football field.  Just over halfway down the second column is the name of Mike Beaudreau.  While I cannot be 100% certain that is my very own Gwinnett County commissioner, that is hardly a name you run across everyday.  I do not say this in a flippant way, but, if Mike Beaudreau is backing a candidate, I have serious doubts if that candidate is someone for whom I wish to cast a vote.  Beaudreau backed Lorraine Green for commission chairman in 2008 as well Karen Handel for governor last year.  Green and Handel were solidly in the "liberal Republican" camp if you ask me.  Does one of the reddest of red areas of Georgia plan to elect liberal GOP candidates? Does Charlotte Nash fit into this category? Throw in Beaudreau's record as being one of those commissioners who is a slave to homeowner special interests and I have serious questions about Charlotte Nash running the Gwinnett County Commission.  (The fact that Gwinnett Sheriff Butch Conway has endoresed her as well does not make me feel any better!)  Another strike against Nash are her close ties to Gwinnett County government.

Nash has a long resume of positions within county government.  While she did retire as county administrator before the reign of the Bannister commission that gave us wreckless spending on a minor league baseball stadium and socialized garbage, how can someone so closely linked to the apparatus of government be the outsider that Gwinnett needs right now to clean up the mess created by this commission?  Rather than seeking out the advice of Mike Beaudreau as to who our next chairman should be, we should be preparing to ensure that Beaudreau joins Bannister and former commissioners Bert Nasuti and Kevin Kenerly as being out-of-work as a Gwinnett county official.  Given that, why would we possibly want to side with Mike Beaudreau on a candidate without very careful examination of that person?  While I cannot yet eliminate Nash from consideration for the endorsement of the Gwinnett Buzz, I would say she is certainly not my first choice at this point.

Check back with the Buzz tomorrow for my thoughts on the other two candidates in the race: Will Costa and Duane Kissel.