State and homeowners spar over dam repair costs

Lakeview Plantation in Lawrenceville is embroiled in a dispute with the state Department of Natural Resources over repair costs to the dam creating the neighborhood lake.  The state is saying that the community is responsible for all necessary repairs to the dam but neighbors are balking at a potential six-figure cost. If the dam is faulty and threatens human life, the need to make repairs is clear.  The neighbors do not seem to dispute this point.  The neighborhood's primary concern is apparently money.  Because  the homeowners association membership is not mandatory (something I applaud), the HOA annual budget is only around $14,000, a paltry summed when faced with repair costs that could approach a quarter-million dollars.  I can understand the cost concern, but that is akin to saying I am not going to fix my faulty brakes and replace my bald tires because it is expensive.  You can drive your car in that condition, but you are courting disaster.  That being said, the legitimacy of placing liens on all or a subset of homes in the subdivision likely depends on the legal ownership of the lake.

I say "legal ownership" because common sense dictates that a neighborhood lake is owned by the neighborhood.  As such, the owners should be liable for all costs associated with that lake.  However, when you are talking about placing liens on property, digging a little further into the legalese is necessary.  If I had purchased a home in Lakeview Plantation and no where within the legal documents required to complete that purchase was noted a ownership share or liability for repairs to common areas including the lake, I would be hesitant at the possibility of being hit with a charge of thousands of dollars.  At the same time, I would be torn because my share of responsibility would be fairly obvious to me.  This situation illustrates a weakness of a voluntary HOA when there is significant common property in a development.  If the HOA is the entity held liable for repair costs, is it fair that any homeowner could effectively "opt-out" of paying by simply resigning from or not joining the HOA?  Should only a subset of homeowners in a subdivision pay for maintenance costs for common area that is open to everyone?

This is obviously a difficult situation for the Lakeview Plantation and I do not envy their plight.  This is compounded by the fact that I have an extreme distate for HOAs and I applaud Lakeview's voluntary association, but I recognize that could be a problem in this dispute.  Ultimately, looking at it as a Georgia taxpayer, I do not see why we should bear the cost to repair a private lake that, I assume, is not open for the enjoyment of anyone other than Lakeview Plantation residents.


View Larger Map

Primary election night in Gwinnett!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you really know Doug Stacks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob then goes on to contradict himself on several points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Debunked above.

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

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

Flip-floppin' Lorraine Green

I admit, she about had me.  When I saw her in two different candidates forums, Lorraine Green was articulate and seemed to have some pretty good ideas for Gwinnett.  Despite her bias toward homeowners, I liked what she had to say about immigration and transportation.  She especially had me hooked on her HOST tax plan that promised to eliminate the county portion of the property tax in favor of an additional sales tax.  I even began to question my previously solid support for Charles Bannister.  However, until I read about Charles Bannister's LOST tax plan, I did not notice the flaw in Green's proposal.  After realizing a key difference between a HOST and a LOST property tax program, I now see that Lorraine Green's tax proposal is just another example of her bias toward homeowners and disregard for Gwinnett businesses.

The [Bannister] plan to use a sales tax is similar to one announced two weeks ago by primary challenger Lorraine Green, although Green proposes a homestead option sales tax, which would give a 100 percent homestead exemption on property and keep commercial property taxes in place.

Bannister, though, wants to do a variation on the current local option sales tax program used in 147 counties. The one percent tax, he said, would allow for half of the county's property tax revenues to be rolled back each year, giving both commercial property and homeowners a break. The property tax roll back would be computed each year.

While I still need to read more on the opposing concepts, what is apparent is that Green's proposal is unfair to the businesses that make up an important part of the Gwinnett community. Lorraine pretty much admits the preferential treatment to homeowner.

Green said she believes the HOST program is the only viable one for the county, but she added that excess revenues from the sales tax would allow for a reduced millage rate for commercial property owners, too.

"My plan still gives commercial property owners a break, but it takes care of homeowners first," she said.

Perhaps, but there is no guarantee this relief will come.  What if our current economic slowdown turns into a full-blown recession and the expected increase in sales tax revenues do not fully materialize?  Would there be any tax relief for businesses in such a scenario?  Sure, I might personally save a few more bucks with the HOST plan, but I believe fairness is important and the LOST proposal appears to do a better job ensuring equity to both homeowners and businesses.  If you are a business owner in Gwinnett, Lorraine is effectively saying that she puts your needs as Gwinnett taxpayers behind those of homeowners.  And for those of you who may be grumbling that I suggest that business deserves tax relief, I want to emphasize that many of these are small businesses that are owned and operated by or employ your neighbors and friends.  The Board of Commissioners already makes doing business in Gwinnett tough enough with some of their land use decisions; should this be compounded with an inequitable tax plan?  However, what is more important here is not the details of either tax plan but the political tactic being employed by Green.  (I intend have done a preliminary analysis of the potentials savings of  sales tax versus property tax and I am not sure that either a HOST or a LOST plan should be implemented!  Stay tuned for a deeper analysis in the near future.)

What I really failed to recognize as I fell under the spell of Lorraine's slick candidates forum performances was the obvious flip-flop she did on taxes in the span of less than two months. In a candidates forum in early May, Green was reported to be skeptical of tax cuts:

County staff told the commission that it needs to raise taxes or cut services, she said. Cutting taxes isn't an option, because county government can't run a deficit, Green said.

So are we supposed to believe that circumstances changed in just over a month that caused her to propose tax cuts such a short time later?  Ironic that though Green has introduced herself in a forum as not being a career politician, she has mastered the skill of saying what is needed to get elected.  There is further evidence to be skeptical of her commitment to tax cuts.  Where she has been consistent is her unwavering support of government services.  She used services as a reason for not being able to cut taxes and she again raised the point in the article on the Bannister's LOST proposal:

There's no doubt the spending of the past three years will require a change in tax policy without significantly reducing services citizens have come to expect.

One must wonder what happens if  "Chariman Green" were faced with following through on tax relief or cutting back on government services. As a conservative, this is an easy question for me.  Tax relief.  There are only a few services we need from the county if we truly support limited government.  Would Green see tax relief as taking precedence maintaining the role of government?  I think not because she seems more consistent in her support of services than tax cuts.

Fortunately, I have managed to shake myself out of the spell of Lorraine Green's smooth, sweet-tasting political posturing in time not to make a mistake in my vote for Chairman in the GOP primary.  I can now see that she is flopping like a fish out of water to say what voters want to hear.  Gwinnett voters need to be smart enough to look below the surface and realize that Green appears to be playing politics.

Does Mike Beaudreau have some explaining to do?

During the June 16 candidates forum, District 3 Commission challenger Doug Stacks leveled an unexpected charge against incumbent Mike Beaudreau.  Stacks claimed that, despite Beaudreau's assertion to the contrary, the commissioner had accepted campaign donations from developers.  Stacks, flipping through several printed pages, cited Beaudreau campaign financial disclosures as the source of his information.  While I have been very critical of Mike Beaudreau's record on the Commission, I did not want to simply create a Buzz post parroting Stacks' claim.  Over the last two weeks, I have looked at Beaudreau's Campaign Contribution Report of 31 March 2008, and my personal conclusion is that Mike may have some explaining to do.

I want to clearly state before going further that I do not think that Mike Beaudreau has engaged in any inappropriate or unethical behavior.  During the forum, Beaudreau responded to Stacks' comments by standing by his promise to not accept contributions from developers "110 percent" and suggesting that we consider his record.  Here Mike is absolutely correct - his record certainly shows no bias toward developers as he has been hostile on more than one occasion to businesses coming before the board.  I have personally seen Mike rule against multiple cell phone towers, deny applications with the flimsy rational of avoiding "spot zonings," and argue with a residential developer about whether homes in a proposed community should be allowed to have front-entry garages.  This much is clear - if Mike wants to run on being unfriendly to developers (and, in my opinion, private property rights), he has a strong record to on which to run.

Similarly, I do not think that a business making a campaign contribution is in any way inappropriate.  Despite the impression sometimes encountered in Gwinnett these days, being involved in real estate development is a perfectly legitimate business.  Government decisions and laws impact not only the homeowners that the likes of Beaudreau and Lorraine Green favor, but also businesses and their owners, managers and employees as well.  These businesses have every right to participate in government by making legal campaign contributions.  As such, the fact that any entity has made a legal contribution does not imply any unethical behavior.

Had Mike not raised the issue about not accepting developer donations, Doug Stacks' charge and my investigation would have immaterial and unneeded.  The only reason to examine Beaudreau's donor list is to consider whether Mike does as he says.  My investigation is solely whether a politician is being forthright with the voters.  For reference, here is Mike's specific claim from his campaign website.

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

Mike has made a very clear statement and, as an elected official, he should be subject to scrutiny as to how well he keeps his promises.

Below, I have simply listed some of the donors on the contribution report along with information and links that I obtained from a simple Google search on information contained within the report.  You have seen MIke's claim and you can access the same information I uncovered and do any further investigation on your own.  You should make up your mind as to whether Mike is saying one thing and doing another.  The question I would suggest you keep in mind as you review this is.  Mike wants to "avoid conflicts of interest" with those "who stand to gain financially by the decisions he makes as commissioner."  Laudable and I would state that his record shows no such conflict.  However, I have to ask, what about other entities that stand to gain from his decisions as commissioner?  Is it acceptable to take contributions from them?  Does he have a double standard between developers and other groups that may have a financial stake in the outcome of board votes?

Donor: Anderson, Tate & Carr, PC
The Lawrenceville law firm is listed on a state "Developments of Regional Impact" filing as representing Satellite Realty Holdings, LLC, developer of a project called the Satellite Business Center in Gwinnett.  Also, the firm was listed on another DRI filing for Y Group Enterprises, Inc., developer of a "Mixed Use: 3 12-story condo/office towers; retail; 12-story hotel" at Steve Reynolds and I-85.  Additionally, the firm is the employer of Michael Sullivan, the attorney that has represented T-Mobile in several recent Gwinnett cell tower applications, including the Lenora airport tower.

Donor: W.H. Britt
A W. H. Britt, at the time employed by W. H. Britt & Assoc., Inc. in Grayson, was listed among the Board of Directors of GBC Bancorp in a 1996 SEC filing.  W.H. Britt & Associates is listed as a commercial and residential developer on this page.

Donor: Jonathan M. Evans
Jonathan Evans is a civil engineer with Evans & Miller.  A Jon M. Evans is listed on the company profile as a founder of the company.  The company does work on site planning, site engineering, environmental engineering, transportation and construction engineering.  Previous projects include office and retail space in Braselton and office space in Snellville.

Donor: Hayes, James & Associates
The firm has been involved in several projects in Gwinnett including the new Gwinnett Medical Center-Duluth, the Georgia Baptist Convention headquarters off Sugarloaf Parkway, and transportation engineering on Hamilton Mill Parkway.

Donor: Donald E. Hill
Donald E. Hill is listed as a consulting engineer for United Consulting in this financial filing by the Saxby Chambliss for Senate campaign.  The firm's website lists Mr. Hill as Chairman of the Board and Chief Engineer.  The firms services include geotechnical engineering, environmental consulting, geophysical exploration services, water resources, construction materials testing, and property inspection services. The firm lists among its clients, Beazer Homes, KB Homes, Jordan, Jones & Goulding, John Wieland Homes, and a variety of retail companies, all of which have had or currently have projects in Gwinnett County.

Donor: Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
The firm provides a variety of engineering, management and planning services.  The firm's projects include Gwinnett's F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center.

Donor: Mahaffey Pickens Tucker, LLP
Attorney R. Lee Tucker is nearly as much of a fixture at the Board of Commissioners monthly public hearings as the commissioners themselves!  The firm has represented numerous development projects that have come before the Board.  Check any public hearing agenda, and odds are you will find a project represented by Mr. Tucker.

Donor: MHC Development, Inc.
With a company name like that, do I really need to even dig deeper?  I could not find a website, so if someone responds and tells me they develop software or something else besides real estate, I will stand corrected.

Donor: E.R. Snell Contractors
E.R. Snell is a contracting firm based in Snellville.  Among other projects, the company has worked on Discover Mills and was recently awarded a project to expand Pleasant Hill Rd., a project approved by the Board of Commissioners.

So, there is Mike's promise along with information on several donors reported by MIke's very own campaign.  While technically, only one firm appears to be an active developer (MHC Development; W.H. Britt is listed as being retired), many of these companies work with developers as their attorneys or engineers.  These donors stand to gain financially when the Board of Commissioners makes decisions that greenlight a development.

Does Mike's assertion of standing by his promise "110 percent" ring true given that he has not technically accepted donations from developers (MHC Development, notwithstanding)?  Or, is Mike splitting hairs or practicing political doublespeak ?  Does it even matter to you as a voter given his voting record?

As I have stated, I have been very critical of MIke Beaudreau's candidacy and voting record.  However, I am fair and, as such, I would encourage Beaudreau to give the voters his side of the story.  I would encorage him to communicate to the Buzz readers why his "110 percent" commitment is not doublespeak.  He can leave a comment or he can email me a response that I would be happy to post in its entirety.

The question remains whether Mike Beaudreau has some explaining to do.

Thoughts on Conservative Republican Women candidates forum

Monday night, I attended the Conservative Republican Women's candidates forum at GJAC in Lawrenceville. All candidates vying for seats on the Gwinnett County Commission were present. I don't want to talk here about the District 3 race between Mike Beaudreau and Doug Stacks because Mike's comments alone warrant a separate post. For the other races, my observations were much the same as I had at the Gwinnett CID forum held last month, thus I am not going to outline their specific comments in great detail.

In the District 1 race, I was again not blown away by any candidate, but Bruce LeVell was again the most articulate and passionate of the three candidates. LeVell continued his emphasis on cleaning up crime in District 1 and bringing more public transit choices to Gwinnett. I do have some reservations about his support of an ordinance to close bars and clubs at a certain time mainly due to my libertarian streak. However, at the same time, I see a lot of rationale for such an ordinance as I agree that there is little redeeming value for the community at a bar or club at 2A. I do agree that the strain on county law enforcement of having to police fights and other mischief at these establishments in the wee hours is a legitimate public policy concern. As for Shirley Lasseter, she still comes across to me as your wacky aunt who now has a cause about which she talks your ear off. Shirley's current cause is a federal detention center for illegal immigrants. While I do see some merit in her position, I found it odd that, in response to a question about what one ordinance she would enact to improve quality of life in Gwinnett, she supported an ordinance to bring the detention to Gwinnett. I did not realize the federal government needed an ordinance from the Board of Commissioners to locate a detention facility here. When I listen to Shirley, I just do not see someone who comes across as qualified to be on the board of a major county such as Gwinnett. However, while I have not seen any polling data, I suspect that her name recognition from the Runaway Bride fiasco will allow her to carry District 1, though I am hoping that Bruce LeVell can prove me wrong.

The Chairman's race is very perplexing to me.  I thought I was solidly behind Charles Bannister and completely opposed to Lorraine Green.  I still feel her record as a commissioner has been poor, but I have to admit that she is the most articulate of any of the candidates running for the Gwinnett Board of Commissioners.  Her answers were clear, well-stated, and passionate.  Charles Bannister, however, seemed to stumble through the majority of his answers.  At one point, he even told the citizens of Gwinnett to "trust" him that the "socialized garbage" program will work out.  Green advocated a rollback of the county portion of the property tax to be replaced by a 1% sales tax.  She noted that such an initiative would force even the illegal immigrants in Gwinnett to contribute to government funding.  She linked this idea to her general advocacy of making living in Gwinnett uncomfortable for illegals, a policy I wholeheartedly support.  I found myself thinking that, due to district courtesy, she would be less harmful to individual zoning and permit requests as chairman but would be in a position to champion the positions she outlined at the forum.  Where I still have pause is her record as District 1 commissioner.  I still perceive her as being too beholden to homeowners and too opposed to growth and progress.  She stated that she was a not a developer, a Realtor or a contractor, as if these professions were on par with running an adult bookstore or a strip club.   Also, Bannister claims that her ideas are just ripped off from him, thereby raising the question, is Lorraine really invested in these ideas or do they simply sound good during an election campaign?  These considerations caused Bannister's warning that "what you hear may not be what you see" to resonate with me.  I found myself thinking about former Sen. Zell Miller's comments about Sen. John Kerry at the 2004 Republican National Convention when he said "Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric."  At the end of the day, Green's record has not changed and, for that reason, I cannot support her quite yet.  However, I am more willing to reconsider my support in this race over the coming month.  I wound up leaving with a Bannister yard sign that I have in my front yard right now.  However, I cannot guarantee that it will remain there until July 15.  The Doug Stacks sign beside it, however, might as well be cemented in the ground, because I cannot fathom a scenario that would change my mind on Mike Beaudreau.  However, that is a separate post entirely.

Doug Stacks - a strong choice for District 3

As I blogged earlier this week, Doug Stacks has launched a campaign website. I was able to sit down and read through his site today and I must say I am very impressed. Doug makes several points in his "Vision for Gwinnett" that I find very accurate:

Our current commissioner’s term can best be summed up as anti-growth/anti-capitalist and inconsistent with Republican free-market philosophy.

I think this is a spot-on characterization of many of Mike Beaudreau's decisions as a county commissioner. Doug points out that Beaudreau's anti-growth position shifts more of the tax burden to us as Gwinnett citizens and taxpayers. Growth broadens the tax base and takes away some of the funding responsibility from the biggest "investors" of the Gwinnett County government, the Gwinnett property owner.  Beaudreau misses this benefit to Gwinnett taxpayers in his demonstrated efforts to only look out for the interests of part of the Gwinnett community, homeowners.

So often, the County Commissioner that currently holds the office takes the credit, when in actuality, it is the citizens that brought these parks to fruition. We voted to tax ourselves through SPLOST. We supported the vision and the Master Plan that the Gwinnett County Parks and Recreation Department created and through many SPLOSTS the county was able to purchase land over the last 20 years.

I touched on this very point in a post earlier this week. Too often politicians get the credit when they have done little to earn such credit. Doug is exactly right that us - the residents of Gwinnett have created these parks through our sales tax funds that go to Gwinnett County. I appreciate that Doug recognizes that elected officials are little more than an approval stop in the conduit for channeling of funds from taxpayers to projects.

Initially I had the perspective of hoping for a challenger who could defeat Mike Beaudreau, but, after reading Doug Stacks' website, I see that there is a lot to like about Doug.  I now view supporting Doug Stacks as being less about ousting Mike Beaudreau and more about supporting a candidate that has a sensible approach to governing in Gwinnett County.

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.

Are connector streets near US 78 needed?

Lest you think the Buzz always sides with developers and construction, the case of connector streets near US 78 in the Evermore CID is more vexing that the reversible lanes that construction on the highway is replacing. I certainly sympathize with the residents who stand to lose significant chunks of their property. In general, I support road development including reengineering, expansion and new highways because these projects typically provide more efficient travel, something that is especially important for an area like Gwinnett that is drowning in traffic. Unfortunately, sometimes road development negatively impacts private property owners in the vicinity of these projects. Despite this, roadwork that benefits tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people cannot be stopped because of these impacts. Such work is one of the limited cases that have to supercede private property rights to ensure that our communities have the basic infrastructure we require. That being said, I am not sure that the potential negative impacts of the proposed connector streets are justified.

The question at the heart of this dilemma is what is the true purpose of these roads? Are they like the collector-distributor lane system on I-85 that eases travel on the main interstate by offloading entry and exit traffic onto the C/D lanes? Or do these streets proposed more to improve access to businesses along US 78 than to help traffic on the main road? The article is not completely clear on the intent of the CID, but there are hints that these streets are more to benefit the business owners than US 78 travelers. As such, I would tend to agree with the residents that these streets should not be built as proposed. It would be grossly unfair to take away these homeowners' property primarily to benefit other private property owners. Conversely, if these streets would provide a significant traffic benefit to traffic on the main road, I would be inclined to support the project.

While I understand that the new median in US 78 will affect businesses fronting the highway, that is one of the negative impacts of road development that I spoke of above. However, there is no justification to offload this impact to other private property owners. The residents along US 78 deserve a clear expression of the intent of the project with evidence to back-up any beneficial claims by the CID.