Shady land deals in Gwinnett?

Last week, the Gwinnett County Commission voted down a deal for land involved with the McGinnis Ferry Road extension project.  Gwinnett District Attorney Danny Porter had threatened a grand jury investigation had the board approved the purchase.  Porter reportedly still intends to move forward with grand jury investigations of other recent county land buys.  Tim Eberly of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has written an in-depth article about these recent land buys and explored why they are attracting the attention of Porter and others.  (I want to thank Buzz reader Robert for alerting me to this story.)  The land acquired for Beaver Ruin Park, about which I blogged last year, appears to be one of the deals under scrutiny.  I do not want to regurgitate Eberly's article in this post.  It is quite long and appears to be a very well-researched exposition of many of the facts and attendant questions surrounding the controversial deals.  However, I do want to comment on two takeaways I got from the article.

First, as critical as I have been of our commission, I urge readers not to convict them based on a newspaper article, no matter how well-researched.  Many things can look underhanded to outside observers, but when you really dig into the details, you soon see that actions are completely legitimate.  To be sure, there appears to be enough there to warrant Porter pushing for an investigation.  While I think most of the board should be run out of office at the next election, none of them should be falsely accused of criminal activity.

Second, I must link the need for Gwinnett County to purchase land involved in a lawsuit against the county with the general disregard for private property rights we sometimes see from the Commission.  I will say upfront that I do not know the details of all the land deals in question.  I am speaking in conceptual generalities that may not completely apply to each of these cases.  Settling a lawsuit is often smart from a financial standpoint in order to avoid legal expenses as well as the time commitment incurred.  Avoidance of these costs can justify a higher purchase price for the underlying asset, in this case, land, than would be the case under normal purchase conditions.  There is a larger point, however.

If a landowner feels there is cause for a lawsuit and the county feels there is sufficient merit in the case to settle, that implies to me that denial of the landowner's zoning application was unjustified in the first place.  If a landowner's suit was without merit, there would be much less incentive to settle because a legal assessment would identify a very high probability of victory in court.  Which brings me to my main question.  If a landowner has a reasonable claim to a zoning designation for his or her property, why is the Commission denying the request then using taxpayer dollars to defend that denial?  I have often felt that commissioners (I saw this specifically in a case in which I was involved in Coweta County), being the politicians they are, will vote in a way to appease voters even when there is little justification for that vote.  In some cases, they may even know that their denial would never stand in court!  Blaming a new real estate development on a court while making the case that he or she did all they could to "protect" the community from "rampant development" is politically beneficial.  The reality is (or should be), if a land use has merit, politicians should not be blocking such a use in order to pander to voters.  A property owner should absolutely have access to the full economic value of his or her property, but this access should be through a free market for the type of land use that generates such value.  The taxpayer should not have to guarantee this value in order to protect an elected official politically or to defend an official's anti-property rights agenda.

This situation bears watching closely to ensure that no laws were broken.  However, even if a grand jury ultimately determines that all deals were legal, that does not change the fact that it is inappropriate for commissioners to use our tax dollars to defend zoning votes that were never justified in the first place.  That would simply be yet another example of poor stewardship of taxpayer funds on the part of the Gwinnett County Commission.

Beaudreau is not a "commerce commissioner"

Tuesday night, the Gwinnett County Commission approved a waste transfer station on Alcovy Industrial Boulevard in Dacula.  What struck me about this decision was not whether the approval was warranted from a land use perspective.  I appreciate that waste transfer stations are difficult questions for commissioners.  In similar projects in the past, I have seen legitimate arguments for the board to vote either way.  I do not know the particulars of the Dacula project but those details and whether the case should have ultimately been approved is not why I felt compelled to comment.  I must question part of the rationale Commissioner Mike Beaudreau offered in his opposition to the project.

"I'm firmly against this proposal," Beaudreau said. "With roughly 14 transfer stations already in Gwinnett County, we're really getting into the speculative business here and approving something speculative in nature."

To imply that the commission should base its decision on whether a proposed business venture is "speculative" suggests a view of government as marketplace arbiter.  This is not the role of the Gwinnett County government.  Whether the approved transfer station is speculative, whether there is too much or too little competition in Gwinnett's waste transfer marketplace, these are business questions.  Such questions are best answered by the free market, not Mike Beaudreau.  The question before the Gwinnett Board of Commissioners should be only be considered from a land use angle.

As I have discussed numerous time on the Buzz, our elected officials should limit the considerations for their decisions to whether a project has a material impact on other nearby land owners.  Unforunately, MIke Beaudreau seems to view the role of government as larger than it should be.  While there is little the residents of District 3 can do at this point, Beaudreau's sympathy to government interference in the free market should be noted should he run either for reelection or for higher office in the future.  This type of big-government advocacy from Republicans is what has caused seriously weakened the national party, thus opening the door for the hard-left, socialistic policies of the Democrats that are being being slickly packaged for a naive American public.  Demanding limited government from elected Republicans is not just a national issue, but something that must start at home with local officials.

State to Snellville: "You cannot regulate emissions!"

In what should have been common sense last fall among Snellville city council members, the State of Georgia has affirmed that the City of Snellville cannot regulate crematory emissions.  However, rather than exhibiting common sense and upholding fairness and justice, Snellville city councilwoman Kelly Kautz and her ilk pushed forward with a persecution of a private property owner and local businessman in order to curry political favor with voters.  Even in light of the state's ruling and a similar opinion by Snellville's city attorney, Kautz amazingly continues to express support for Snellville to regulate crematory emissions.  

So, does this mean that Chris Nuzum can finally cast aside the shackles of the City of Snellville and open his business?  Nope.  There is still is the matter of the frivilous building plans deviations.  The lawsuit on that matter is still pending.  Hopefully, Nuzum will wind up owning half the City of Snellville.  Maybe he can put his crematory INSIDE city hall!  Goodness knows, there's enough space!

Norcross waste transfer station headed to court

The Catholic Archdiosese of Atlanta is suing Gwinnett County, saying the county is "abusing its authority in approving rezoning for the site [for a waste transfer station] on Shackleford Road adjacent to Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Mission."  Hard to not see this one coming.  As I noted previously, this is a tough case in which to see who has the strongest property rights claim.  I can see sound arguments from both the church and the developer.  This should be interesting to follow in the courts.  Hard to imagine this is the type of thing that can be settled: the church would have to accept being beside the waste facility while the developer would have to freely relinquish his economic rights to develop the property.  We can only hope that the outcome of the case sets a precedent that protects private property rights even if such an outcome is unpopular with many people.

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.

Another waste transfer station proposal on the horizon

Right after one waste transfer station zoning case reached a climax (though more drama is possible if the neighboring church sues), another proposed facility appears on the horizon.  

A Norcross development company will seek approval to build a waste transfer station next to Gwinnett County’s planned recycling complex on Cedars Road near Lawrenceville.

A subsidiary of the Inland Group wants to build the center on 3.8 acres of land that’s currently occupied in part by Southern Flooring & Interiors, a flooring showroom and warehouse, said Inland owner Eric Johansen.

I am not sure of the exact location of the property in question, but Cedars Rd. east of the Briscoe Field is not heavily developed and I am not aware of any residences in the area.  Near an airport should be a good location for a business that is not going to very desirable in most locations.  However, we will have to see what opposition may arise.

Interesting twist on a cell tower

A Norcross businessman is seeking to build a wind-power turbine at the music studio he runs.  However, it is what he eventually wants to build that is the twist:

But what [Paul] Diaz really wants, and eventually plans to request, is a 150-foot tower that would be built by a cellular company, topped by a turbine and outfitted with a big screen showing how much power the thing is generating.

I know.  The lighted sign sounds a bit tacky.  Fortunately for Diaz, Tree Sound Studios (the guys seems to have bought a bit too much into environmental hysteria if you ask me) is located "along a busy stretch of Peachtree Industrial Boulevard dominated by commercial and industrial uses."  Though I have not seen the plans, I cannot imagine how even Gwinnett County can find a reason to deny a tower in this area.  Granted, depending on the details of the sign, there is a possibility that a bright flashing sign could materially impact a neighbor's use or enjoyment of his or her property, but when your neighbor is another business this is unlikely.  I look forward to following this story as it going through the planning and zoning process.

Neighbor piles on Snellville crematory

A neighbor to the Snellville crematory is seeking to join in the lawsuit party between the city and crematory owner Chris Nuzum.  I find it ironic that Milus Maney would be joining together with the city in this fight.  His fight should be against the city.  What part of "the crematory complied with all planning and zoning guidlines" does Maney and others in Snellville not understand?

I sympathize with Maney.  I would not want to live beside a crematory either.  I would feel betrayed.  However, if that facility complied with all planning and zoning regulations, then my complaint would be with the jurisdiction whose zoning laws allowed it to happen.  I have never contended that this use does not have an impact - more psychological than physical - to neighbors.  But this matter boils down to property rights.  Chris Nuzum followed the law.  He spent a lot of money to renovate this property.  If he is simply kicked out of his facility, who is going to make him whole?  Does Milus Maney want to compensate Nuzum for his losses?  Remember, Nuzum has done nothing wrong.  For this reason, the residents' fight should be against the City of Snellville, not a small businessman.

County long-range plan to limit property rights?

Could Gwinnett County's comprehensive long-range plan ultimately result in limiting private property rights?  On the surface, that is a vapid question, for planning and zoning does exactly that - limit private property rights.  Such limitations are often reasonable and acceptable as government seeks to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders in a community.  However, what about situations where a plan is placed ahead of property rights merely because it is "the plan?"  Such a scenario could be brewing in Dacula as a result of the recently adopted Gwinnett County 2030 Unified Plan.

The City of Dacula is concerned that the plan could limit the municipality's future goals of economic development.

“It might be appropriate for certain pockets, but don’t blanket the whole eastern part of the county [with a rural designation],” said City Administrator Jim Osborn, adding that the proposal is “180 degrees opposite” of the city’s own plan.

He said the county’s plan would exclude everything but green space, agricultural and residential lots over one acre on Dacula’s outer rim.

“The only thing they want to see is parks, executive housing and large-lot residential,” Osborn said. “They’re really killing economic development in Dacula and the eastern part of the county.”

Osborn is referencing the Gwinnett plan's use of "character areas."

In a departure from previous planning practice, which assigned a future land use to each parcel in the county, the new plan creates “character areas” meant to encourage builders to locate developments that reflect the local personality of a community.

This raises a few questions.  At what point in time is the "local personality of a community" determined?  2009?  Or 2030?  And if it is the latter, is a designation of rural in Dacula 21 years hence a reasonable and realistic expectation?  For those of you who have lived in Gwinnett for 21 years or more, think back to what the county was like in 1988.  Quite different wasn't it?  In some ways things were better then, but in other ways, we have benefited from the growth and change in our community.  Can we reasonably expect - no...can we reasonably demand - that the character of Dacula remain constant for two decades? Is there fairness for landowners in this area who may be having their future options reduced in a blanket manner?

If you are one of the many Gwinnettians that typically fall on the side of limited or no growth, I invite you to consider the following hypothetical case.  It's 2022 and you own a large tract of land on the outskirts of Dacula, say in the Harbins area south of GA 316.  A developer approaches you about purchasing your land in order to build a mixed-use entertainment, commercial, office and residential development.  (By this time, GA 316 is an access-controlled highway that serves as a major commercial and business corridor between I-85 and Athens.)  Because the area has been forced to remain rural, there are some parks in the area and a few neighborhoods with large homes and lots, but Harbins generally feels much like it does today.  As such, there are no immediate residential neighbors to your property and access to the development would be directly from GA 316.  The implication here is that there is limited material impact on other property owners in the vicinity.  This is a great opportunity, a chance to solidify your financial future.  You are ready to sell but five-term District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau (we can only hope his career has taken him to the state house or even Washington by this time and out of Gwinnett, but for fun we will assume he is still on the Board!), says "No, we cannot approve this development."

You ask, "Why not?  It is not really hurting anyone and, if I can only sell it to the county for a park or to low-density home builders, I will lose missions of dollars."

Mike's response?  "Well, the plan requires that this area remain rural."

My friends, this is precisely the problem of adhering to the plan simply because it is the plan.  To be fair, the above is a gross oversimplification to illustrate the danger of painting with too broad of a brush in land use decisions.  Surely, if the character of the GA 316 corridor had changed that dramatically, Gwinnett County would have reexamined the area surrounding the highway in the eastern part of the county.  However, as depicted, the failure to consider the specific merits and faults of an individual land use proposal out of deference to a high-level master plan is, at a minimum, a threat to private property rights.  While you may like Harbins as it currently is - I do too! - as a rural area, consider if it were you whose major real estate asset were artificially depressed in value solely to satisfy the preferences of a group of citizens who may not have anything directly invested in your small community.  This is why private property rights are so important, so precious, and why we cannot let government at any level subjagate those rights except when preventing a negative material impact to the property rights of anyone else.

People are too easily offended

Local Catholics are taking offense to a comment made by District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly during last month's commission public hearing.  In responding to a proposal for a solid waste transfer station near Beaver Ruin Rd. and I-85 and adjacent to the Holy Vietnamese Martyrs Catholic Mission, Kenerly made a comment to which church members took exception:

“If you do outgrow that piece, it’s still Timmer’s Chevrolet to me,” [Kenerly] said.

I watched the hearing live on the Internet and live twittered my thoughts as I watched. I recall the comment and I simply do not see what is so offensive about what Kenerly said.  I took it as a compliment, that the church could experience enough growth in membership that they could outgrow their current facility and would have need to move a larger church elsewhere.  I cannot confirm that that was what the commissioner meant, but that is how it came across to me.

I seriously doubt Commissioner Kenerly was trying to offend anyone.  To me this is just another instance of the hair-trigger sensitivity of American culture in the 21st century. Too often, people somehow manage to get offended at an innocuous comment; perhaps, due to the prevalence of hypersensitivity in our society, there is a subconscious predisposition  for us to take offense by default.

In my opinion this reaction is much ado about nothing and only serves to distract from the real issue here: should the proposed waste transfer station be built in this area?  This question does not hinge whether a group is offended, but rather on a question of land use, material impact and private property rights. Hopefully, future consideration of this issue will not be hijacked by a cathartic discussion of who has been offended by whom.

Note (8 January 2009):  After I reread this post today, I recognize that it was more mean-spirited than I really feel.  I apologize for that.  It is not that I am not sensitive to the church's concerns.  I simply do not have a lot of tolerance for people constantly taking offense at things which, to me, seem fairly minor or even innocuous.  Maybe I am listening to too much Neal Boortz!  Regardless, I still strongly feel the real issue here is one of land use and I would hope that everyone would focus on that as opposed to Commissioner Kenerly's remarks.