So who wants to run for chairman?

The schedule for a special election for Gwinnett Commission Chairman to replace recently resigned Charles Bannister has been set:

On Nov. 15, a Probate Court judge will officially call for the special election.

On Nov. 16, the County Commission plans to set a qualifying fee for candidates.

Candidates can qualify for the office beginning at 9 a.m. Dec. 6 and ending at noon Dec. 8.

The deadline for voter registration for the special election will be Feb. 14. Absentee voting also will begin on Valentine’s Day.

Advanced voting for the special election will be March 7-11 at the county elections office, 455 Grayson Highway, Suite 200, in Lawrenceville. The office will have extended hours, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

The special election will be March 15. If needed, a runoff election will be held April 12.

The AJC article goes on to speculate who might run for the office.  Those mentioned (along with my comments) are:

Former Gwinnett Commissioner Lorraine Green: This makes me think of Roy Barnes.  We said no to her in 2008, but she may not have gotten the message.  Even with all I know about Charles Bannister now along with the other commissioners that have done such a lousy job, I would still pick any one of them over Lorraine Green.

Republican Party Chairman Bruce LeVell: The Buzz endorsed LeVell when we ran in the 2008 primary against Shirley Lasseter in District 1.  This would be a great choice for Gwinnett assuming his positions remain the same as they were two years ago.

2008 Democrat Commission Chairman candidate Vincent Passariello: Gwinnett has grown more and more Demorat in recent years, but I do not think we are quite to the point where a Democrat has a strong chance of winning a county-wide seat.  Of course, Lorraine Green nearly beat Bannister in 2008 and I don't really see much difference between her and a Democrat.

Gwinnett Village CID head Chuck Warbington: I honestly do not know much about Warbington.  He is a graduate of Dacula High School and he played for the 1990 Georgia Tech National Championship football team.  While I think having a national championship ring as a Yellow Jacket is a great part of his bio, that alone is not enough to gain the endorsement even from a website with "Buzz" in its name.

Other names mentioned include Dacula mayor Jimmy Wilbanks and Suwanee mayor Dave Williams.

I am still surprised not to see Mike Beaudreau listed as a possibility.  I have not seen any articles or tweets saying he has decided against running.  Until that happens, I have to believe he is a strong possibility to throw his hat into the ring.

Bannister blood test comes back negative; Charges dropped

CBS Atlanta has just reported that Commission Chairman Charles Bannister's blood test has come back negative for alcohol in his system.  This result confirms the 0.0 reading on a Breathalyzer test administered to the chairman prior to his arrest for DUI Monday night.  Combine this with the fact that there is no video of Bannister failing a field sobriety test and Bannister's claim that he would be exonerated is looking more and more likely.  (I would note, I do not put much stock in the field sobriety test failure.  If I had a police officer having me recite the alphabet starting at a letter other than A, on the side of a road, my nerves could cause me to get flustered and mess that up as well!)

What is going on here?  Is Bannister being setup for political purposes?  The story does shed some light on why the Sheriff's Department was involved.  Apparently, someone in the restaurant called an off-duty deputy who, in turn, phoned an on-duty deputy.  However, as I questioned previously, why did this tip not get forwarded to Gwinnett Police who normally handle traffic cases in this area?  According to the AJC, the fact that the Sheriff's department handled the arrest is not the only irregularity with this case.

Sheriff Butch Conway has stated that he stands behind his deputy.  So long as there is no evidence of a setup, I cannot argue with this because a good superior backs up his employees.  However, if something starts to look fishy, which certainly is shaping up to be the case here, Conway should absolutely look into this matter very closely.  The question is what he will say during a news conference today regarding the blood test results?  Don't forget that Conway backed Bannister's opponent, former commissioner Lorraine Green, in the last election.  Will the sheriff let politics get in the way of seeking out justice for a political opponent?  Stayed tuned.

UPDATE: Sheriff Conway has announced that DUI charges would be dropped against the chairman.  However, per the irregularities in this case, this should not be the end of the matter.  Someone, whether it be the sheriff or other authorities, should look into whether any laws have been violated in the treatment of Bannister.  Even if no laws have been violated, there should be close scrutiny that no law enforcement official abused their authority in order to humiliate Bannister with trumped up charges.

Bannister charged with DUI

The Buzz has been quiet lately as I have simply not had time to devote to the site (still open to accepting other contributors - let me know if you are interested in writing for the Buzz!).  However, after reading the news of Commission Chairman Charles Bannister being charged with DUI last night, I had to comment.

While I supported Bannister in his race against former Commissioner Lorraine Green two years ago, I have been less than pleased - to put it mildly - with the job performance of the chairman and the rest of the board since that time.  However, despite that, this is not a post to "pile on" the chairman.  Rather, after reading the latest news account of yesterday's events, I wanted to write to urge my fellow Gwinnett residents not to rush to judgment.  There are enough red flags to prompt the fair-minded observer to allow the facts of this situation come to light before forming a hardened opinion on guilt or innocence.

When I received a text from a friend last night telling me that 11Alive had tweeted that Charles Bannister had been charged with DUI, my initial inclination was to believe that he was guilty.  I mean, after all, DUI is pretty cut and dried right?  You get pulled over, you blow a high reading on a Breathalyzer...bam, DUI.  Not really any extenuating circumstances for that in my book.  However, as details of last night's events have emerged, I have begun to think "Hold on...maybe things are not as they seem:"

...the Breathalyzer producing a .000 reading.

Hmm.  Of course, given the description of Bannister's driving, the decision of Gwinnett Sheriff's Deputy M.G. Cummings to ask for a blood test was understandable:

"Once I received the blood kit I explained to the defendant that due to the results of the breath test being inconsistent with someone who had drunk a beer, as he admitted to at the scene of the pullover and at the jail, and his current manifestations, I requested he submit to the state test of his blood. He stated he would."

However, this raises another question to me.  Why was this incident being handled by the Sheriff's Department?  While I know the Sheriff's Department certainly has the authority to conduct traffic stops, in Gwinnett, I normally think of the Gwinnett County Police Department taking on that responsibility.  Could it be because the Sheriff is an elected official and, as such, not a direct report to Bannister?  Is it normal procedure for the GCSD to handle such incidents to avoid a situation where a county employee is arresting his boss?  If anyone knows about this, please post.  If the GCSD handling this is not standard operating procedure, I think asking why the Sheriff's office and not the police department was waiting outside the restaurant for the chairman to leave is a fair question.

While none of the above suggests that Bannister is definitively not guilty of the charge, these facts suggest to me that we be all the more cautious about jumping to conclusions.  Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Chairman Bannister politically, as an American citizen, he has a right to be treated fairly under the law and not to be immediately assumed guilty due to political unpopularity.

I am absolutely not taking DUI lightly.  In fact, I feel that the justice system is too easy on those convicted of DUI.  This is a serious offense that takes too many innocent lives across our country.  However, before applying strict punishment, any American, including Chairman Bannister, must be proven guilty of a DUI charge.  Once that occurs or if the chairman admits guilt, only then is consideration of whether he should resign his office or any other response appropriate.

High-rise condos coming to Gwinnett Place

This is another story that has been sitting in my queue for a few weeks, but I thought it was important to highlight not just the exciting development news but primarily to point out what a breath of fresh air new Commissioner Shirley Lasseter has been.  Last month, the Gwinnett County Commission approved the "construction of twin residential highrises on the south side of [Gwinnett Place] mall."  I think this is an excellent project that could potentially spur revitalization in the decaying Gwinnett Place area.  For this reason, I cannot understand why Sears Roebuck opposed these towers.  The company would have apparently preferred the area to remain strictly zoned for businesses.  In fact, I would think that such a development would be beneficial to Sears by increasing potential customer traffic in the vicinity as well as making the overall mall area more attractive to shoppers that may now opt for Perimeter Mall or Mall of Georgia.  Regardless, I feel the company's opposition holds little merit as I fail to see a negative material impact on the retailer.  However, the biggest takeaway from this story is the job that Shirley Lasseter is doing.

You may recall that Lasseter's predecessor, Lorraine Green, had opposed a similar - if not the same - high-rise project in 2007.  Green, in her typical unfriendly position on private property rights, said at the time:

"We realize that [the area] has to have a little work done," Commissioner Lorraine Green said. "But ... if we let everybody come in and do hodgepodge developments with every 3 or 4 acres, we won't be better off."

Contrast this to the more reasonable (and common-sense) approach taken by Commissioner Lasseter:

District 1 Commissioner Shirley Lasseter said she backed the project “in hopes that this will bring a new start to that mall and to the CID and to Gwinnett County.”

Lasseter's view was echoed by Gwinnett Place CID executive director, Joe Allen.

What a refreshing change in District 1!  Commssioner Lasseter is thusfar showing courage in her decisions along with a definite appreciation for property rights along.  Her judgment in the high-rise proposal shows that she brings a healthy dose of common sense to boot!  To date, she has been a significant upgrade over Lorraine Green.  Keep up the good work, Shirley!

The Buzz welcomes Shirley Lasseter to the BoC

Shirley Lasseter was sworn in Tuesday as the new District 1 commissioner.  The Buzz welcomes her to the board and is optimistic about what she will bring to the table.  While I did not support her in the election, I do think that she is a significant upgrade over former commissioner Lorraine Green.

I also noted that Jim Nash was appointed to the planning commission by Chairman Charles Bannister.  I met Jim at an election night party this summer and I am very pleased to learn of his appointment.  I am confident that Jim will be fair and equitable to all parties involved in planning issues and won't be merely a puppet of Gwinnett's homeowners associations.

Wrap-up of December Commission public hearing

The big news that came from last week's Gwinnett County Commission December public hearing was the strong citizen opposition to socialized garbage. However, there were other items on the agenda as well.  Unfortunately, because of computer issues (I lost power and did not have immediate access to a power outlet!), I did get to watch all of the hearing.  Thus, for two of the items below, I can only rely on news reports.

Waste transfer station vote delayed - I did get to watch the hearing on the waste transfer station that is slated to be built near Shackelford and Beaver Ruin Roads.  You can read my commentary on my Twitter feed.  Because outgoing District 1 Commissioner Lorraine Green did not attend the meeting, District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly was covering this agenda item.  I was undecided on this case.  While I am a staunch advocate for private property rights, there could well be a negative material impact on neighboring property owners.  However, from a practical perspective, the zoning of surrounding properties was not entirely inappropriate for a waste transfer station.  Given the history of the commission of erring on the side of voters when faced with a controversial choice, I expected Kenerly to recommend denial for the application.  I was absolutely slack-jawed when he moved to approve the station despite the very large contingent who had turned out in opposition.  If I understood correctly (this was about the time my battery was advising me that it was about to call it a night), the vote on Kenerly's motion was split 2-2.  At that point Mike Beaudreau suggested holding off until District 1 Commissioner-elect Shirley Lasseter could take office and weigh in.  This was an entirely reasonable proposal by Commissioner Beaudreau and was exactly the action the board took.

Vote on proposed TADs delayed until March - Three TADs were recently proposed under the TAD laws and consitutional amendment approved during the last election cycle.  Though the TAD leaders wanted to have the districts approved by year-end so they could begin collecting tax revenue in 2009, the delay of the vote until March would result in the districts, if approved, not being able to collect revenue until 2010.

No vote on loan guarantee for Collins Hill (formerly Springbrook) golf course - The Springbrook Golf Commission was seeking to have the county guarantee a $250,000 loan without which the golf course may be forced to close by yearend.  While my natural instinct is to favor immediate denial for a government "bailout" of a now-private entity, the fact that the course owes the county over $3 million and that the county has already backed an additional $1.7 million loan for the course argues for a careful examination of the request.  While the county is certainly in no position to be wasting money, especially on something like a golf course that is one of many in Gwinnett, the fact that the county could be on the hook for $1.7 million if the course shuts down makes a quarter-million dollar cash infusion seems like a reasonable investment.  Of course, there is the wisdom against throwing good money after bad.  I think the commission did the right thing by proceeding cautiously on this request.

I would like to note how impressed I am with Mike Beaudreau's reportedly "heated words" in response to the request:

“It’s my opinion that until this board learns to tell people ‘no’, we’re going to continue having folks coming here like a gravy train,” Beaudreau said. “These are extraordinarily difficult times financially, and the point has got to be reinforced by this board when it comes to votes that we cannot continue to say ‘yes’ all the time to everything and expect folks to bring different types of things to our plate.”

I need to be sure to watch the archived video online to see this statement!  Such a position should be the default outlook our elected officials take even in good economic times. I applaud Mike for his stand and hope that we see this as commonplace for the commissioners as opposed to supporting programs like socialized garbage.

Letter to the Editor: "Garbage Police"

I received an email from a reader yesterday that I felt needed to be brought to the attention of Buzz readers as well as Gwinnett residents overall.  RSU 1138 (the reader has asked that he be identified publically as such, a reference to the film THX 1138, in order to protect his privacy) paints a bleak picture of government intrusion in our routine daily lives.

With Republican Commissioners like ours, who needs Democrats? Go [here] and read the ordinance that becomes effective January 1. We now have jackbooted garbage police, compliments of Gestapo Clean and Beautiful. Let's say it's now 2009. You're going out to eat and it's garbage night. It's about 6:30 pm, so you go ahead and roll the bins out so you won't forget. You leave. The garbage police come by at 6:45 pm and issue a citation for $500. You're a willful violator if you put your bins out before 7:00 pm. This is actually in there. Look at pages 14, 31 and 32.

Oh, and recycling is now mandatory. So if a child or guest throws a steel or aluminum can in the regular garbage, you're subject to another $500 fine. How will the garbage police know? They will sift through your garbage, of course. What other way is there to ensure compliance?

This is an indescribably outrageous violation of our constitutional rights by government fiat. Someone complained that there were too many garbage trucks and there was some illegal dumping. The commissioners said Hey, we can fix that! We'll just take away your freedom and violate your rights because you're all a bunch of mindless, spineless, self-indulgent idiots. We don't expect anyone to resist.

Someone besides me needs to resist. We now have nothing to say about who will pick up our trash, how they will do it, and how much it will cost. What other rights are these petty tyrants planning to rip away from us while we sleep? If I didn't have to run my own business, I'd devote myself to organizing a recall campaign to throw all 5 of these bums out of office.

- RSU 1138

(RSU = Residential Service Unit, page 10. You are no longer a customer. The word "customer" does not appear in the document. That speaks volumes.)

I have verified that the points regarding the earliest time for placing your trash cans at the curb, the mandatory recycling, and the fines are accurate.  I agree with RSU 1138 that this program is a gross violation of freedom of choice, a point I have been making here on the Buzz for some time.  To be fair, I would note that I do not know if the current waste ordinance has provisions for the times during which collection bins can be at the curb or whether there are provisions for fines.  If so, could the language in the new ordinance be there only "if needed" and would not be actively enforced in a manner as depicted in the letter?  Even if so, the existance of regulations that permit such government intrusion in our lives is disturbing.  The ordinance does declare that, once you place your trash at the collection point, it becomes the property of Gwinnett County.  There goes any claim of privacy against government snooping in your trash without probable cause (if such a claim even exists now).  The letter writer is warranted in his charge against the brand of Republicans on the Gwinnett commission.  The reason I have been a lifelong Republican is a desire for smaller and limited government.  Does Gwinnett's socialized garbage seem like small or limited government to you?  I see this as just more evidence that, especially on a local level, many Republicans are far from conservative.  The reasons for this, however, are a matter for a separate post on a different day.

This ordinance is far worse than even I grasped when I first learned of it.  I stress again that this is what happens when you do not pay attention to what your government is doing.  Our commissioners have completely disrespected their constituents.  Each one that supported this ordinance should be voted out.  Lorraine Green is gone but, unfortunately, Mike Beaudreau and Charles Bannister were just reelected.  However, Kevin Kenerly's district is on the 2010 ballot and he should face vigorous Republican primary opposition from a true conservative.  (Bert Nasuti is shown as being absent the night the ordinance was considered and did not vote.  He should be pressed on where he stands on this ordinance in his 2010 race.)  All of the current commissioners who will continue on in office next year should be held accountable for this local manifestation of big government intrustion in our lives.  If you are not happy about this, speak up!  Be vocal.  Let your commissioner, Charles Bannister and Connie Wiggins know.  There have been several Buzz readers that have expressed a desire to pursue some action, though what form that might take, is unclear.  However, follow the Buzz for coverage for any community efforts to make our displeasure with socialized garbage be known loud and clear to the Gang of Five in Lawrenceville.

Socialized garbage haulers selected

Gwinnett County has selected two haulers for its socialized garbage program which is slated to begin January 1, 2009.

Advanced Disposal Services Atlanta has been awarded the contract for four zones in the northern half of the county. Waste Pro Georgia, a subsidiary of Florida-based Waste Pro America, will service the county’s four southern zones.

Actually, I would prefer Advanced, so I think I will go with them instead.  What's that?  I cannot choose?  My only option in Loganville is Waste Pro?  Ok.  Thanks, Gwinnett commissioners.  I am glad I had you to step in and help me from having to make such a hard decision.  But next time, before you come over to hold my hand, investigate the concept of "freedom of choice."

The standardized pricing information has been set as well:

Initial cost for the service, which begins Jan. 2, will be $20.45 a month for trash and recycling. Yard-waste pickup will cost an additional $10 a month. Billing for the first six months will be handled by the hauling companies. In June, the fee for trash and recycling service will drop to $17.86 a month and will be billed on residential property tax notices.

Let's consider the cost impact of this change in my case.  Previously, my quarterly bill from Allied Waste was $54.70.  For the fourth quarter of 2008, Allied increased my bill by $23.80 to cover their expenses related to being forced to terminate their existing customer relationships in Gwinnett County.  For the first six months of 2009, my quarterly rate will be $61.35.  This represents a price increase of $6.65 for each of the first two quarters in 2009.  Thus, before the enhanced socialized garbage program begins on July 1, 2009, the Gwinnett County Commission will have effectively increased my "taxes" by $37.10.  No, that is not a lot of money for me and many others.  However, there are homeowners to whom that represents an important amount of money.  Surely, though, given the promised "efficiencies" and "energy savings" of the new program, we homeowners will recover this increase in short order.  Right?  Let's take a look.

Starting July 1, the new quarterly rate of $53.58 goes into effect.  This represents a savings for me of a whole $1.12 per quarter!  Imagine my excitement that my freedom of choice has been yanked away and I am only compensated with about a four bucks a year!  At that rate, it would take nearly eight and a half years - yes YEARS - for me to break even with socialized garbage! So much for there being any cost savings in this program for me and other Allied Waste customers.  (And before, someone says that the commission did not require Allied to charge the termination fee, the only reason they are doing so is the Solid Waste Management Plan.  I think it is fair to blame our commissioners.)

Wow!  I tell ya, I really feel like our commissioners have the best interests of Gwinnett residents at heart!  Thanks to these nanny-state commissioners, come 2017, I will be able to get a cup of coffee every four months or so thanks to the cost savings arranged by our commissioners!  Also, I do not have to struggle considering which waste company to use, as well as getting a whole  extra ten minutes of quiet each week thanks to less garbage truck traffic in my neighborhood!  (Never mind the fact that they do those pickups while most of my neighbors and I will be at work and wouldn't be impacted even if there a hundred garbage trucks driving up and down my street!)

The reality is that we are stuck with this plan at this point.  I doubt these commissioners would admit their mistake even if they could get out of the contracts.  However, I would urge Gwinnettians to consider the contrast between free market and socialized services and apply this lesson to possible intiatives on the national level for socialized medicine.  The government may promise you the world, but after they strip you of your economic freedom, reality does not live up to the picture they paint.  Fortunately, for those of us in Gwinnett, garbage collection is far less critical than healthcare.

Socialized garbage hits you in your wallet

Tonight I received a letter in the mail from my current garbage hauler, Allied Waste.  The letter stated the following:

Dear Valued Customer:

There have been some recent developments in Gwinnett County that will bring major changes to your household trash and recycling service.  Gwinnett Clean & Beautiful Services, Inc. has been selected by Gwinnett County to manage all residential solid waste services within the county.  This agency is currently soliciting bids from contractors to provide these services to all residents in unincorporated Gwinnett County.  Effective 01/01/09, Gwinnett Clean & Beautiful Services, Inc. will assign a contractor to your residence and determine your service level. Unless Allied Waste is selected as your service provider, we will only be allowed to continue your current service through 12/31/08.

Because of these changes, we find it necessary to increase your quarterly service fee between now and the end of 2008 to help recover some of the costs associated with closing out your account, collecting carts and bins, etc. Your invoice (which is being sent separately) will reflect this increase.  We regret the need to raise the service charge as a result of our increased costs, and certainly the potential loss of your business, but actions beyond our control make this unavoidable.

Even though I have been a satisfied customer of Allied Waste since 2000, I can no longer choose to use them thanks to the Gwinnett County Commission.  They obviously feel they are better qualified to choose with which company I do business for trash collection.  Funny, I had no problem with that decision for my eight years as a Gwinnett homeowner.   In fact, there are some waste companies with whom I do not wish to do business.  I used to receive routine mailers from one hauler that touted their Homeowners Association services.  Being that I abhor homeowners associations, I would rather not do business with a company who makes blatent catering to these organizations a cornerstone of their business.  However, thanks to Gwinnett's new socialized garbage program, I may not have a choice if they "assign" that company to my area.

The second paragraph is what really steams me.  Thanks to a decision that I did not make, a decision that I feel is completely unnecessary and an abuse of government power, I have to bear an additional charge as a result.  In fact this letter simply demonstrates a point that I made in April about the effect of the elimination of competition on service delivery.  Allied Wastes knows that I no longer have any say in which company provides my garbage service.  Therefore, they can cram a cost increase down my throat to cover their business costs without fear of any consequences.  Sure, I intend to call and insist on a credit for this amount but what leverage do I have?  I cannot threaten to change haulers.  I could call my commissioner Mike Beaudreau, but what good would that do?  He is a member of the board that foisted this program on us and would likely be sympathetic to Allied's claim that they need this cost recovery increase.  I ask you, dear reader, can we not already see the first evidence of what eliminating competition does to the consumer?  So let me say thanks to Lorraine Green, Bert Nasuti, Mike Beaudreau, Kevin Kenerly and Charles Bannister for looking out for me so well.  Thanks to you, I, along with probably the vast majority of your constituents, get to see a nearly a 50% increase in this quarter's garbage bill.

To my fellow Gwinnett residents who may receive the same or similar letters in your fourth quarter bill, I encourage you to be vocal about this.  Call your garbage hauler and insist on a credit for any increase.  It will likely do no good, but they should be made aware that we are still their customers and we are not happy.  In addition, I urge you to write your commissioner and Chairman Charles Bannister.  Chairman Bannister told us during a candidates' forums this summer that residents could contact him with service problems related to the new socialized garbage program.  Sounds like now is the time to start.  The bottomline is speak up!  Make your voice heard!  So long as you do not voice your displeasure, politicians will continue to treat you like children that need to have their hand held while telling you to pay for the comfort they are providing.  The elections are effectively over and the socialized garbage program is a done deal.  However, if we are vocal enough, perhaps we can head another overstep of government authority or perhaps even eventually convice the board to repeal this anti-free market, anti-consumer program.

Commission kills Duluth mixed use project

The Gwinnett County Commission on Tuesday killed the Pleasant Hill Village mixed-use development in Duluth.  The project, slated to be adjacent to Shorty Howell Park, was deemed by outgoing District 3 Commissioner Lorraine Green (how good does it feel to precede Green's name and title with "outgoing!") to be too dense for the area.  Green commented:

"The density here at 1.9 million square feet is just way too much. This density, this height is just not what the area needs right now."

Even on her way out the door, Lorraine Green shows her inclination to play nanny to District 1 residents rather than limiting her governmental role to that of referee.  Apparently, there must be a pretty strong business case for this project - thus, implying that it is something that is demanded by the market - if a developer is willing to sink $390 million in the project in this economic environment.

I am not going to dig too deeply into this one as I have not even caught up with several topics from my recent hiatus from the blog.  Perhaps there is merit in the board's decision, but I do want to point out a few surface inconsistencies with Lorraine Green's conclusion.  According to developer L. Anthony Greene (no relation to the Commissioner), "The people in the planning department said this was the best project they had ever seen."  If this is accurate, why would the board want to deny this project, especially in area that is pursuing revitalization?  While not directly part of the Gwinnett Place CID, the project is slightly more than a mile from the CID.  Isn't it reasonable to think that such a development could contribute to revitalization efforts around Gwinnett Place?  In a broader sense, why does the county employ a staff of land use professionals to assess proposals only to have the amateurs who happened to win an election routinely cast aside the professional recommendations?  I would suggest that it is politics but that is a different post for a different day.

As for density in the area, a quick look at the surrounding properties on Pleasant Hill is instructive.  Across the street is a lumber company, hardly a light use in the immediate vicinity of neighborhoods.  Just south on Pleasant Hill is a Wal-Mart Supercenter, a retail center with a Super H Mart, and a Nissan car dealer.  This location is hardly in the heart of a sleepy residential area.

View Larger Map

Now, we have to wait and see if Tony Greene sues Gwinnett County over this project.  If he does and he wins, the losers will be us Gwinnett taxpayers who would again have to foot the bill for a legal defense of the votes of one of our anti-development elected officials.