Peachtree Corners to vote on cityhood

Next week, Peachtree Corners will go to the polls and decide the question of whether their community should become a city.  The Gwinnett Buzz strongly endorses opposition to this ballot issue.  As I have written previously, there are far more potential negatives to cityhood than benefits.  

The most obvious is yet another layer of government that duplicates services already provided by another entity.  Redundant and unnecessary government imposes unnecessary costs for taxpayers, businesses, and visitors.  Granted, Peachtree Corners says it will limit it's government powers to code enforcement, solid waste and planning and zoning.  However, we all know the penchant of government to grow.  You can almost be guaranteed that a police department will soon follow that will, as do so many municipal departments, turn Peachtree Corner into a speedtrap cash register in order to raise revenue for the growing government.

The local planning and zoning is a major negative as well.  While many will tout "local control," area residents stand to lose more than they would gain.  It's not like the Gwinnett County Commission is developer-friendly.  Most planning and zoning rulings by municipalities serve to negatively impact property rights and make it more difficult for businesses to conduct business in the city.  Over time this can result in fewer shopping and entertainment options as new retail centers are denied or impaired wireless coverage as wireless communication companies struggle to add the towers needed to serve growing wireless demand.  Financial woes for the city are not even out of the question as businesses and the taxes they pay are denied access to the community.  The latter concern may be muted because of the existing business base in Peachtree Corners, but the possible negatives are still substantial.

The vote will be a crucial turning point for Peachtree Corners.  Local voters would be advised not to try to fix that which is not broken.

Gwinnett to consider privatization of planning

The Gwinnett County Commission has created a committee to examine whether some of the county planning department functions should be privatized.  The committee was formed after new District 4 Commissioner John Heard initially pushed "to consider allowing private professionals to approve building plans."  Heard later yielded to a more broad-cased review.

I am encouraged to see a new member of the board quickly moving to examine the size and scope of county government.  I am discouraged, however, that the lone dissenting vote to forming the committee came from the other freshman commissioner, Lynette Howard of District 2.  While Howard has a valid point that the department is already lean on costs due to "downsizing along with the economy," what is the harm in examining whether outsourcing may be appropriate?  The committee may decide that privatization is not warranted.  Dekalb County considered a similar move but found that, after the downturn, "fee revenue recovered enough to support the department."  In fact, for a department that is conducting an essential role of government (and, to be fair, we could debate whether planning and zoning should be a role of government), if that department can cover its costs through fees collected from those using its services as opposed to being funded by general tax dollars, such a structure should be a model for government to follow.  

Where I must question Howard is her other reason for opposing the committee:

“I don’t want some building not being built to specifications of safety,” said Commissioner Lynette Howard, who cast the lone vote against creating the study committee.

Why can only government ascertain whether a building is built to the proper safety specifications?  What characteristic of government imbues it with an ability to discern safety issues that an unbiased, private third party does not have?  If the reviewer of building plans were paid and/or hired by the builder, then I see a cause for concern and a potential conflict of interest.  However, simply privatizing this role into an unaffilitated third party does not create such a conflict.

I don't really take issue with the Gwinnett planning department.  Rather, I think the planning department often, wisely and fairly, recommends approval for projects that ultimately are denied by a politician.  Nevertheless, I will typically support an objective analysis of whether any function of government can be made more effective and/or efficient by outsourcing it to a private enterprise.  For pushing for such an analysis, I heartily applaud John Heard.  I only wonder why Lynette Howard would oppose this analysis.  I just hope that this is not a sign of another big government Republican on the Gwinnett County Commission.  We have had more than enough of those in recent years.

Rice introduces Peachtree Corners incorporation bill

State Rep. Tom Rice has drafted legislation in the Georgia General Assembly to allow Peachtree Corners to incorporate as a "city light."  The legislation would permit Peachtree Corners to incorporate with "a weak governing board that addresses only minimal issues, such as planning and zoning, code enforcement and trash collection" while continuing to receive "county services, such as police, water and roadwork, after it has formed into a city."  According to Mike Mason, president of the United Peachtree Corners Civic Association, the association is awaiting a University of Georgia study on the cost of operating such a muncipality.  Why do I suspect that the results of that study are really immaterial?  After all, isn't an initiative such as this more often about power for those pushing it than anything else?

I knew it! Beaudreau considering run for Congress

I knew it!

As I posted earlier today, when I heard about Congressman John Linder's annoucement that he would not see re-election in the 7th District, I wondered if MIke Beaudreau would throw his hat in the ring.  Apparently, that is precisely what the District 3 commissioner has on his mind.  As long as I have been observing him as a commissioner, Commissioner Beaudreau has had career politician written all over him.  If you have been a reader of the Buzz for a while, you know that I have had some serious political differences, primarily in the area of property rights, with Commissioner Beaudreau.  However, I have also felt that, were he in a higher office and not dealing with the day-to-day matters of local planning and zoning, he could very well be someone I could support.  His votes on property rights concern me, but I do think there are plenty of bona fide conservatives that, regrettably, would vote similarly on such issues.

The good news is that we could see an opportunity to get Mike Beaudreau off the Gwinnett County Commission.  The biggest question is whether he is conservative enough to be someone we should support as our next 7th District Congressman.  John Linder has some big conservative shoes to fill and we should demand no less from his successor.

As I said earlier - things look to get very interesting in Gwinnett politics in 2010.

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.

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!

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.

Things taking shape in and around stadium

There is a lot of activity going on in and around the Gwinnett Braves' new stadium.  The stadium itself is about 80% complete looking forward to the April 17 opener against the Norfolk Tides.  Fans will be able to walk all the way around the stadium, let kids play at playgrounds, eat in picnic areas, enjoy the game from suites, grandstands or grassy berms, catch replays on a 30' by 40' video matrix board and eat a variety of food options.  Grass is scheduled to be installed March 2 on a field that will mimic the dimensions of Turner Field.

Outside the stadium, several development projects are in the works.  Earlier this month, the Gwinnett County Commission approved a "10-acre development on Buford Drive near Lawrenceville that is expected to include shops and restaurants."  This week, the commission will consider a project that literally surrounds the stadium and "is expected to consist of 351,000 square feet of commercial space, 617,000 square feet of office space, 610 residential units and 300 hotel rooms."

My opposition to how this stadium came about and even the need for minor league baseball in a major league metro area is well documented here on the Buzz.  That being said, I do think that the new stadium is shaping up to be an enjoyable place to spend a spring or summer evening, even if you are not a huge baseball fan.  The stadium is also kick-starting some very attractive development to the area as well.  While the economy is soft now, in the long run, I think these development projects will be great assets to the greater Mall of Georgia area.

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.