The Buzz has lunch with Beaudreau

Two weeks ago, I sat down with Commissioner Mike Beaudreau for a ranging discussion of various issues in Gwinnett County.  In addition, we touched on the upcoming Republican primary in District 3.  Given my background, we spent much of our conversation discussing his work and evolving perspective on cell phone towers as well as his viewpoints on the larger issues and realities of governing with respect to property rights.  As long-time readers of the Buzz know, I have never been a supporter of Commissioner Beaudreau; in fact, I have been very critical of him on property rights and socialized garbage.  At the same time, I have found Beaudreau to have the most responsible and conservative position on other issues.  The opportunities presented by privatizing Briscoe Field is the primary example where the commissioner, unlike other members of the board, has kept an open mind to the possibilities.

While I have met with and spoken with Commissioner Beaudreau on a few occasions, this was the first time I have had the opportunity to sit down, one-on-one, and talk with him.  The thing that impressed me the most is that he is a very friendly and genuine person.  I have encountered enough slimy politcians to recognize the type and I can safely say that Commissioner Beaudreau does not fall into that category.  No matter where I may or may not agree with him with politically, I do think having a down-to-earth person in office is a benefit. 

One thing our conversation left me wondering about is how much has the political dynamic in District 3 shifted in the last eight years?  In 2004, Mike Beaudreau was clearly the "homeowner candidate."  Though I am a homeowner myself, I do not use that description positively.  Too often, "homeowner candidates" are hypocritical opponents of property rights.  They loudly claim to support propoerty rights when defending their homeowner association allies but quickly change their tune when it comes to supporting the rights of property owners who wish to commercially develop their land.  This positioning was precisely why I strongly supported the incumbent in 2004, former Commissioner John Dunn.  Fast forwad 12 years and, based on initial impressions of the candidates in this race, Mike Beaudreau no longer appears to be the left-most candidate with respect to property rights.  That title seems to belong to Dacula resident Mike Korom.  Korom is not just "homeowner" friendly, he is the President of the Apalachee Farms HOA.  This is a red flag about the size of one of those banners you sometimes see unfurled to cover a football field.  Granted, initial impressions can be wrong, but in the early stages, Korom appears to be this year's incarnation of 2004's Mike Beaudreau and, as such, likely the last person I will ultimately endorse in the race.

The wild card candidate will be former Snellville Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer.  Unlike Korom, Oberholtzer is an experienced politician and has an extensive record to run on.  Where will he fall on the issues?  Will he wind up making Beaudreau the most desirable candidate of the three?  The possibility is why I ponder the dynamics in this race.  Could I find myself come election day supporting...Mike Beaudreau?  My, does politics have some strange twists and turns, or what?  This should be a fun race to watch!

Beaudreau to seek reelection

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

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

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

Mike Beaudreau Press Release

Beaudreau to run for Re-Election

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Maybe you can beat City Hall

Earlier this week, I higlighted a potential abuse of eminent domain by the City of Dacula.  I am very happy to be able to use the word "potential" because the Dacula City Council did the right thing and declined to legally steal Sam Hinton's property in downtown Dacula.  Criticizing elected officials when they do the wrong thing is easy, but all too often we fail to praise them when they do the right thing.  Setting aside the concern that this matter should have ever gotten this far, I do want to publically applaud the following members of the Dacula City Council for their "no" votes: Tim Montgomery and Gregory Reeves.  Also, casting the deciding "no" vote after the council tied 2-2 was Mayor Jimmy Wilbanks, saying, "I am not going to make this decision by myself.  This is a property right, so I’m going to vote against the motion.”  

Mayor Wilbanks was exactly right - this was about property rights.  Which is why Dacula voters should ask Sue Robinson and Wendell Holcombe why they voted to abuse eminent domain power to force Mr. Hinton to sell his land to the city?  Are their votes indicative of their general view on property rights or do they feel there is a legitimate, critical need for the City of Dacula to take this property from its owner?  Councilpersons Robinson and Holcome, the residents of Dacula deserve a very clear understanding of what precisely are your views on the use of governmental power with regard to property rights.  The Gwinnett Buzz would be more than willing to publish an article by either of you discussing your views and an explanation of how you voted as you did.  You can contact me on the contact page above and I will publish your comments unedited.

Whether you avail yourself of this avenue or some other, I urge you to explain yourselves to your constituents.  Last fall, Americans showed that they are no longer complacent with elected officials who tread on the people.  Thursday night's vote will not simply slip into the fog of memory prior to the next election.  If Ms. Robinson and Mr. Holcombe refuse to defend this vote, I am confident that the good people of Dacula will respond accordingly when they next visit the ballot box.  Similarly, while one vote does not give a pass to Councilmen Montgomery and Reeves or Mayor Wilbanks, these gentlemen deserve credit for protecting the cherished and crucial American right to property.

The City of Dacula is trying to steal Sam Hinton's property

View Dacula Eminent Domain in a larger map

The City of Dacula wants to build a new park in downtown.  The proposed park would be located on a site comprised of four parcels of land including a lot owned by Sam Hinton.  The city has already purchased three of the parcels. There's a small problem, however: Sam Hinton does not want to sell his property at Second Avenue and Wilson Street.  That should be the end of it, right?  Not to the Dacula City Council.  They are not taking "no" for an answer and apparently think that, because they want to build a park and because they have bought the other three properties, that they should just be able to take Hinton's property against his will.  In the world of you and I, that is called "stealing."  In the world of government, that is called "eminent doman."

At tonight's city council meeting (7 p.m. at City Hall), the council will consider whether to force Sam Hinton to sell his property to the city.  There is no other way to characterize this move but as an unconscionable power play by council members.  Hinton offers other reasons as to why building this park is an unwise move but those rebuttals are unnecessary (though, I will note, he makes some valid points).  The fact that Mr. Hinton does not want to sell his land, land that has been in his family for well over a century, is reason enough that the City should not build the park.  

The City's response is that they need the Hinton parcel to access city property during construction of the park.  The City might have an argument had Hinton purchased the lot in bad faith in order to block park construction.  However, the City purchased the other three parcels for the park before they secured the Hinton property.  Why should the purchases made by the City obligate Hinton to sell his land?  They should not.  The City might also have a legitimate position if access to their property was entirely precluded by Hinton's property.  However, though I cannot be sure that the property lines shown in the above map are accurate, there is no property in the vicinity of Hinton's lot that lacks street access.  Sorry, city council members, but not having enough space to carry out the project you envision should not allow you to effectively steal a man's property.  

To be sure there are cases where eminent domain is used in a legitimate manner, cases where a government has critical need for a particular piece of property.  The United States Constitution permits such "takings" in the Fifth Amendment.  That being said, all too often governments abuse this power (see my Recommended Reading below, Government Pirates, for numerous examples).  I see this case as legal theft since this park is not critical - no matter how you define critical - to the citizens of Dacula.  If I walk into my neighbor's house and take an autographed football for which he has refused my offers to buy, even if I leave a check for the true value of the ball, do you think a court would turn me loose simply because I paid for the stolen property?  Highly doubtful.  So, why should we not expect our elected officials, even if they can do essentially the same thing legally, to follow the same standard?  Taking Hinton's property, despite its legality, violates the spirit of the rights that defines America.

The irony of this abuse of power is that just two years ago, officials of this same city were opposed to a move by Gwinnett County to designate the area surrounding Dacula as rural, a move which they felt would be a drag on economic development in the area.  This was a property rights issue and the city was correct in their position.  Now, hypocritically, that same city is set to deprive one of their long-time citizens of his property rights.  Dacula residents, do you demand better leadership from your city council?  Do you expect them to honor and respect basic property rights?  If so, it is incumbent on you to be heard, to loudly tell your elected officials to not take Sam Hinton's property.  If you can, show up at the council meeting tonight.  If you cannot make it, call city hall (770-963-7451) or email them (citydacula@charter.net).  Make them understand that if they take Sam Hinton's property against his will, you will take away their jobs at the next election.  As we saw last November, America has had enough of politicians trampling all over our freedoms in the name of big government.  Apparently, the Dacula City Council missed that message.  Make them hear it and stand up for your neighbor, Sam Hinton, and his basic American rights as a property owner.

Griggs: Educate yourself on the airport issue

Bob Griggs has posted an excellent article on his blog urging Gwinnett residents, regardless of where they stand, to educate themselves on the facts surrounding possible commercial aviation at Gwinnett County Airport-Briscoe Field.  Bob makes some strong points about the often-heard "property values" argument:

To the contrary, non-residential properties near the airport will increase in value as businesses compete for convenient access to the expanded facility and services. It’s simple “supply and demand.”...[Regarding residential property values], existing residences are, for the most part, well away from the flight path or well down-range, minimally affected by the jets that will climb up and out quickly.

I urge you to take Bob's advice and educate yourself on this important issue facing Gwinnett County.  I am a very strong proponent of property rights and I had been leaning against commercial service.  However, Bob's article has given me food for more careful thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grayson reviewing sign ordinance

When I saw the headline on this one on AJC.com, my first thought was "Here we go again.  A government is going to restrict the rights of property owners."  Imagine my pleasant surprise to read that the City of Grayson is considering "allowing animated signs, internally illuminated signs and double-faced signs."

Wow.  A government that is easing restrictions on citizens - what a novel concept!  Kudos to Grayson officials!

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.

Commercial flights at Briscoe Field?

Last week, the AJC published an article about the possible privatization of Gwinnett County Briscoe Field in Lawrenceville.  The proposal by Propeller Investments would include expanding the airport's runway and beginning commercial airline service from ten gates in a new terminal.

On the surface, I love the idea.  I was encouraged by some of the initial indications of support from local leaders.  (I was pleasantly surprised to see Gwinnett Commissioner Mike Beaudreau speak favorably of the possibility!)  I favor getting government out of the airport business, especially if the proposal appears to be able to generate much needed revenue for the county government while allowing a private owner the opportunity to generate a profit while providing a very valuable service and economic boost to Gwinnett County.  However, the likely opposition of nearby residents, a response that most assuredly is in the offing, cannot be simply dismissed.

If you have read the Buzz for any period of time, you know I am a strong advocate for private property rights while being a fan of high quality development.  Thus, you might assume that I would be squarely on the side of Propeller Investments.  However, as college football commentator Lee Corso would say, “Not so fast, my friend!” As I have discussed extensively on the Buzz, I view property rights issues between neighboring landowners as boiling down to material impact.  In other words, does one owner's use of his or her property pose a material negative impact to a neighboring landowner's ability to use and enjoy his or her property.  It is really a simple perspective.  You can use your property as you see fit so long as it does not keep me from reasonably using and enjoying my property.  As to how we define "material" and "reasonably", well, I will leave that up to the lawyers.  What you do not have to be a lawyer to see is that the commencement of commercial airline service from a previously general aviation only facility could very well pose a negative material impact to nearby residents.

Commercial aviation is going to generate noise.  That cannot be avoided.  Noise abatement procedures can be put in place to mitigate the impact of the noise, but there will be noise.  If a Boeing 737 is taking off over your house, you're going to hear it.  What must be determined in the consideration of this proposal is how much more noise will be generated than that from the private jets that currently use Briscoe Field?  What total amount of time will neighboring property owners experience elevated noise levels?  What hours of the day will such elevated noise levels occur?  These and other questions will have to be carefully considered to determine if neighbors' inevitable arguments about noise levels will have merit.  If they do, these concerns cannot be dismissed as mere NIMBYism.  Other potentially legitimate factors would include traffic, pollution levels and continued access to the airport by operators of general aviation aircraft.

This promises to be an interesting situation to watch.  I definitely like the idea of easier access to commercial flights for Gwinnett residents.  I am excited at the possibility for commercial development in the airport vicinity and along the GA 316 corridor.  However, we must ensure that the property rights of existing landowners who bought and developed property with the expectation of being near a general aviation airport rather than a commercial aviation airport are considered and protected.