Cobb changes highlight flaws in TSPLOST project list

Cobb County Commission Chairman Tim Lee this week proposed changes to the TSPLOST project list, changes that highlight precisely the flaws that I discussed earlier this week.  The changes would shift money away from the proposed Cumberland-Atlanta light rail line to, among other things, local surface road improvements:

But Lee’s amendment would put more emphasis in Cobb County on highway projects. He said input he and other Cobb officials received in public meetings showed strong support for improving Windy Hill Road’s intersections with Interstate 75, U.S. 41 and South Cobb Drive.  Lee’s amendment also calls for improving Ga. 120 in Marietta and adding “premium” bus service from Acworth and Kennesaw down to MARTA’s Arts Center station in Midtown Atlanta.

First, let me be clear.  I am not anti-road.  Rather, I think Atlanta is sorely lacking in regional freeways.  Development of our freeway network along with regional mass transit are keys to addressing our transportation issues.  However, surface road intersection and interchange improvements are hardly the scope of project that TSPLOST should be addressing.  These projects may be needed but not at the expense of a regional solution such as light rail.  True, a single light rail line will not solve our gridlock, but it is a first step to developing what could be a comprehensive, interconnected, regional transit network.

A more practical consideration is why should Gwinnett (or Fulton, Dekalb, Clayton, etc.) taxpayers pay for surface street improvements in Cobb County? We shouldn't.  Projects of that scale should be handled by the local jurisdiction and funded by those that benefit from them.  "Wait!" you say.  "Gwinnett taxpayers would rarely ride the Cumberland light rail either.  Why should we pay for that?"  That is a fair question but whether we should help fund that project bring into question whether there is a vision of a regional network.  With proper planning the Cumberland light rail line could be a part.  A transportation project can only be regional in scope if there exists a broad vision and plan for our transportation infrastructure.  The question then becomes  is TSPLOST merely a collection of unrelated projects from the wish lists of various metro Atlanta jurisdictions or are these projects integral pieces of and progress toward a regional plan?  To create a regional tax without clearly answering that question puts the cart before the horse.  If such a plan is in place, then regional solutions which ultimately impact everyone in the region are properly funded by everyone in the region.   

The more I see of the TSPLOST campaign, the more I am convinced that the planners do not have a metrowide vision and that voters need to tell them to come back with hat in hand once you have a plan meriting consideration.  This plan should be backed up with comprehensive planning from a regional oversight body with legitimate authority, preferably the state via DDOT and GRTA.  Gwinnett and their fellow metro Atlanta taxpayers need to begin demanding better leadership on this critical issue if officials expect to be given more of our hard earned dollars. Thus far, they have failed to make a compelling case how TSPOLST is not just more business as usual for Atlanta transportation.

Gwinnett to host transportation sales tax forum

UPDATE: I misinterpreted the AJC article about the forum.  According to a radio report I heard today, the forum is tonight at GJAC.  I apologize for any confusion!

Gwinett County will host a forum on the proposed transportation sales tax on Monday, October 3 TODAY at 5P at the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Center.  The proposed sales tax (TSPLOST), which will be voted on next year, would support a proposed list of transportation projects throughout metro Atlanta. 

There has been some early opposition to the tax from tea party groups.  Obviously, as can be seen by reading the Buzz, I am very conservative.  I generally agree with and support Tea Party positions.  However, I think this opposition is very short-sighted.  Do I think we should support the TSPLOST?  I am not sure, but that is because I strongly feel we need a regionwide comprehensive plan for transportation.  I am not sure that the proposed TSPLOST project list achieves this.  

In recent months, I have travelled to Dallas and Minneapolis, cities of similar size of Atlanta.  While Atlanta was once on par with transportation with any city of its size, in the 10 years since I had last visited Dallas, Atlanta has fallen far behind in terms of transportation infrastructure in terms of both highways and transit.  While I had not previously visited Minneapolis and cannot offer a historical comparison, I was favorablely impressed that their infrastucture was integrated across their metropolitcan area.  

My biggest concern with the TSPLOST is that Atlanta as a region is missing an opportunity to positively address our transportation needs.  However, the TSPLOST project list is not sufficiently regional in scope.  Yes, there are some transit initiatives with regionwide impact - light rail, the GA400/I-285 interchange, etc.  However, there are a large number of projects that are better characterized as local maintenance such as corridor improvements, intersection upgrades, etc.  While these projects may well be warranted, they do not have a broad area impact and are more appropriately handled by local jurisdictions.

It is this limited scope and project list that causes me to pause as to whether to support the proposed tax.  I think they need to scrap the list and start over with a broader perspective.  Once we commit to these projects, we will run the risk of being further left behind other metropolitan areas in the coming decade.  

Furthermore, a big problem for metro Atlanta area transportation is the numerous "fiefdoms" that compete rather than cooperate on transportation planning.  The tax and project list do very little address this key failing.  We must begin to think of our transportation oversight regionally and not as a city and county level only. For a metro area as integrated as Atlanta, to balkanize our transportation management into separate fiefdoms does a grave disservice to our city and state.

I have not decided whether to endorse this tax proposal but I have serious doubts at this point.  The Tea Party is a great organization and the majority of the time is dead-on with their position on the issues.  But, I am concerned that their zeal in opposing taxation, a position I generally share, is blinding them to a reasonable tax for a reasonable function of a limited government.   Rejection of the tax may be the best course, not merely to oppose taxes, but because the TSPLOST does not meet our city's needs.  If planners get that message rather than simply hearing "No new taxes!", hopefully they would go back to the drawing board and develop a comprehensive plan that would have a real impact on Atlanta's transportation and transit infrastructure.

For Commission Chairman the Buzz endorses...

...no one.

Why?  Because none of the candidates overly excite me and not one of them jumps off the page as someone I would really like to see running the county commission.  Personally, since I have been following county politics, this is the most ho-hum slate of candidates in a commission race that I can remember.  I would hasten to add, however, that three of the four candidates are not highly objectionable either.  As I have discussed previously, all of the candidates have positives and negatives.  (See my previous thoughts on this race, here, here and here.)

Charlotte Nash: I felt Nash displayed too narrow of a perspective on the airport privatization and commercialization question when she suggested that her position on the issue would be more heavily influenced by those people living in the immediate vicinity of Briscoe Field.  Conversely, I really appreciated her answers regarding the board structure in light of recent corruption on the commission.  I was also impressed with a campaign mailer in which she pledged not to raise taxes.  She took a similar stance recently in speaking against a commission resolution passed earlier this month which essentially amounted to another property tax increase.  Finally, her opponent Larry Gause claimed she would be a "Wayne Hill clone."  Gause apparently meant this as a criticism but I take this as a major endorsement.  I have never equivocated that I strongly feel Gwinnett voters made a mistake in 2004 by choosing Charles Bannister over Wayne Hill.  This comparison of Nash to Hill is ironic given the fact that Nash was endorsed by Mike Beaudreau who I see as a near opposite of Hill.  Nonetheless, I would tend to agree with Bob Griggs that Nash is a strong choice for commission chairman, though I cannot go so far as to endorse her.

Will Costa: Costa was initially my first choice based on his position on the airport, a position which I felt was the most friendly of the four candidates to property rights.  I was very much impressed with his views of limited governent.  However, I was taken aback by his support of more and/or larger muncipal government in Gwinnett, a position that seems to contradict limited government.  I am also surprised at Costa's advocacy of light rail, apparently under government control. I have no problem with light rail as a transportation alternative.  I have a big problem with the Gwinnett County government delving further into the transporatation business.  If a private business wants to operate light rail, fantastic!  But I do not want taxpayer dollars potentially being tied up in, to use a Griggs phrase, a "government boondoogle."  That all being said, I am still intrigued by Costa.  While the positions cited above do seem to contradict his limited government views, I would love to see a voice on the commission truly commited to decreasing the size and influence of the Gwinnett County government.  Thus, Costa will get consideration as I make my final decision tomorrow.

Duane Kissel: To me, Kissel is the "invisible man" candidate in this race.  He is there, but you don't really notice him.  I agreeed with his statements on the airport but was not clear regarding his thought process in arriving at those views.  Regarding commission structure, he had an interesting idea about terms limits for commissioners but I am not sure how well thought-out this stance is and whether, as chairman, he could practically have any impact on implementing such a restriction.  I think I am pretty decided that Kissel will not receive my vote.

This brings me to the one candidate I have come to view as the villian of this campaign, the one person for whom I have great distaste as a candidate and for whom I can say with absolute certainty that I will not be voting.  In fact, he is the only candidate in the race I would strongly caution Gwinnettians about supporting.  That candidate is Larry Gause.  Initially, I had mixed feelings on Gause's stance on Briscoe Field.  However, in general, I saw him much like Kissel - there but generally invisible.  Then I started seeing smoke.  I received an email making various claims about dirty politics by Gause.  I did not publicize this release becasue I could not be certain of the claims.  But I now see Griggs as well as the BanishBannister.com website making similar arguments.  The charges I found most offensive regarded Gause's alleged dishonesty.  Griggs reported that Gause was dishonest about his employment on his campaign financial disclosures as well as his connection to unsavory political consultant Bill McKinney.  BanishBannister.com claims that Gause has displayed the Georgia Right to Life logo on a political mailer though he is not endorsed by the organization.  This apparent dishonesty really galls me because Gause has emphasized his military service.  Isn't one key part of military life honesty and integrity?  While I thank Mr. Gause for his service to our country, I find it highly offensive that someone who promotes their duty would then engage in questionable behavior even in the political arena.  While I cannot independently verify the information reported by others, for me, there is far too much smoke surrounding Larry Gause not to wonder just how much fire is there.  I am absolutely certain I will not vote for Gause and I would urge Buzz readers to tread cautiously before casting a vote for him.

While I cannot make an endorsement in this race, I can offer a short list: Charlotte Nash or Will Costa.  I think Gwinnett would be best served by replacing Charles Bannister with one of these two individuals.  I hope everyone will vote tomorrow, but I would encourage you to be informed before you visit your polling place.  Voting is an important responsibility.  Too often people are simply encouraged to vote, but being prepared to vote is not emphasized as much as the act of voting itself.  As we saw in the election of President Obama, casting an uninformed vote can have severe negative consequences, so if you are going to vote, be informed as you make your decision.  Don't just rely on my opinion above but seek out other sources of information.  When you cast your vote for your candidate of choice, do so knowing why you are choosing that person to lead our county out of the morass of recent years.

Peachtree Corners residents split on incorporation

The United Peachtree Corners Civic Association held a meeting last night in which the proposed incorporation of the Peachtree Corners community was discussed.  Approximately 80 people showed up and sentiment over making Peachtree Corners a "city lite" was divided.  Association president Mike Mason said that feedback he has received "has been running about 4-to-1 in favor" in favor of the idea.  However, some residents voiced concerns about increased property taxes as well as whether the drive to incorporate is including the voices of minority residents of the area.

I did find this argument in favor of incorporation a bit curious:

Such a government, Mason said, would protect residents from encroachment by municipalities and allow residents to decide on future development.

Isn't making Peachtree Corners a city, in fact, encroachment by a municipality?

This story is likely to get more interesting as we move forward.

G-Braves stadium to be called Coolray Field

Well it is a year late in coming, but the Government-funded Gwinnett Braves have a naming sponsor for their ballpark near Mall of Georgia.  Coolray Heating and Cooling has agreed to a 16-year deal with the Atlanta Braves to place its moniker on the stadium.  That's fine and dandy, but here is the curious part:

Terms of the 16-year deal with Coolray Heating and Cooling were not revealed.

Excuse me?  Terms were not revealed?  Terms should be revealed immediately!  After all, the Gwinnett County Commission blew our tax dollars building a ballpark for a minor league team we did not need.  Then, in part because of the millions of dollars committed to the facility, the county had to then raise our taxes when the recession hit.  So, yes, the Gwinnett taxpayers have a right to know the terms of the deal post-haste!  We have a right to know the net amount of our tax dollars that have been sunk in financially propping-up an organization that can afford to pay exorbitant salaries to major league ballplayers but expecting Average Joe Citizen to fork over his hard-earned money to pay for their "place of business."  In a time on the national political scene where corporate executives - highly-paid employees who come much closer to being worth the money they earn than grown men playing a boy's game - the taxpayers of Gwinnett County should be fully informed just how much of our money will wind up subsidizing a professional sports franchise.

Starting April 8, the Government-funded Gwinnett Braves will officially play their home games at Coolray Field, but the facility will always really be Gwinnett Taxpayers Stadium.

County misses deadline to sell stadium naming rights

The deadline for Gwinnett County to sell naming rights to Gwinnett Taxpayers' Stadium (aka Gwinnett Stadium) has come and gone.  As a result, the county will lose out on a greater share of the proceeds when naming rights are eventually sold.  Fortunately, for Gwinnett property owners, the car rental tax that went into effect last year has been generating higher than projected revenues, enough to allow the county make payments on the outstanding bonds.  Even still, as I outlined in a post here on the Buzz in April, 2008, the car rental tax comes out of the pockets of the Gwinnett taxpayer, meaning that Gwinnettians are still paying for the stadium.

To be honest, the Gwinnett County Commission is very lucky in that the car rental tax projections understated the true revenue.  If the board were in danger of defaulting on debt service payments, could commissioners really risk the ignominy of a major county government defaulting on its loan?  Given that the board has already cut the budget to the bone, would there be any choice but to move forward with the highly controversial property tax increase?  So long as the naming rights are eventually sold and other income sources hold up, Gwinnett property owners should be spared yet another demand to provide funding for yet another government undertaking.

The real question is should the commission be let off the hook because they have managed to take more tax dollars than expected from Gwinnett residents via the car rental tax?  They have still raised your taxes, just not property taxes.  They have dodged a bullet thusfar, but here we have more evidece of the poor management of taxpayer dollars by this commission.  They gambled with our money to build a stadium for a professional sports team that expects average Americans, during hard economic times, to underwrite a stadium while the team pays enormous sums of money to men to play a game.  I do not think they should be applauded for good fortune masking  poor management.  Do you?

Commission approves more than $200 million in budget cuts

The Gwinnett County Commission voted last week to approve over $225 million in budget cuts.  As I wrote earlier last week, some residents were unhappy with some of the cuts, especially those targeting the budgets for the police and fire departments.  While automatically opposing budget cuts for public safety is understandable, the key here is at what are these cuts targeted?

First, let's be absolutely clear: deeps cuts were in order. Cuts are more palatable than a tax increase. Where I take issue is where these cuts were targeted.  Prior to the meeting, there was speculation that the Gwinnett "Quality of Life" unit could be on the chopping block.  Given this unit's focus of fighting property rights more so than real crime, I was completely in favor of such a cut.  However, rather than ax the Quality of Life unit, the board opted to cut the DUI task force.  I do not understand this move! One fights property rights - the other fights criminals that could kill you on our highways! The Quality of Life unit should have be at the top of the cuts for the police department.  Of course, I am hardly surprised that retaining funding for the Quality of Life unit was proposed by Mike Beaudreau whose commission track record is hardly one of championing property rights.

Regarding police department funding in general, when I stop seeing police officers parked along the road running radar/laser equipment to catch speeders as opposed to fighting real crime, I might get a little more upset about budget cuts for the department. In the last couple of weeks, I have seen three cops parked along Ronald Reagan Parkway doing speed enforcement. I see others near the Park Place Bridge on US 78. Coupling this with funding Quality of Life to go out worrying about how how far nails protrude and other victimless crimes, I cannot get too upset at at the cuts. When all police department funds are used to fight real, serious crime and not harass property owners or man radar guns, I will get upset at the cuts.

I would like to note, however, that, as critical as I often am of Comissioner Beaudreau, I do find myself in total agreement with one of his proposals.  Beaudreau offered an excellent idea to charge non-county residents for using Gwinnett County parks.  In fact, as a daily user of my local park, I would support a user fee for all those who actually use the parks, whether resident or not. The community does benefit from the parks so a county-funded system is appropriate. However, because those of us who actually go to the park and use the amenities benefit more, we should pay more than someone who does not. A user fee could be a nominal amount, perhaps $25 per year, just to ensure that the cost burden of these facilities is born more by those who use the system. A user fee would also capture direct contribution from those who use the facilities but are not property owners and, as such, do pay not the property taxes that fund the bulk of county government.

One other suggestion for revenue that I have not seen discussed is ads on Gwinentt transit buses.  (I read this suggestion from a Buzz reader, I believe, but I cannot find the reference.  I apologize that I cannot properly credit you for bringing this idea to my attention.)  When the county is in need of every drop of revenue it can get, why has the transit system not exploring selling ads?  MARTA does this, why not Gwinnett?  I do not know how much money this would raise, but whatever it raises would be some decrease in the severity of the county budget cuts.

The fiscal situation that Gwinnett County faces is very serious.  No one said any of the paths that could be taken through the woods would be easy, but I must commend the commissioners for choosing the right path - reigning in the size and cost of government as opposed to siphoning even more dollars out of our pockets.  I would much rather be bickering over what to cut than a tax increase.

Citizens oppose spending cuts

As the Gwinnett County Commission prepares to "vote on $225 million in proposed cuts to the operating budget through 2014," some county residents are opposing proposed law enforcement funding cuts.  I would ask them, what else is the commission supposed to do?  While I have been very critical of this board, they did the right thing by refusing to raise property taxes.  Given that a nontrivial reason we are in this fiscal mess is that monument to government mismanagement, Gwinnett (Taxpayers) Stadium, I absolutely oppose a tax increase.  Had our commissioners kept Gwinnett County focused on the core, limited responsibilities of government, I would be more open to recognizing the need for, and possibly supporting, a tax increase.  However, the commissioners made some very poor decisions in building that unneeded baseball stadium and now they should have to make the hard decisions of finding places to cut spending.

While I do not want to see police funding cut in general, I would be more concerned about these cuts if I did not see police officers parked alongside Gwinnett roads running radar/laser speed detection equipment.  I understand the need for traffic enforcement, but why not redeploy these officers to fighting real crime and let them do traffic stops while engaged in their normal patrols?  I would note that if the cuts are used on Gwinnett's so-called "Quality of Life" unit, then the negative impact to enforcing important laws is lessened.  The Quality of Life unit spends a lot of taxpayer dollars fighting property rights rather than the crime that is all too common in Gwinnett.

Thus, while we may feel some pain in the cuts that are eventually made, they are much easier to swallow than a tax increase in the aftermath of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on the Government-funded Gwinnett Braves new baseball stadium.

Bannister warns of effects of budget cuts

In a letter posted on the Gwinnett County homepage (thanks to Buzz reader ceej for posting this link in a comment to an earlier post), Commission Chairman Charles Bannister outlines some of the budget cuts the board will be considering next week.  Bannister highlights cuts to public safety funding and the associated reductions in force levels.  Gwinnett County Fire Chief Steve Rolader, referencing the cuts for the fire department, worries about the impact on protection for the public:

"With a reduction in force, it could impact our response times," he said. "It concerns us."

Now, I must be fair and note that I am not clear that the commission would be cutting force levels as opposed to simply not growing them per the previous plan.  (This is a common tactic in Washington where Congress will refer to a reduction in planned growth as a "cut.")  However, by holding staffing levels constant while the county's population continues to grow, the number of firefighters per capita will fall.  This logic alone lends credence to Rolader's concerns.

Aren't you glad that we have that nice, new minor league baseball stadium?  If your house burns down because the fire department is unable to respond quickly enough, at least you can console yourself while taking in a Government-funded Gwinnett Braves game at Gwinnett Taxpayers' Stadium.  Yes, I keep bringing up the stadium.  The people of Gwinnett should not be allowed to forget about the abysmal stewardship of our tax dollars represented by that facility.  The stadium looked like a bad deal when it was proposed.  GIven our current fiscal situation, the stadium deal looks like perhaps the biggest example of governmental mismanagement in the history of Gwinnett County.

Remember this during primary season next summer, folks!

Comparison of Gwinnett and Atlanta reactions to tax increases

While I have been largely out of the loop recently, I did follow the Gwinnett property tax hike battle.  I want to take a moment to note how pleased I am that my fellow Gwinnett residents were so upset over this proposal.  In this new era of big government, big spending, and likely higher taxes, it was refreshing to see that Washington's line of thinking won't fly in Gwinnett.

On this topic, I found this article in the AJC comparing the reaction of City of Atlanta residents to Gwinnett County residents over similar property tax increase proposals to be very telling.

Kudos, Gwinnett!  Remain vigilant and keep our elected officials accountable!