Gwinnett Buzz

EDIT (2 March 10): I stated below that the audience could not address the commission during the meeting.  I am watching the meeting right now and the audience does have the opportunity to address the board.  The first two speakers are grilling the commissioners - way to go!

Just when you thought it was safe to take your garbage to the curb, there stands the Gwinnett County Commission waiting at the end of your driveway to “help” you take out your garbage.  That’s right - socialized garbage is back. Tomorrow, the board will consider a new version of the ordinance that looks almost identical to the old version.  What does that tell us?  The Gwinnett County Commission did not listen to a word that was said to them - loudly and clearly - at the various meetings and hearings in the last 15 months.  They have effectively brushed you aside and will do exactly what they intended to do all along - micromanage your life!

The most substantial difference between the previous ordinance and the current iteration is of little real importance to the average citizen: Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful will not be administering the program.  Whew!  That makes me feel so much better knowing that someone else will deny my economic freedom and tell me I am not capable of handing my own affairs.  At the end of the day, the county will still mandate that you must have garbage service.  The county will still tell you what company you must have as your garbage hauler.  They will still bill you for the service as part of your tax bill.  The only substantive item that appears to be different is that recycling is not mandatory.  Exactly how is this different than the socialistic program the board attempted to foist upon us last year?  In a nutshell- IT’S NOT!

Our commissioners are thumbing their noses at us.  They are saying we listened and we ignored virtually everything you told us.  Why?  Because we are politcians and we know how to live your life better than you do!  And these are supposed to be five REPUBLICANS, one of whom may want to go to Washington as a Congressman!

Unfortunately, this will ordinance will pass because this commission is not accountable to you.  Two members of the board, District 2 Commissioner Bert Nasuti and District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly, are not running for reelection.  They can vote for the ordinance and not have to worry about facing the music from the voters.  That means there only needs to be one other vote to pass socialized garbage.  If Commission Chairman Charles Bannister has already decided not to seek a third term in 2012, he would be just as unaccountable as Nasuti and Kenerly.  I suspect he will not run again, but only he knows for sure.  The other likely source for the third vote is Mike Beaudreau.  Whether he runs for Congress or not, Beaudreau will likely run for a higher office in 2012 given that his interest in Congressman John Linder’s congressional seat confirms my suspicions that Beaudreau is aiming politically higher than the county commission.  Granted, running for any office from within Gwinnett would force him to face voters in some way should he vote for socialized garbage. However, if his next race is for a different office, that would provide some insulation from voter angst over socialized garbage.  That leaves Shirley Lasseter who likely will run for relection in 2012.  With a third vote coming from Bannister or Beaudreau, Lasseter would be afforded political cover by being able to vote against the ordinance knowing that it will still pass.  (To be fair to Lasseter, the original socialized garbage ordinance was passed before she joined the Commission.  Thus, she may truly be opposed to the measure.)

The board will vote on this unAmerican ordinance tomorrow.  Conveniently, these sessions do not allow the public to address the commission, so you will not have the opportunity to remind the board that their support of socialized garbage is unacceptable.  Ironically, that is very appropriate given that they chose to ignore you when you did have the opportunity to speak.  Who needs Democrats when you have Republicans like this bunch?

The AJC has an excellent article chronicling the Gwinnett Braves stadium history over the last year.  The article does a good job of outlining why this deal was bad for Gwinnett County taxpayers: cost overruns, weakening county tax revenues due to the recession, and inability to sell the stadium naming rights in the current economic environment.  All this while the county was slashing its budget, cutting jobs, and “[postponing] adding 88 positions for public safety and the courts.”

Despite an overwhelming case that, financially, this was a worse deal in retrospect than it was initially, the commission stubbornly clings to the position that the county should have undertaken the project.

“Our board was completely unanimous on baseball Jan. 15 of last year, and I think our board will be completely unanimous on baseball today,” said Commissioner Bert Nasuti, the project’s chief proponent.

Gwinnett Board of Commissioners Chairman Charles Bannister, Commissioner Kevin Kenerly and Nasuti said they would have voted for financing the stadium last year even if they had known what they know now about the economy and the county’s finances.

“I think we would have voted for it,” Bannister said. “It would have been much cleaner — perhaps prettier — publicwise if all the dollars had been in the accounting upfront.”

What incredible arrogance to say that, even had they known then what they know now, they would have still proceeded.  What we know now is that, if the stadium revenue projections remain down, the stadium threatens to place a greater burden on taxpayer wallets.

Nasuti believes that the stadium will boost “boost Gwinnett’s economy.”  He also made a valid point about economic development.

“You don’t shut down economic development opportunities when times are bad,” Nasuti said. “That is when you look at economic development opportunities.”

Nasuti is absolutely correct that smart managers pursue opportunities in hard times.  However, let the private sector make that decision, not government.  We elect Republicans because we want limited government, lower taxes and a positive environment for business.  I do not call making sweetheart deals for a professional sports franchise to be an example of limited government even the deal improves the business environment.  Over the life of the contract, the Braves will pay an average annual rent to Gwinnett County of $365,000 per year.  On top of that, the team keeps half of the parking revenue, all ticket revenue except for  $1 per ticket($400,000 minimum to the county), and a share of the stadium naming rights income.  This for an organization that just signed pitcher Derek Lowe for $60 million over four years.

I know I will never find the perfect elected official with whom I will agree all the time.  However, over the last year, the Gwinnett commission has begun to develop quite a track record of poor management of county government.  Socialized garbage.  Gwinnett Braves stadium.  North Georgia retreat to figure out how to save money.  The hole they are digging is already pretty deep.  Fortunately for them, the next election is still nearly two years away.  They have time to turn things around, but to climb out of this hole, they need to stop digging and starting putting the Gwinnett residents and taxpayers first in what they do.

Tonight was not a good night to be a Gwinnett County commissioner.  During the open comment period at the end of tonight’s monthly public hearing, a string of unhappy Gwinnett residents clearly voiced their opposition to socialized garbage to the commissioners.  Speakers addressed the elimination of economic choice, potential fines, mandatory recycling, incorporation of payment into tax bills and the fact that the new program would cost some people more money.  While a few were less incensed than others, the opposition to the plan was virtually unanimous.  If you did not attend the hearing or watch the coverage live, I would strongly encourage you to go and view the archived video of the meeting.  I lived Twittered the comment period and you can find my observations on my Twitter feed.

I was glad to see such a strong element of community involvement tonight.  While I strongly agreed with most of the comments, I could not help but feel it was too little too late.  I know I have said this, but I will say it again because I think this is the key lesson here.  People should have been this engaged while the ordinance was being considered. If they had regularly followed the work of their government, their anger tonight could have been instrumental in forcing the commissioners to address solid waste issues in a different manner.  I am not attempting to criticize any readers who just recently became aware of what the commission has done to them;  I simply hope this lesson will result in an uptick in interest in county government.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on District 2 Commissioner Bert Nasuti’s comments after many citizens had their say.  While I have been critical of Nasuti on several recent issues (the baseball stadium and the retreat), I generally have found him to be thoughtful commissioner who does try to consider both sides of an issue.  He offered an overview of the history of the ordinance’s adoption.  According to Nasuti, one of the impetuses for the garbage monopolies in districts across the county was complaints regarding the number of weekly trips made by garbage trucks in neighborhoods.  I have commented before that this is a trivial complaint.  There is not much more I can think to add to what I have previously said, but I would like to counter this argument with a simple illustration.  If eight different haulers serve my neighborhood, that is eight to sixteen trips per week (depending on whether there is as separate trip by a recycling truck).  Every day, a school bus serving each of the local high school, middle school and elementary school makes two trips to my neighborhood for a total of six trips per day.  By Wednesday afternoon, with 12  trips remaining, school buses have surpassed the number of weekly garbage truck trips.  We don’t hear people complaining about the number of times a school bus lumbers through the neighborhood do we?  If this complaint was a key reason for Nasuti to support this ordinance, I would encourage him to think very hard about taking the necessary steps to reverse this unAmerican law.

Nasuti, however, did make some very valid observations about opposition to the ordinance.  He noted that he never heard an outcry until about six weeks ago.  This highlights the point I made previously about residents not being involved.  He also noted that, when it comes to returning constituent phone calls, those who leave voicemails ranting and raving as opposed to offer reasoned feedback will fall to the bottom of the list.  This hit close to home, because I have been guilty of my fair share of ranting and raving here on the Buzz.  I know not to expect a lot of response from my commissioner or any other official on the board.  However, getting personal attention is not the role I play.  Being a vocal critic attracts attention.  In doing so, my goal is to encourage others to get involved, hopefully in a manner that will positively encourage change from our elected officials.  When my criticism attracts attention from the real news media, the goal of awareness is forwarded.  On a good day, 150 people might wander into the Buzz.  However, vastly more people that than will learn of a dissenting opinion when it gets covered, for example, in the AJC or on 11Alive News.

The above being said, I would hope that all citizens, even if very unhappy, remember that our commissioners are people too.  As a result, I would hope my fellow Gwinnettians would, as Chairman Bannister admonished the crowd several times tonight, “be nice.”  These men and women, while definitely politicians, are not the hard-boiled Washington variety.  They are “citizen politicians,” most of whom have a real day job just like you or I.  I know from experience, even if you strongly disagree, they are approachable as individuals and understand that politics will engender disagreement on issues.

To wrap up this up (because I could go on about this for hours), the commissioners got a very loud and clear message tonight.  Commissioner Nasuti even noted that, though they had good intentions - an assertion on which  I will give the benefit of the doubt - there were some points they did not consider.  The people made it clear that those points are far more important than the board may have recognized.  The question remains whether they will act on these citizen concerns.  As one speaker noted, contracts can be broken - corporate America does it all the time.  The board can regain a lot of respect, at least from me, if they are strong enough to admit an error and correct it to the fullest extent of their power.  I hope this is what happens, with or without a court forcing their hand.  I hope the Board of Commissioners do the right thing regarding the garbage ordinance.  However, if they don’t, the people will be watching, and I get the sense that on this issue Gwinnett residents won’t so easily forget, especially come election day.

It is hit or miss for me in agreeing with the AJC’s Rick Badie.  However, Saturday’s column captures the whole matter of principle behind the Gwinnett County Commission’s retreat last week in the north Georgia mountains:

Call me a simpleton, but shouldn’t the county be saving money by any means necessary? Some county employees have been asked to work shorter weeks. Departments must do more with less personnel.

Shouldn’t an example be set by the higher-ups in command?

However, I could not help but shake my head at Commissioner Bert Nasuti’s defense of the trip:

The retreat, [Nasuti] wrote, is not a “perk or getaway.” He views the meeting as a way to focus without distractions on complex issues that involve billions of dollars. Being away, he said, cuts down on buzzing Blackberries, ringing cell phones and other “home-turf” disturbances.

I agree that that an intensive meeting was warranted; I have never suggested otherwise.  However, the excuse about being interrupted by wireless devices is pretty weak.  Cell phones work in places outside of your “home-turf.”  That’s the whole point!  Perhaps the retreat is not a perk, but, if someone needs to get away from ringing cell phones, that can be accomplished by turning them off!  That could have been done at the Gwinnett Place Marriott, the Peachtree Corners Hilton, Stone Mountain’s conference center and, most definitely, the GJAC auditorium.  (You don’t even have to turn off your device in the GJAC auditorium.  I have tried to get online with my phone in there and it didn’t work!)

Frankly, there is not much more that can be said about about the horrendous Gwinnett solid waste ordinance.  I have explained why this program is absolutely unnecessary.  I have pointed out that this ordinance usurps our economic freedom of choice.  I have outlined how this situation an example of out-of-control government.  I have exposed the fallacy of the notion that this program will save us money.  I have noted that government intends to mandate behavior.  However, as the furor over Gwinnett’s socialized garbage program continues to rage, I wanted to take a moment and highlight an aspect of this program which I have not touched upon.  As bad as the above aspects are, several recent articles make clear that the worst consequence of this program is that, in the midst of a recession, people will lose their jobs.

“They put me out of business,” said Buddy Johnson, owner of Southern Sanitation, which has operated in the county for eight years and serves about 5,000 customers. “I’m going to last as long as I can last.”

“We’ve been providing service to Gwinnett County for about the past 13 years,” [Mike Ingle, vice president of Waste Industries] said. “And I was under the impression that we would continue to provide service to [those] residents. Now I’ve got an entire branch operation that has to be shut down and closed, and I will have 46 employees out of work in five weeks.”

S&P Recycling Co., which operates a facility in Lawrenceville, is likely to lose 25 percent of its metro Atlanta market share because of the change, according to Fred Johnson, corporate director of operations.

“To us it’s a big deal,” Johnson said. “The rub we have with it is that it’s going to cost taxpayer jobs and turn them over to prison labor.”

When I consider this aspect of socialized garbage, I realize that the cart collection charge that Allied Waste and Atlanta Waste Industries have charged their customers is fairly minor.  There is a legitimate business cost to collect garbage carts that the Gwinnett County Commission has forced upon these businesses.  Furthermore, I cannot argue with how Atlanta Waste Industries intends to use a portion of the fee proceeds.

Atlanta Waste Industries angered customers this week when it announced it will charge an additional $23.50 for discontinued service when it pulls out of the county Dec. 31. Company vice president Mike Ingle said the fee is to cover benefits to workers affected when the company stops operating in Gwinnett.

It also will defray some shutdown costs. He said he may have to contract for help in collecting about 30,000 carts still in the field.

However, our elected officials do not seem to care.  Though some have reported not receiving prior notification - including my own mother, District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau leaned the fact that stuffers were sent with county water bills this summer.  The irony is that Beaudreau did not defend the ordinance, but rather defended the amount of notification.  Did he tell us why he thought it was ok to take away our freedom of choice?  Did he explain why Gwinnett County can fine me if I do not organize my garbage just so?  As a Buzz reader commented, did he justify why my home can have a lien placed on it rather than simply suspending service should I not pay my garbage bill?  Similarly, District 2 Commissioner Bert Nasuti attempted to legitimize socialized garbage by arguing that it is appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer.  Nasuti claimied that the new ordinance would address the 20,000 Gwinnett residents that do not have garbage service.  However, let’s not forget that there may be perfectly legitimate reasons for not having garbage service.  Nasuti’s defense of this sordid ordinance is even more insulting given his harsh words for the compartively minor issue of the cart collection fee.  In summary, if this is the defense that Beaudreau and Nasuti offered, they did not defend the ordinance whatsover but spewed more talking points. Do they even care that their needless, bloated, big government program will cost real jobs for real people?  Sure, maybe these folks don’t live in Gwinnett and maybe some will get hired by the new haulers chosen by Gwinnett Clean & Beautiful.  But if even one hard-working individual loses their jobs over this ordinance, these commissioners and any other who voted for this, should pay with their commission seats.

My fellow Gwinnettians, our commission has really gotten the best of us on this one.  The most frustrating point yet also the silver lining is that Gwinnett residents only have themselves to blame.  Beaudreau is technically right in that we all had a chance to comment on this.  While I cannot be certain our commissioners would have listened had we spoke out, the reality is that we are in this mess because of our own apathy.  Despite how our commissioners have disrespected us, the main point I would hope my readers recognize is very simple but so important as we move toward 2009.  When you do not pay attention to what your elected officials are doing and you do not get involved, government will run amok, trample over your freedoms and insert itself in as many nooks and crannies of your life as possible.  As has been the case with Gwinnett waste, too many elected officials cannot be trusted to act in our best interest.  My fervent hope is that this controversy will arouse my fellow residents, encourage them to get involved, and prompt them to closely monitor the actions of this commission and all their elected officials at all levels of government.  We ourselves must be engaged either to keep our officials in check or to throw them out of office when they fail us.

Listening to District 2 Commissioner Bert Nasuti, Gwinnett taxpayers should not have worried about the money being spent on the Gwinnett Braves stadium.  The facility would generate more revenue than it cost.  I guess that was supposed to comfort us taxpayers who were effectively made co-signers on the stadium financing deal by our wise Board of Commissioners.  Well, thanks to the tightening economy, the commission’s chickens may be coming home to roost.  The naming rights crucial to generating stadium revenue for Gwinnett County may be a little harder to sell with corporate America seeing profits eroding in front of their collective eyes.

The county projected selling naming rights for $800,000, but a portion of the proceeds would go to the Braves. If the county can’t make a deal by September, the Braves get to sell the rights and keep more of the money.

If naming rights don’t bring in enough to cover the debt, the county might have to cover the cost even as it is cutting staff and expenses amid an effort to trim $35 million from its annual budget, said County Administrator Jock Connell.

…

The likely contender [to cover the shortfall] is property tax revenue from the county’s general fund, although there’s been some discussion about a longshot option — using proceeds from the county’s Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax. Connell indicated that’s unlikely.

At a time when the county is already having difficulties balancing its 2009 budget and with the specter of a property tax hike looming, the construction of a baseball stadium that will bring an unnecessary minor league version of a sport to a major league metro area could worsen that problem.  What makes this all the more galling is the excess stadium costs approved this past summer so that, according to Commissioner Nasuti, the stadium could be built “right.”

The disdain this commission has shown for Gwinnett residents is absolutely appalling.  Baseball stadiums being built for high-dollar private organizations with our tax money.  A socialized garbage program that could fine residents for putting a trash can on a curb at 6:45 in the evening.  An unneeded park planned for an area in order to pursue a political agenda (fortunately that commissioner won’t be on the board come next month).  I am too young to remember details of the misadventures of the Lillian Webb commission in the 1980s, but I have to think that, in terms of sheer disdain for county residents and taxpayers, the current commission is rapidly approaching this low point.

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.

One of the topics that I highlighted during my recent hiatus from the Buzz was the announced cost overruns for the Gwinnett Braves stadium currently under construction in the Mall of Georgia area.  We first learned a week and a half ago that the cost for the new stadium would come in at $59 million, $19 million more than the original estimate of $40 million.  This represents an overrun of nearly 50%! The overrun itself does not make this inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars any more egregious than it already was, but it does highlight the cavalier attitude our elected officials take to using our money.  Once committed to a project, going back to the virtually bottomless well of the public funds is an easier political move than defending the full level of spending at the outset.  Politicians don’t have to carefully consider the business case for the additional costs since the funds can be taken by force from Gwinnett taxpayers.  They only have to calculate the political impact and count on the fact that many voters either fall in line like sheep and gleefully hand over their money or that they are too absorbed in trivial pursuits until a week or two before an election.

So what items are contributing to these overruns?  Surely, this is a case of unexpected increases in the cost of materials, labor, services and other costs associated with a building project, right?  As football commentator Lee Corso would say, “Not so fast, my friend!”

More than a third of the increased cost comes from upgrades from the original plans that include an addition to the concourse to make it completely circle the stadium, a canopy over parts of the stadium and upgraded finishes.

Another third results from additional site work to put stormwater detention underground, build beefier retaining walls necessary to maximize use of the site, increased sewer costs and unexpected rock removal costs, Tucker said.

The increase also includes $1.5 million to make the stadium more environmentally friendly, in part by using partially treated wastewater to irrigate the field and flush toilets.

These enhancements do not seem to fall into the category of unexpected hurdles found after construction began that had to be addressed.  Convenient that they did not get included in the initial design that was foisted upon taxpayers.  And “upgraded finishes?”  Much easier to splurge when the money is there for the taking.  Of the $19 million overrun, only $3.2 million or approximately 17%, can be attributed to the typical cause of higher than anticipated project costs.  However, if you consider this from the perspective of a politician, this all makes sense.

Had the enhancements been included at the time of the stadium proposal, the initial cost would have been over $50 million.  Much easier to commit to the cheaper base model then upgrade to the top-of-the-line model after you have begun  the project.  The Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau admited that the “cost had escalated dramatically because of design decisions made since work at the site began.”  Consider the defenses of members of the County Commission.  District 2 Commissioner Bert Nasuti said, “We’ve got only one opportunity to build it right.”  He was also reported as calling this a wise investment that would produce more revenue than cost.  A large business or factory would bring significant revenue to Gwinnett County, but we don’t see the government building these type facilities for private companies - nor should they!  Perhaps a company locating to Gwinnett may get a preferential tax deal, but that falls far short of building a $59 million facility using $31 million of taxpayer dollars.  District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly said, “I don’t want just to go to a high school field.  I want a first-class facility there.”  Easy to do when you can just take the money from others to realize your goal.  At least District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau displayed some concern about this misuse of taxpayer dollars and implied that he had considered the various business cases available at this juncture.

But I’m not pleased about it, obviously, at all.  I’m very frustrated. But at this point, I looked at every other recourse possible, including plowing it under, and it would all end up being more expensive.

I also take exception to the fact that the board put this question among the “non-controversial” items in their recent meeting.  While I doubt that the comments of citizens would have changed the vote, Gwinnett taxpayers, the very people who are funding the dreams and aspirations of Nasuti and Kenerly, were denied by the board the chance to be heard on the record.  Again, this makes sense from the political point of view: you are about to pick someone’s pocket, so don’t give them a chance to call attention to your actions, especially when you have to go and ask these same people to keep your job when you are next up for reelection.

There is more to say on this issue, but I wanted to first summarize the issue and provide some first thoughts in this initial post before offering a broader framing in a subsequent post.

I have to wonder why politicians so often get the spotlight at major community events.  We often see elected officials shoveling dirt at groundbreakings and cutting ribbons at building grand openings, even though,the politician often has little meaningful involvement or role in the activities that precipitated such events.  Yes, they may vote to allow a complex to be built or play mediator between developers and area residents, but the heavy lifting is usually done by others.  Politicians did not design the new building - an architect did.  Politicians did not work out the nitty gritty details of the financing - a banker did.  Politicians did not develop the construction plan - engineers did.  Politicians did not take the risk to establish the business that will occupy the new complex, an entrepreneur did.  So what did the politician do to be there, front and center, smiling for the assembled media?  They convinced a large group of people to choose them over someone else for an elected office.  Understand, I am not suggesting that politicians are not talented, smart, and capable individuals because many are.  However, politicians campaign, and even the most unqualified person can wind up with the job if he or she has excellent people skills and connections.  Once in office, these individuals wield the power to make decisions on the work of experts that they themselves could probably not get hired to do.   We have recently seen a perfect example of this in Mike Beaudreau’s denial of the T-Mobile cell tower in south Gwinnett.

So what does this have to do with the Gwinnett Braves?
 
As I look at the photos of the new stadium groundbreaking near Mall of Georgia, I realize that we may finally have a case where the politicians should be participating in the event.  After all, our Gwinnett County Commission was so nice to promise the private business that is the Atlanta Braves that Gwinnett taxpayers would gladly cover any revenue shortfalls to ensure that the stadium debt gets paid.  Because our commissioners were so actively involved in arranging the financing of the deal (again, I stress, with our money), Mike Beaudreau and Bert Nasuti should be there tossing a big shovelful of dirt as well participating in the team logo unveiling.