Gwinnett Buzz

Last month I highlighted how Gwinnett County’s proposed long-range plan was unfriendly to the property rights of Gwinnett property owners.  Unfortunately, the Gwinnett County Commission approved that plan Tuesday.  The City of Dacula remains concerned about the impact of the plan on economic development in the area surrounding the city.  That vocal champion of property rights, District 1 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau (readers new to the Buzz should note the heavy sarcasm of that comment) had this to say with respect to Dacula’s concerns:

But Commissioner Mike Beaudreau, whose district includes Dacula, said the plan is more about the county’s long-term viability than short-term goals.

“It’s trying to steer the growth in the future to the areas that have the infrastructure,” Beaudreau said. “That’s something citizens have been calling for for decades.”

I wonder if those citizens “calling” for this plan have economic stakes in the land near Dacula?  Driving growth toward existing infrastructure sounds great if you are not one of the those landowners.  Besides, doesn’t government exist to meet our needs (i.e., develop the infrastructure citizens need) rather than for us to serve government (i.e., focus our economic choices around what the government has built)?  This plan effectively limits the economic uses of these parcels of land.  Limited choice depresses value which negatively impacts the wealth of landowners.  Given that land holdings are often a major component of someone’s personal wealth, this plan could be a significant drag for those impacted.  Furthermore, there is the valid concerns of the City of Dacula regarding economic development in its area.  Fortunately, Gwinnett County does seem to be willing to listen to Dacula’s concerns:

Despite the approval Tuesday, which came after state review of the plan, the county’s discussions with Dacula will continue. A mediation hearing is scheduled for the dispute, and County Administrator Jock Connell said leaders could choose to amend the plan based on the results.

Let’s hope Gwinnett County will be as receptive to all landowners harmed by this plan even if those individuals do not have the weight of a city council behind them.

Could Gwinnett County’s comprehensive long-range plan ultimately result in limiting private property rights?  On the surface, that is a vapid question, for planning and zoning does exactly that - limit private property rights.  Such limitations are often reasonable and acceptable as government seeks to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders in a community.  However, what about situations where a plan is placed ahead of property rights merely because it is “the plan?”  Such a scenario could be brewing in Dacula as a result of the recently adopted Gwinnett County 2030 Unified Plan.

The City of Dacula is concerned that the plan could limit the municipality’s future goals of economic development.

“It might be appropriate for certain pockets, but don’t blanket the whole eastern part of the county [with a rural designation],” said City Administrator Jim Osborn, adding that the proposal is “180 degrees opposite” of the city’s own plan.

He said the county’s plan would exclude everything but green space, agricultural and residential lots over one acre on Dacula’s outer rim.

“The only thing they want to see is parks, executive housing and large-lot residential,” Osborn said. “They’re really killing economic development in Dacula and the eastern part of the county.”

Osborn is referencing the Gwinnett plan’s use of “character areas.”

In a departure from previous planning practice, which assigned a future land use to each parcel in the county, the new plan creates “character areas” meant to encourage builders to locate developments that reflect the local personality of a community.

This raises a few questions.  At what point in time is the “local personality of a community” determined?  2009?  Or 2030?  And if it is the latter, is a designation of rural in Dacula 21 years hence a reasonable and realistic expectation?  For those of you who have lived in Gwinnett for 21 years or more, think back to what the county was like in 1988.  Quite different wasn’t it?  In some ways things were better then, but in other ways, we have benefited from the growth and change in our community.  Can we reasonably expect - no…can we reasonably demand - that the character of Dacula remain constant for two decades? Is there fairness for landowners in this area who may be having their future options reduced in a blanket manner?

If you are one of the many Gwinnettians that typically fall on the side of limited or no growth, I invite you to consider the following hypothetical case.  It’s 2022 and you own a large tract of land on the outskirts of Dacula, say in the Harbins area south of GA 316.  A developer approaches you about purchasing your land in order to build a mixed-use entertainment, commercial, office and residential development.  (By this time, GA 316 is an access-controlled highway that serves as a major commercial and business corridor between I-85 and Athens.)  Because the area has been forced to remain rural, there are some parks in the area and a few neighborhoods with large homes and lots, but Harbins generally feels much like it does today.  As such, there are no immediate residential neighbors to your property and access to the development would be directly from GA 316.  The implication here is that there is limited material impact on other property owners in the vicinity.  This is a great opportunity, a chance to solidify your financial future.  You are ready to sell but five-term District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau (we can only hope his career has taken him to the state house or even Washington by this time and out of Gwinnett, but for fun we will assume he is still on the Board!), says “No, we cannot approve this development.”

You ask, “Why not?  It is not really hurting anyone and, if I can only sell it to the county for a park or to low-density home builders, I will lose missions of dollars.”

Mike’s response?  “Well, the plan requires that this area remain rural.”

My friends, this is precisely the problem of adhering to the plan simply because it is the plan.  To be fair, the above is a gross oversimplification to illustrate the danger of painting with too broad of a brush in land use decisions.  Surely, if the character of the GA 316 corridor had changed that dramatically, Gwinnett County would have reexamined the area surrounding the highway in the eastern part of the county.  However, as depicted, the failure to consider the specific merits and faults of an individual land use proposal out of deference to a high-level master plan is, at a minimum, a threat to private property rights.  While you may like Harbins as it currently is - I do too! - as a rural area, consider if it were you whose major real estate asset were artificially depressed in value solely to satisfy the preferences of a group of citizens who may not have anything directly invested in your small community.  This is why private property rights are so important, so precious, and why we cannot let government at any level subjagate those rights except when preventing a negative material impact to the property rights of anyone else.