Gwinnett Buzz

I was under the impression that local governments were implementing red light cameras for safety purposes.  Isn’t that what we were lead to believe when these Big Brother elements were introduced by Gwinnett cities?  Well, now that ticket revenues are on the decline, Gwinnett cities are ready to scrap the devices.

Duluth, Lilburn, Norcross, Snellville and Suwanee have either suspended use of the cameras or plan to stop the service altogether.

City officials agree the cameras, which monitor and record red-light violations, are working. Violations, accidents and injuries are down. But so are citations, which help pay for the automated ticketing program that can cost some cities more than $400,000 a year to Norcross-based LaserCraft.

So, I guess if a city does not make money from the Big Brother devices, they are willing to forego the safety benefits.  Don’t get me wrong.  I have been opposed to these cameras since day one.  No, I have never been cited by one - I stop for red lights! - and I can certainly see how it would make drivers more careful at monitored intersections.  However, the idea that I can be ticketed for someone else who might be driving my car is absurd.  

When did the police department become a profit center for government?  Granted, there has been strong suspicion that some municipal police departments are often little more than revenue collection agencies, but this story leaves little doubt.  Such motivation is even more reason that the Georgia General Assembly should enact legislation that bans cities under a certain population from having a local police department.  At a minimum, legislators should address how revenues from traffic enforcement are used.  The direct link between enforcement efforts and revenue should be broken.  If it were, I think we would see just how many city speed traps are motivated by safety.

I was catching up on some Gwinnett blog feeds today and I came across a Gwinnett Daily Post article linked from the Corinth Hills Neighborhood Association site.  (Note to the GDP, please add RSS feeds to your website!  Your articles often cover more Gwinnett news with greater depth than the AJC, but the limitations of your website make it challenging to access your reporting if I happen to miss an article while it is posted on your main news pages!)  The article summarized a recent meeting held at Parkview High School about a possible residential annexation by the City of Lilburn.  This is old news, but I wanted to highlight comments made by Gwinnett Commissioner Mike Beaudreau:

Gwinnett County Commissioner Mike Beaudreau also was on hand, but he had a much different opinion from [State Representative Clay] Cox’s. 

“I have a different perspective than Rep. Cox,” he said. “I think the (unincorporated) area is doing well.” He added that adding a layer of government doesn’t solve problems.

“We do not stand in favor of this annexation at all,” he said. “This community doesn’t need more government.”

Well said, Mike!  This is a case where the Buzz and Commissioner Beaudreau are in lockstep.  If only he could be this consistent about government involvement in our lives with respect to private property rights, I could be an enthuiastic supporter of my commissioner.  However, I will have to be satisfied with the occasions where I can be in Mike’s corner.

Last week I blogged about Lilburn’s plan to double its size via annexation.  Forunately, a Buzz reader brought to my attention a follow-up article in the AJC reporting that the city has moved away from the effort to annex residential areas.  The city will move forward with with its attempt initiative to annex approximately half a square mile of commercial property.  This decision was the result of significant feedback from residents in the impacted area:

“The city has heard enough from a lot of folks who say, “We think [the annexation] is a wonderful thing, but how am I going to come up with additional dollars?’” City Manager Bill Johnsa said. “There are city taxes, make no mistake. We haven’t tried to hide that fact.”

I applaud city leaders for hearing the voice of the residents and acting in response.  I also appreciate the fact that they are not trying to hide the potential tax impact.  If the city does proceed with the residential annexation in 2010, at least residents will know that the City of Lilburn took their feedback into account.

Gwinnett Board of Commissioners, are you taking note of this example?

Two Gwinnett cities are seeking to annex nearby area in order to grow their communities.  Last week, the AJC reported that Norcross would its increase land area by about 50%, adding 4000 residents in the process.  Last month, the AJC reported that Lilburn was seeking to grow, a move that would make it the second largest city in Gwinnett.  The annexation would double Lilburn’s population to 24,000 and more than double the city’s land area.  

The question I would like to ask of Norcross and Lilburn is why?  What is the justification for enlarging your cities?  Lilburn City Manager Bill Johnsa says, “It’s time for Lilburn to grow.”  ”Time to grow” is not a compelling reason to add a layer of government to an area.

Maybe it has to do with the shape of the cities.  Norcross’ annexation would “[square] off the city.”  Lilburn would benefit from a smoothed city border as well:

Also, smoothing rough Lilburn boundary lines would “give us some consistent boundaries, so if you’re going down the road, you know properties on both sides are in the city,” said Doug Stacks, city director of planning and economic development.

(Yes, that is the same Doug Stacks that ran against Mike Beaudreau last summer for District 3 commmissioner.  If anyone questions whether I can be critical even of someone I support here is your evidence.)  Having a city limit down the middle of a road is hardly a compelling justification for expanded government.

I figure the most likely reason is money. Though Norcross mayor Bucky Johnson notes that his city’s proposal would be revenue neutral, Lilburn may stand to gain financially from its expansion.

Lilburn would add $1.9 million a year in property tax revenue, with the inclusion of 4,800 residential and 188 commercial parcels.

Couple this with the fact that Lilburn wants to join the ranks of Gwinnett cities with bloated city hall buildings and we may be onto something.  (The question of why, in the depths of a recession, a city government intends to spend $8 million on a grandiose city hall is a question that could be an entire seperate post!)  While money does not explain Norcross’ motivations, revenue seems to be the most likely reason that it is “time for Lilburn to grow.”  After all, never discount the propensity of government to grow and expand its sphere of influence.

Just this week I argued that we should be eliminating small municipal jurisdictions not growing them.  Except for the largest cities, I fail to see why a community should fund an additional layer of government.  Case in point, Johnsa points out that Lilburn’s “city services — including police, planning and code enforcement — also would grow.”  Doesn’t Gwinnett County already provide those services to the area that would be incorporated into the city?  While Lilburn will spend more to provide these services, Gwinnett will likely be unable to scale back its costs to a matching degree.  The net effect of this growth would be greater overall governmental inefficiency.  There is a reason businesses merge, one of which is to eliminate inefficient duplication of tasks.  Government is doing the polar opposite.

What is not clear from the article is whether impacted residents get to vote on this Liliburn annexation as residents near Norcross will.  If those directly impacted choose to vote this in, I have much less alarm over a government power and revenue grab.  However, I still fail to see an a strong justification for either Norcross or Lilburn’s initiatives.

Monday night, the Lilburn City Council denized a rezoning request for senior citizen housing and office and retail space at the intersection of Killian Hill and Arcado roads.  Now, you may be expecting another harangue against government abuse of property rights and political games by politicians.  If so, you should read one of the numerous others posts on the Buzz that make those points.

View Larger Map

I should note at the outset that I do not have many details regarding this proposal, so I am limited to what was reported about last night’s hearing by the AJC and the Gwinnett Daily Post.  However, based on this information and looking at the aerial imagery of this intersection, my initial reaction is that I would side with the residents in their opposition.  This development does appear to be out of character for an area that is almost exclusively dense residential (though you will note, this did not stop Gwinnett County schools from plopping the new Trickum Middle School and all the traffic it generates in this area - but that is an entirely different post).  However, I do want to highlight some of the comments that were made last night and discuss their importance with respect to property rights.

As reported by the Daily Post, the developer questioned the legality of the current zoning on the property.

“The R-100 zoning is unconstitutional,” Scott Peters of Match Properties said. “The property has no economic use as is. We attempted to reach a consensus with the opposition.”

This point is key.  Even if the land use does not fit the area, if the property truly does not have an economic use as R-100, then Peters’ claim of unconstitutionality may have merit.  The zoning could legally amount to unreasonable seizure of economic value by the City of Lilburn.  I certainly do not have enough information from two newspaper articles to assess the validity of this claim, but it is a point that, at a minimum, deserves careful consideration.

The residents who spoke in opposition made some claims, as well, that are demonstrative of the points often made in land use cases by nearby residents.  The AJC reported this comment by Thor Johnson, president of the Lilburn Business Association:

They came for a residential area “that was family friendly, where you can go to church right up the street. That’s what they want, and so when someone comes in and says we want to build a commercial entity here, we say no.“

That is an illogical statement.  What one group of property owners wants trumps what another wants?  Who says which “want” is superior?  This is precisely why land use decisions cannot be made solely on what any given property owner wants or does not want.  I am not suggesting that the desires of a community are unimportant, but wants and desires are not legal standards on which land use decisions have to be made.  Furthermore, property rights are not subject to what anyone else wants.  Like other rights, they are inherent to the property owner and not subject to the whims of others.

Johnson went on to say:

“We believe that it’s a domino effect,” Johnson said. “If you allow commercial development in a residential area, your property values will go down, subsequent things will change” and eventually, schools will be overburdened and unable to provide a top-notch education, he said.

This is hardly a cogent argument.  Does Mr. Johnson have proof regarding the property values claim?  Aside from the recent difficulties in the housing market, falling property values in recent decades in a rapidly developing Gwinnett County have not seemed to be an issue.  Thus, I have difficulty believing this assertion.  Also, how does a senior center and a few commercial offices overburden the schools?  Are septuagenarian retirees going to middle school and high school now?  To be fair, this is not a quote by the AJC, so perhaps Mr. Johnson made an effort during his statement to draw a connection between this development and increased demands on the schools.  Regardless, I would point out that the schools are a service to the residents of a community; the residents do not serve the schools.  The utilization of schools should not raise a bar to anyone’s property rights; rather, the schools should adapt to serve the needs of the community.

So, if I agree with Council, why am I highlighting claims of the applicant and questioning the positions taken by the opposition?  First, I cannot be completely sure that the council made the fair choice given the limited information available.  The points highlighted above could be crucial should information arise that calls into question the ruling of the city council.  Second, the comments by the opposition serve as examples of the weak claims often made by opponents in land use cases.  In this case, I sense that their opposition is warranted even though their arguments carry questionable merit.  Ensuring that the council made its decision for the proper legal reasons and out of the proper respect for private property rights is crucial.  If they made their decision simply out of a desire to pander to voters, then this motivation will likely be used to infringe on property rights in the future.  As such, the motivations of government in any circumstance are not beyond question by citizens so that we can assure that that government does not overstep its authority, now or in the future, with respect to our rights.