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.

This story is a bit dated but, given that I was complaining recently about Norcross’ plan to expand via annexation, I felt it was only fair that I point out that the plan has been dropped.  I particularly appreciate the comments of Mayor Bucky Johnson (who I would like to note was the Georgia Tech band director when I spent my one week in the Tech band as a freshman!):

However, Mayor Bucky Johnson, who had met with members of the United Peachtree Corners Civic Association and reported their concerns to the council, said “alienating large groups of people isn’t necessarily a good thing.”

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.