Gwinnett Buzz

I was reading an article yesterday about the financial challenges facing the new city of Milton, GA in North Fulton.  One characteristic of Milton is seen to be a contributor to their problems:

Only a small portion of the city is commercial property, which hurts the revenue base.

Those of you in Gwinnett who have bought into the anti-growth agenda and the candidates that back this idea should keep this in mind.  For those in District 3, Doug Stacks has raised this very point, that growth contributes to a strong tax base for the county government.  Do we want to find ourselves in a few years having to make similar choices as those in Milton?

For a few months now I have seen the sign that Loganville is getting a Lowe’s at US 78 and Brand Road. Early in the construction, I noticed that the building closest to US 78 was too small to be the home improvement center, but a few weeks later I noted the early stages of construction of a much larger building further back on the property which I took to be Lowe’s. I just assumed that the front building was an auto parts store or something similar. This morning I was passing by the site and noticed the new architectural touch to the building nearest the road - it looked suspiciously like the triangular shape on the front of a Best Buy! I then noticed a large sign I had not previously seen which announced that, indeed, the new development - North Logan Commons - would include a Best Buy! A little research back home revealed that the center, which is scheduled to open next spring, will also include a Dick’s Sporting Goods, PetsMart and Office Max. A companion development, South Logan Commons, is slated to open across US 78 by 2010. The developer, Faison Enterprises of Charlotte, NC, has a property summary page with a leasing brochure that provides more information on the complex.

First, even though I have lived near Loganville for eight years now, the growth of the area still amazes me. I find the transformation of the area absolutely fascinating. When I was in high school in the late 80s, Loganville seemed like such a far away place. It seemed like just a little town with nothing there. The most notable thing about Loganville was Maxie Price Chevrolet which, as long-time residents will remember, made famous the phrase “Whur’s Loganvile?!?” Now, we are getting a Best Buy! Setting aside the fact that I had never heard of Best Buy when I was in high school, had you told me back then this area would change like this, I would never have believed it.

The real point I want to make, however, is the convenience and amenities that development brings. With the addition of these stores in Loganville, residents of both Gwinnett and Walton in surrounding area no longer have to go to Snellville to visit these stores. This saves time and fuel as well reducing miles driven and, in turn, congestion. Aside from going to Barnes & Noble at the Avenue Webb Gin as well as some restaurants (Loganville’s restaurant line-up is still pitiful), I have little need to make trips to Snellville. I suspect that a buddy of mine who lives much closer to this new center than I, will love the convenience this brings. But wait! He was just emailing me this week that he is “anti-growth.” Hmmm…on second thought, John, you should just keep driving to Snellville since you are opposed to growth and development. I would hate for you to have to compromise your anti-growth stance. Same goes for Mike Beaudreau. Next time Mikes wants a CD or a DVD, he should make the drive to Snellville since it would just be wrong to patronize the businesses of a terrible, greedy developer. Sames goes for all the homeowner association activists in the area. They rail on development, so wouldn’t it be hypocritical to take advantage of the conveniences?

The next time you hear the tired and often inaccurate blanket characterization of real estate development as being a detriment to a community take a minute and consider a project such as North Logan Commons. Are the benefits such a development will bring to the Loganville community really a negative like the anti-growth crowd would have you believe? I say a resounding no. I firmly believe that having these conveniences close to home will only improve the quality of life in the southeast fringe of Gwinnett.
View Larger Map

I twittered this question earlier today.  It has been almost a month since candidates qualified for this summer’s Gwinnett primaries and we have yet to hear much - well, anything - from Doug Stacks.  Stacks entered the District 3 Commission race as a challenger to incumbent, Mike Beaudreau.  While I was not too optimistic about the chances of unseating Beaudreau, the fact that Stacks has been nearly invisible means that Mike is running virtually unopposed.  (Ok, technically, there is a Democrat in the general election for District 3 this fall, but in Gwinnett County, the winner of the GOP primary in July can pretty much hang up the campaign walking shoes as that race will be over.)

This evening I googled Mr. Stacks and this is basically what I found.  He is currently the planning manager for the City of Lilburn and has held this position since March.  But wait - what’s this?  Very interesting.  Mr. Stacks represented Crown Point Property in the Strawberry Fields rezoning fight near Loganville last fall.  I find this very exciting!  No, no, no!  Not because I think a developer should always get his or her way.  I have stated on many occasions I believe in the concept of material impact, and that necessarily implies that a developer will likely not have all their proposals approved.  Rather, what I find exciting is that Stacks may not come to the commission with a default bias against developers that Beaudreau’s “community friendly” or “homeowner friendly” growth position implies.  I am encouraged becasue during the Strawberry Fields debate, Stacks reportedly characterized development as “progress.”  Could Stacks be a commissioner that will be more receptive to the reality that developers are a legitimate members of the Gwinnett community who bring a lot of value and amenities to our county?

I could not agree more that development brings progress, because the benefits that development has brought Gwinnett residents have been significant to the continued improvement in quality of life in Gwinnett.  If not for development, we would still be shopping from cramped 30-year old Kroger stores, waiting to buy gas at the few two-pump island stations that were allowed to be built, feeling frustrated at the paucity of housing options due to lack of new, modern construction, and having a single, aging regional mall from which to shop.  Yes, whether we want to admit it or not, we all enjoy the benefits of development in Gwinnett County and it is time that we had a commissioner that represents all members of the Gwinnett community, not just a subset of homeowners who want to freeze Gwinnett in time the day they buy their home.

I would like to invite Doug Stacks to come on the Gwinnett Buzz to outline his positions to the residents of District 3.  Mike Beaudreau will likely win reelection, however, he should not be able to just “walk into the endzone.”  He should receive enough of a challenge so that he must defend his votes of the past four years.  Mr. Stacks, you are the only hope District 3 has in 2008 of regaining our private property rights and our business-friendly environment.  Don’t forfeit the game to Team Beaudreau.

Another proposed cell phone tower, another denial by Mike Beaudreau.

The May public hearing was a fairly ho-hum night, but these two cases really provided for a banner night for the District 3 Commissioner. Before I outline Mike’s missteps tonight, let me first start by publicly thanking the Board for having the courage to continue having an invocation before the hearing. In a society that finds so many ways to try to remove Christianity from the public square, having an invocation before a government meeting was refreshing. Despite my differences with many actions taken by our commissioners, I congratulate them for their strength on this point.

Tonight the board heard the case of the proposed T-Mobile cell phone tower near the Lenora Airport (2008-0435-TSP-2008-00010). There was significant opposition present, but their arguments were weak and did not offer a rational reason to deny the T-Mobile’s request. Unfortunately, as with other tower applications in District 3, logic and reason could not carry the day when pitted against a politician’s natural inclination to pander to voters. T-Mobile’s representative, Michael Sullivan, made several key points. Sullivan noted that cell phone towers are not exactly attractive but neither are other needed community infrastructure including power lines and wastewater treatment plants. He further outlined how restricting cell phone towers to commercial areas - a nation that Mr. Beaudreau seems to support based on a comment he made in a 2007 hearing asking why towers were proposed for residential areas - is impractical and not beneficial. He closed by noting that tower placements are driven by engineering practices.

The fun then started with the opposition taking their turn to address the board. Speaking for fellow pilots based out of Lenora Airport, a local resident presented the board with a series of photos and diagrams. The biggest impression I received from this presentation was to question whether a land use that has to negate the private property rights of so many nearby properties should, itself, be justified. I also found a certain amount of irony that the pilots are claiming that a tower which two studies have found did not pose a threat, was more dangerous than having airplanes take off and land in the extremely close proximity to nearby subdivisions. This fact brings into question the point made by the following speaker who raised the typical cell tower bogeyman - property values. First, what is more disruptive to a homeowner, a plane taking off or landing over your head or a cell phone tower a half-mile away that is built in a stand of trees? I find the property value argument particularly questionable when nearly $300,000 homes backing up to high tension power lines have little problem selling. If a home will sell with a large power pole in the backyard will sell, then where is the rational expectation that a distant cell phone tower will take away substantial value? Also, if such visual clutter was so damaging to value, why would builders willingly give up tens of thousands of dollars in home value by building new subdivisions near such eyesores? Given this, I find little credence in the property value argument. Finally, the last opposition speaker brought up the other common cell tower bogeyman, health effects. Never mind that the FCC has guidelines addressing what makes a tower installation acceptable from an electromagnetic exposure standpoint. Making this speaker’s comments even harder to take seriously was a tone that held a touch of radicalism by including phrases such “plume of radiation” and “human test subjects.” She even managed to get in a comment that seemed to imply that studies done in countries with socialized medicine were more reliable, further coloring he comments as more about pushing an agenda than addressing true concerns about public health. Fortunately, the T-Mobile representative effectively countered the opposition’s arguments.

Sullivan pointed out that T-Mobile had commissioned studies that were completed based on Federal Aviation regulations, not feelings, emotions or one-in-a-million or worst case scenarios. As has been reported, these studies have shown that the FAA would not have taken issue with this tower were it a public airport. Sullivan noted that planes are not supposed to be below 1000′ at the location of the tower. He further added that if a plane were at that flight level near the 126-foot tower, the tower itself would be just one of many potential obstructions including trees and power lines. Finally, in probably his strongest rebuttal, Sullivan pointed out that Gwinnett County had permitted seven tall structures without a half-mile of Briscoe Field including one owned by Gwinnett County.

After Sullivan’s presentation time expired, Beaudreau offered a glimmer of hope that, at long last, he might actually find a cell tower he could not reasonably deny. He asked Sullivan about lighting the tower and Sullivan indicated that, though the tower was not required to be lit, T-Mobile would be willing do so. Having made this offer of compromise, I had faith, hope, that Beaudreau would do the right thing and fairly serve the interests of all residents in his district including a business that provides a vital service to his constituents. However, this was not to be, as Beaudreau’s question served only as a misdirection to his subsequent statement and vote.

I should have realized that we were in for a typical Beaudreau denial when he noted the opposition had made valid points, a claim that while perhaps not quite laughable, was a stretch. Despite noting in another case later in the evening that he was not an engineer, Beaudreau effectively made an engineering judgment when he claimed that T-Mobile had not presented a case for needing a tower in that area. Despite evidence presented by T-Mobile and the lack of an opposition RF engineering analysis, Beaudreau, the man who is “not an engineer” decided that T-Mobile’s need for the site was not proven. Not only does this thrust Beaudreau into the role of an engineer, it further implies that he is able to make determinations as to the competitive needs of a private business. Furthermore, Beaudreau notes the existence of several non-residentially zoned parcels in the vicinity which would be better suited to a tower than the R-100 parcel on which the tower is proposed. Suitability of these sites is also subject to an engineering (as well as zoning and commercial) analysis. To make this suggestion again implies an engineering conclusion as to the claimed suitability, a skill that has that Beaudreau acknowledges he does not possess. Beaudreau closed with some hand-waving regarding the number of towers the board has approved in recent years. However, this does not justify his decision in light of the facts presented in the public hearing. Don’t take my word for it. I encourage you to view the May public hearing video which you can access via the link on the left and consider the points made yourself.

The reality is that Mike Beaudreau continues to vote to interfere with the provision of telecommunication services in District 3. While I am a subscriber of another carrier and am not personally impacted by this decision, as a resident of Gwinnett I am disappointed that my commissioner continues to put the interests of local residents would have not shown they would be materially impacted by a proposal ahead cherished private property rights. I am also concerned because Beaudreau represents areas of Gwinnett County that are still on the frontier of the telecommunications revolution. Many of the latest technologies and services which are available in densely populated areas of downtown Atlanta, Dekalb County, and even western Gwinnett County are still to come in the fringes of District 3. As telecom companies continue to roll these services to the edges of metro Atlanta, will Mike Beaudreau be there limiting the access of his constituents to these services all to pander to a subset of local homeowners? Even if you have no interest in next generation wireless services, what about the negative impact of Beaudreau’s decision on the right of property owners to economically benefit from their property?

Perhaps, you find yourself agreeing that you do not want to look at a cell phone tower and you have no problem with Beaudreau’s opposition. I ask you to consider that situation of you making a reasonable request to the Board of Commissioners for a use of your property that brings you financial gain and does not materially impact your neighbors. However, for whatever reason, your neighbors oppose your request for reasons that amount to little more than personal preference. How would you feel when Mike Beaudreau (or any other commissioner for that matter) says that he recommends denial for your request, thereby potentially costing you thousands of dollars per year? What happened this month could one day happen to you. Think about that as you follow the District 3 Commission race over the next two months. Consider whether you want a commissioner that opposes progress under the guise of “homeowner friendly” or “community friendly” growth, or whether you want a commissioner that has the backbone to stand up for private property rights and represent not just homeowners but all District 3 residents and businesses. The time is now for Gwinnett residents to say enough to the efforts of some homeowners to handcuff other homeowners and residents in our efforts to see Gwinnett continue to progress as a great place to live, work and play.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Spotlight Theatres plans to open a 12-screen cinema in the Landings at Creekside west of downtown Loganville. From what I can tell, this is development near the intersection of US Highway 78 and Hoke O’Kelly Mill Rd where the bowling alley opened in recent months.
View Larger Map

The transformation of Loganville from little more than a wide spot in Highway 78 with a Kuppenheimer factory store and some burger joints to the bustling suburban outpost that it is today still amazes me. Just in the eight years I have lived in the area, Loganville has gained a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Home Depot, Chili’s, Ruby Tuesday, Starbucks, and the bowling alley. A brand new Kroger opened in the last week and a new Lowe’s is in the early stages of construction as well.

Many complain about the traffic that development brings, and, while there is some merit to those points, placement of retail centers in close proximity to where people live decreases the total mileage required for their routine outings. With Lowe’s and Wal-Mart nearby, the number of trips I need to make to Snellville is drastically reduced. Yes, traffic may increase in and around Loganville, but I can avoid having to deal with the traffic headaches of Scenic Highway. As I see it, having these amenities close to home only improves the quality of life in Loganville and I applaud the developers for their contribution to the community!

This was originally posted on The Grayson Buzz in August, 2004.

Gwinnett Opinions-More letters to the editor (AJC.com) (Free subscription required)

There is just so much to respond to in today’s AJC Gwinnett letters to the editor! I would respond with the letter to the editor myself, but I do not know on which topic to focus! (Note: The above link will likely be out of date once AJC.com updates the letters. I will try to remember to update to the archive link but if I do not, just click on “Previous Letters.”)

David Kesler on the “anti-growth” phrase
David Kesler, head of the Gwinnett Place Neighborhood Alliance homeowners union takes exception to the AJC’s use of “anti-growth” to characterize the anti-progress (that is probably just as appropriate a term) crowd in Gwinnett. He tries to spin the term into “smart-growth” or “slow-growth” or “managed-growth” but it all boils down to one fact: to the advocates of these positions, virtually no project ever seems to meet the strict requirements of their smart/slow/managed-growth view. The de facto result is “no-growth.” I think the AJC used “anti-growth” appropriately as that is the eventual result of homeowner union activism.

Mr. Kesler closes with this gem:

“Smart growth” is a calculated effort by a local government to ensure that growth occurs where it is both appropriate and needed.“

As decided by whom, Mr. Kesler? Sorry, Mr. Kesler, but unless the use of my property materially impacts your use and enjoyment of yours, then you should have no role in determining what is “appropriate and needed.” Just evidence of how the homeowners unions seek an extension of the role of government into our lives - something that is neither appropriate nor needed.

Jay Wagner proposes some detrimental policy changes
As if on cue to vindicate the AJC’s use of “anti-growth”, Jay Wagner offers up a wish list of policy changes that would exacerbate all the problems in Gwinnett that the voters allegedly sought to change in defeating Wayne Hill. Several are standard fare for those seeking to impose their will on the county’s property owners: no rezonings when schools are overcrowded (that effectively shuts down all construction in Gwinnett) and a moratorium on apartment construction (forget that you own the property and that you have property rights, Jay Wagner does not like apartments so Mr. Property Owner should be prohibited from developing his property). The most egregious of Mr. Wagner’s wish list is restricting sales tax road funding to existing roadway enhancements and not permitting the county to contribute funds to a cross-county corridor. To be blunt, those last two are insane. To assume that not building new roads will staunch traffic growth is a pure head-in-the-sand mentality. Even if the anti-growth crowd is successful in shutting down all growth in Gwinnett, they will have no impact in neighboring counties. Unless Mr. Wagner proposes that only Gwinnett residents be permitted to traverse Gwinnett roadways (give the homeowners unions time to figure out to pursue this goal), the inter-county traffic will only increase, further choking our roads. If we refuse to plan for traffic growth, the already suffocating Gwinnett traffic will get much, much worse in a hurry. These types of proposals should scare every person who drives in Gwinnett County. Frankly, I have no problem with Mr. Wagner sitting in two hours worth of traffic every morning since he obviously voted against progress in Gwinnett, but the rest of us who had enough sense to not bury our heads like ostriches have to suffer as well. Let’s hope that Mr. Wagner is a lone voice in the wilderness or Gwinnett is going to be in worse shape than even I feared.

Clem Jones has a problem with Emory Morsberger defending his property rights
Mr. Jones’ letter is a classic anti-progress rant. He, too, tosses out the overcrowded schools argument. He complains that Mr. Morsberger is suing on the basis that state law prevents the county from refusing his building proposal based on school overcrowding, asking “Can you think of a better reason?” Sorry Mr. Jones, but in America, besides property rights, we have little annoyances called laws and when a governing body denies economic liberty while violating these laws, the victim is entitled to seek a remedy in the courts. In Mr. Jones’ world apparently, the ruling of the County Commission should be absolute (I wonder whether he would be such a staunch defender if the ruling had went in favor of Mr. Morsberger?) without regard to any relevant legal guidelines. He echoes a theme similar to that of Mr. Kesler in saying that the zoning process is intended to ensure that building proposals are “sound and will benefit the community.” Another Gwinnett citizen who wants the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my property.

Possibly the most troubling comment made by Mr. Jones is that Mr. Morsberger “puts his own interests ahead of the general population.” This is an incredibly anti-capitalistic statement. Consider this statement in light of this quote from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (courtesy of Nealz Nuze):

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Denise Dutton on parents dropping kids off at Snellville Middle School
The last letter on which I want to comment veers away from the anti-growth movement. Denise Dutton writes about the traffic difficulties associated with dropping off her children at Snellville Middle School. On one particular morning when the traffic was particularly bad (imagine the horror of a middle schooler getting a little wet!), Ms. Dutton complains about the Snellville police instructing parents to move to the shoulder of the road which includes “residential driveways, long grass, large mudholes, directional signs, and…trees.” She takes issue with the officer threatening drivers over his loudspeaker with “expensive” tickets if they did not clear the roadway. (Personally, I am glad to see police trying to improve traffic conditions and threatening tickets to those that truly are causing traffic problems as opposed to enhancing revenue with speeding tickets…but that is another post for another day.) The main point is her contention that drivers were “doing the best they could in the pouring rain.” No, Ms. Dutton, they were not doing the best they could. Have you ever noticed that big yellow bus that drives past your home every morning? It is not the latest in Gwinnett public transportation - it is a school bus, there to take your child to Snellville Middle School. The best you could have done would have been to let your youngster board that bus in the morning and enjoy a free ride to school. If all the parents who were pampering their kids in that school line that morning had done the same, there would have been no significant traffic problem and the Snellville PD would not have had to threaten anyone with tickets to keep the road clear for people who needed to get somewhere. The most laughable comment is her assessment that incidents like that morning is “not the way…to create a good education program for our children.” Sorry, but I do not follow. Perhaps Ms. Dutton could cite a study that states that parents dropping their kids off results in better academic performance than with kids who ride the bus. No, the real result of the incident that morning was that it failed to help parents continue to pamper their children and raise a generation of softies.

This was originally posted on The Grayson Buzz in August, 2004.

In yesterday’s Gwinnett runoff, the anti-progress vote won out. Charles Bannister defeated Wayne Hil for Commission Chairman and Mike Beaudreau bested Dwight Harrison for District 3 Commissioner. I am not as concerned about the Bannister win as I think he has a reasonable approach to the need for growth and progress in the county. I had written here, before endorsing Wayne Hill, that I was even undecided between Bannister and the incumbent Chairman. I call for Mr. Bannister to fulfill his campaign position of reexamining Wayne Hill’s anti-smoking ordinance.

The race that truly concerns me is the Beaudreau win. I preface my comments by saying that I am sure he is a fine person with good intentions for Gwinnett. However, his stated anti-progress position is very troubling, especially when you consider he represents what may be the most growth-prone areas of Gwinnett. He made a big deal out of not taking money from developers during this campaign. While I understand his ethical argument that he would be in a position to make decisions as a commissioner on projects backed by these same developers, his campaign communications seemed to position this stance more as an anti-growth position than an ethics position. After all, will he not be in a position to render decisions that impact property owned by individual contributors? The most troubling part of this is position is the fact that developers are part of the community as well. While a development company as an entity cannot vote and, thus, is not technically, a constituent, it definitely pays taxes as an entity. Why should developers not have their interests considered by the government as well? Also, why does everyone bash developers? Their projects bring jobs to the area, they build the houses in which we live, the stores in which we shop, and other conveniences that the citizens use - even those citizens who adamantly demand a cessation of progress in southeast Gwinnett.

I will give Mr. Beaudreau the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise. The stances one takes in a campaign are often met with reality once in office. I am not suggesting that Mr. Beaudreau would intentionally say one thing to get elected and then act in another manner. What I am suggesting that once he is a commissioner, I hope he realizes the true damage that can be done to Gwinnett County by stonewalling progress. I also hope that he realizes that such an anti-progress agenda can do much to infringe upon the economic liberty of residents of Gwinnett County and those of District 3.

The biggest thing I do not want to hear are complaints from the southern Gwinnett homeowner’s unions if traffic gets worse, conveniences erode, and taxes increase. In voting for an anti-progress agenda this is the environment they implicitly supported. I have little sympathy if they have to suffer the consequences of their position. The sad part is that the rest of us in Gwinnett will be taken along for the ride.

This was originally posted on The Grayson Buzz in July, 2004.

With all precincts now reporting, Charles Bannister has won second place in today’s Gwinnett Commission Chairman race (pause for raucous applause as Gwinnett avoids the threat of a Marcia Neaton-chaired commission). While the margin between Neaton and Bannister was a 260 votes, I would not be shocked to see Marcia whining and demanding a recount. With the new electronic voting machines, this would unlikely change anything, but with Neaton’s history of rabble-rousing on the commission, I would not be stunned at such a turn of events.

See my previous post as to the implications of this result on the eventual winner of the Chairman’s seat. Unfortunately, I feel that this runoff is Bannister’s to lose. I fully expect the strong anti-Hill contigent among the Neaton camp to back Bannister, if for no other reason than to vote against Hill. The good news is that Bannister seems to have a rational approach to growth and could prove to be a solid Commission Chairman. The threat to the quality of life in Gwinnett, however, lies with the District 3 runoff. Even with Bannister or Hill at the helm, with Lorraine Green representing District 1, Mike Beaudreau potentially coming out of the District 3 runoff, and the wild card, Bert Nasuti, the Gwinnett Commission could take on a decidely anti-progress tone.

This was originally posted on The Grayson Buzz in July, 2004.  Certain non-Gwinnett commentary has been removed.

In Gwinnett legal and law enforcement circles, the husband and wife crime fighting duo of Sheriff Butch Conway and Judge Carla Brown were reelected.  Nothing may come of this, but this is just not a good situation for the residents of Gwinnett.  Let’s hope that Sheriff Conway and Judge Brown can uphold their offices with complete integrity.  One question though - Judge Brown, why don’t you go by Judge Conway?  I would be curious as to the polling results had she taken her husband’s name.

Last on the bad news front in Gwinnett, we come to the Commission races where the homeowner unions and anti-growth and progress crowd are likely greatly enjoying their evening.  John Dunn failed to make the runoff in the Gwinnett Commission District 3 race.  Mike Beaudreau garnered the most votes with Dwight Harrison coming in second.  In the runoff, District 3 voters are left with a choice almost as unfortunate as in U.S. Senate race.  While Dwight Harrison will likely take a more realistic approach to growth, supporting the local VW dealer requires one to support a man who uses cross dressing to promote his dealership.  Of course, the alternative is a head-in-the-sand slow-growth proponent who could well bow down to the homeowners union special interests (I hope to do a point by point analysis of the Beaudreau anti-growth platform prior to the runoff - check back with the Buzz for this special report!).  To me, neither is an attractive choice.  Again, the situation is much like that in the Isakson race - hold your nose and vote for Dwight Harrison to prevent the anti-growth crowd from gaining a toehold in the Gwinnett Commission and exacerbating our traffic, congestion and tax problems.  A similar result occurred in the District 1 commission race where Lorraine Green soundly defeated George Thorndyke.  Ms. Green has a track record of opposing progress so get ready for her to step right in where Marcia Neaton left off.  Despite her views, Gwinnett District 1 residents can only hope she is a more competent commissioner than Neaton.

Which brings us to some good news for the evening.  Incumbent commission Chairman Wayne Hill outpolled his opponents but will be forced into a runoff.  As of this writing, Charles Bannister holds a razor thing advantage over Neaton of 116 votes with one precinct outstanding.  First, I am glad that Chairman Hill received more votes than either of his opponents.  With his runoff opponent still in the air, the question is which candidate would provide Hill better odds in a couple of weeks?  I would think Hill would be in better shape to run against Neaton in the runoff.  From my assessment of the race, the Neaton camp is rabidly anti-growth.  In fact, Neaton supports come across as rather hostile to the current Commission and Hill in particular.  I think it highly unlikely to expect a significant portion of the Neaton camp to support Hill.  However, the Bannister platform seems to just be in favor of a change and less stridently focused on pushing an anti-growth agenda.  Considering the numerous negatives of Marcia Neaton, I think Hill has a chance to garner the third of the Bannister supporters required to win reelection.

While I am not thrilled with the outcome of all races, I am encouraged by by Wayne Hill advancing out of tonight to the runoff.

This was originally posted on The Grayson Buzz in July, 2004.

This was probably the toughest Gwinnett race for me in making an endorsement. I initially was prepared to endorse Wayne Hill on June 28, but a few days later, after reading a Q&A from the Gwinnett Daily Post I was impressed with some of Charles Bannister’s views. This prompted me to reconsider my position on this race. As of Tuesday night, I still had not made up my mind when I was driving home from a meeting with my Marketing class project group. What made my decision for me was crossing from North Fulton County into Gwinnett. Allow me to explain.

I was travelling on McGinnis Ferry Road making my way home from Alpharetta. If you are familiar with this road in North Fulton, you know it is a two-lane road through a primarily residential area. It is a nice region but, aside from its intersection with Medlock Bridge in the Johns Creek area, it has a feel not unlike Gwinnett twenty years ago. I crossed the Chattahoochee and I had not gone 500 yards and there before me, McGinnis Ferry become a modern four-lane thoroughfare. At the intersection with Peachtree Industrial, there were a variety of amenities, the types of which most people avail themselves, all close and convenient to home (especially for North Fulton residents). Restaurants, gas stations, supermarkets. This in addition to well-lit, modern highways. I continued homeward taking McGinnis Ferry to Satellite Blvd. and then to Lawrenceville-Suwanee and eventually to Sugarloaf Parkway. Not until I reached Georgia Highway 20 south of Lawrenceville did I have to drive on a dark, two-lane road. Over 15 miles of roadway, from one end of the county to almost the other, never less than a four-lane road. Furthermore, to support the exploding growth in the Grayson-Loganville corridor (growth that our friends in Bay Creek would like to stop now that they have moved in), Highway 20 is slated for widening in the near future! Interspersed all along this route are businesses and amenities convenient to local residents. Sorry, Marcia Neaton - you can mail out all the flyers you want with pictures of clear-cut property and “Wayne’s World” spalshed across the top, but what I just described is what is really Wayne Hill’s Gwinnett.

My main point is that growth is going to happen. You cannot stop it because there is a concept in America called private property rights. You can promise to block development all during the campaign but the reality is that you have to respect the right of property owners to better themselves economically by developing their property or selling appreciated property to those who will. Sure, you can vote to deny, deny, deny, permits all you want but unless there is a valid reason for this beyond bowing to the whims of the neighborhood unions (also known as homeowners associations) you will wind up getting Gwinnett County sued over and over in court. In fact, Neaton’s head-in-the-sand approach could well cost Gwinnett millions to defend a torrent of lawsuits from property owners denied legitimate use of their property by unjustified zoning and permitting denials by a Neaton-led Commission. Thus, rather than taking an obstructionist stand as proposed by the likes of Neaton, Mike Beaudreau, and Lorraine Green, does it not make sense to try to ensure that we optimize the benefit of the growth to Gwinnett County?

Neaton argues that our taxes are too high in Gwinnett, which they are, but this is not because of Wayne Hill or growth. I just received my 2004 property tax bill and my school taxes are twice what my county taxes are! The school taxes are the bulk of the tax problem in Gwinnett and the Commission Chairman has limited impact on this portion of the tax bill. Furthermore, as Tim Riley in the District 1 school board race points out, growth increases the tax base which in turn increases revenue to the county. Even if the county did stop growing, have you encountered a government that wants to take a small bite out of your wallet, especially one run by a liberal Republican? What happens when the county budget continues to grow but the tax base has stagnated? You guessed it - up go the millage rates or on come the bond referendums. Maybe Marcia should explain how she hopes to address the tax question. Her website has nothing even closely resembling a plan. But let’s not let this become a post on why you should NOT vote for Marcia Neaton - a vote for Charles Bannister would suffice to accomplish that goal. The point is why you should vote for Wayne Hill.

Consider my contrast between North Fulton and Gwinnett. Wayne Hill has given us our money’s worth for our tax dollars. The residents of North Fulton are paying at least as much and probably a whole lot more in taxes and what do they have to show for it? Crossing the ‘Hooch on McGinnis Ferry is like night and day. On the Gwinnett side, we can see where those tax dollars are going: ultra-modern roads and traffic signalling, vast amounts of park land and greenspace (another issue that concerns my libertarian streak but a topic for another day), and attractive, respectable development close to home. Do we have traffic? Absolutely. Does North Fulton have traffic? Absolutely, maybe even worse in places than Gwinnett. Would you rather fight that traffic on two lane roads from twenty years in our past or fight it on wide, well-designed four-to-six lane highways? I know which I would choose and I can thank Wayne Hill that I have that option. What is Marcia Neaton’s traffic plan aside from pointing out that we have traffic issues? While I am not a user nor do I have a desire to be a user, Wayne Hill has brought a public transit system to Gwinnett. Consider how much worse the traffic would be if half of the supermarkets and restaurants had been denied during the permitting and zoning process? Residents would have to drive twice as far as they do now, further clogging out roads. Is this Marcia Neaton’s idea of slow-growth, to make things harder than they already are for the residents of a rapidly growing county?

Is Wayne Hill the perfect candidate? No. I am still upset about his strong advocacy of the smoking ban. I do not think that that is a trivial thing. However, I think he has done enough to improve the quality of life in Gwinnett as well as proving to be an effective manager of a very large enterprise, the Gwinnett County government, that he deserves one more term. This is not to say that Bannister might not make a fine Chairman, but he is unproven in that role. The type of leadership that is required of a state legislator and a commision chairman are different. If you still feel you just cannot vote for Wayne Hill, then I encourage you to vote for Charles Bannister. The most important point in Tuesday’s Republican primary is to vote for any candidate except Marcia Neaton. Despite what the Marcia Neatons and Bob Griggs of the world would have you believe, Wayne Hill has served Gwinnett County well for the last 12 years and has earned your vote.