Gwinnett Buzz

I know - politicians against crime.  Not exactly huge news.  But the stands against crime taken by District 1 Commission candidates Shirley Lasseter and Bruce LeVell merit mentioning.  

Lasseter is seeking to attract a federal illegal immigrant detention center to Gwinnett.  She argues that “…the lack of an illegal immigrant detention center is one of the reasons illegal immigrant crime is growing in Gwinnett and metro Atlanta.”  While I agree that immigration is a crucial issue facing not only Gwinnett, but America as a whole, I have also come to realize that solutions for this problem are tricky.  Rounding up and shipping illegal immigrants back to their home countries raises a host of difficulties including possible children that are U.S. citizens, finding people to take jobs that illegal immigrants fill, and the sheer logistical issue posed by such an effort.  That being said, I do agree that if you are here illegally and you break other laws as well, you should be sent home.  Inasmuch that a federal detention center will facilitate such a response, I support Lasseter’s effort to encourage the federal government to locate such a facility in Gwinnett.

LeVell has taken a different approach to fighting crime.  He recently responded to a hit-and-run incident by following the perp and notifying the police.  While this is not always the safest response for Joe Citizen to take when he or she witnesses criminal activity, you cannot help but admire LeVell’s passion.

Last week, I attended the candidates forum sponsored by the Gwinnett Village CID for county commission candidates at Meadowcreek High School. This post a week late and I apologize for that to Buzz readers. I am learning that providing thoughtful commentary and doing more than simply posting links, takes more time than one would think. However, I am committed to providing quality insight on Gwinnett issues and happenings and I will strive to improve these turnaround times!

The forum hosted candidates for County Commission chairman and District 1 Commissioner. In this post, I will focus on the chairman candidates. The forum lasted for an hour and a half with candidates offering 60 second answers to various questions posed by the moderator, Channel 2 reporter and Duluth resident Rachel Kim. As such, there were far too many questions and responses to go over each and every one. What I hope to provide here is an overview of my general impression of the candidates, analysis of positions that should be closely examined by the voters, and highlights of their comments.

All three of the chairman candidates - Charles Bannister, Lorraine Green and Glenn Pirkle - participated in the forum. Though I hate to give her credit, Green had the best “stage presence” and was the most well-spoken and passionate. of the three. Bannister often provided short, terse answers that lacked any real passion. Pirkle - well, I am sure he is a nice man - was out of his element and simply seemed out of place. Normally, you would expect a “citizen” candidate with virtually no chance of winning to be someone who is hoping to draw attention to particular issue that is not receiving significant focus from the frontrunners. Pirkle did not even seem to have such an agenda. In my opinion, unless he demonstrates more awareness and understanding of all the issues in the race, he should not be included in any further forums.

Overall, Bannister and Green sounded similar on many issues such as transportation and traffic, illegal immigration, and crime. Regarding TADs, which the commission recently added to the July ballot, both Bannister and Green effectively agreed that this tool would not be for every situation but would allow Gwinnett County to focus on redevelopment or job promotion. Also, both candidates agreed on the importance of addressing illegal immigration. When asked about enforcing ordinances regarding overcrowding in single family homes, both noted limits on the number of people that can live in a single dwelling. While I understand the point of this law is address essentially bunkhouse-style living arrangements in single-family homes, I am concerned that the government could technically bar a family from living together. While most families don’t have eight immediate relatives living at in the same home, a husband and wife, two elderly parents, and four kids, would place such a family at the legal limit. Green noted that the ordinance did not target such a situation, but with the lack of common sense sometimes seen in enforcing laws, I can imagine headlines of the county forcing Grandma to be tossed out to comply with maximum resident ordinance. Though I do have some trouble with the government dictating private family living arrangements, I do applaud efforts to address quality of life issues, especially those that touch on the periphery of illegal immigration. However, if the government infringes upon the right of a single law-abiding citizen or family, then it would be better to fore go such laws. However, Green and Bannister did not agree on all points. The pair sparred over the actual number of cops added to the police force since 2005 when both took office. I have to admit I was not clear on Green’s point, but she definitely took issue with the net addition to the police force, noting a significant number of officers had left the department during the period. While their views on these matters were fairly innocuous, both again displayed a taste for the overburdening presence of government in land use.

Being an event sponsored by the Gwinnett Village CID, an area where revitalization and redevelopment are prominent issues, these topics were leading themes. Both candidates threw out troubling sentiments such as controlling growth and inserting government decisions in place of market decisions. When asked if the current zoning code was sufficient - a code that I would propose is far too extensive and should be reworked to focus on the concept of material impact - both candidates supported changing the code. Green even referred to the code as a living document. I received the distinct impression that neither were favoring reworking the ordinances to enhance private property rights but rather to instill more government control. Regarding redevelopment, Green again displayed her penchant for government decision-making in suggesting that brownfield development be made easier while greenfield development made harder. (Message to greenfield property owners - forget trying gain economically from your property because the government would rather give an advantage to other property owners.) Green further commented that she did not know if the economics were there to support high-rise development in Gwinnett. I would suggest that it is not her or the board’s place to determine whether the economics exist. That is a financial and business decision best left to the free market. If there is a business case for such a development, let private industry make that determination and have the government only ensure that the land use does infrnge upon the property rights of others. I do agree that I would personally prefer to see empty retail centers revitalized or redeveloped as I would assume would most Gwinnett residents. The question is how do you encourage this without stepping on property rights? A better approach would be to give incentives for redevelopment without overtly restricting greenfield development. Leave this to a market decision which would factor in any relevant incentives. This is a far better option than a government prohibition. Bannister’s position seemed to come closer to this ideal when he suggested the creation of overlay districts that allow for by-right building where property is already appropriately zoned.

While neither Green or Bannister offered a complete package, Bannister continues to be the preferred choice in this race. His apparently less stringent views on government intrusion in land use coupled with his desire to cut taxes, continues to place him as the best of the choices for commission chairmain.

Both the Republican and Democrat parties will have questions for their voters on the July 15 primary ballot. The questions for each party will differ and can be reviewed here. I am not entirely pleased with the wording of the Republican questions, but I think the Democrat questions give some insight into what Dems could do to Gwinnett if they manage to claw their way into power in our county.

Republican Questions

Here are a few of the nine GOP questions:

Do you believe that the Federal Government should use taxpayer money to bail out failing banks and lenders and/or the homeowners facing foreclosure?

This is a very poorly worded question. “Bail out” has such a negative connotation. Under some cases and depending on circumstances, should banks and lenders be “bailed out?” Absolutely. Bear Stearns was bailed out to prevent a potential collapse of the financial clearing market. Should individual homeowners be “bailed out?” This is a tougher question. I have concerns about effectively rewarding those who made poor home purchasing decisions. This is especially true of those who bought more house than they could reasonably expect to afford and real estate speculators. I have far more sympathy for homeowners who made rational purchase decisions but have been swept away in the market difficulties. However, how do you separate these groups? How do you provide some assistance but still ensure that you do not establish a moral hazard for those buyers that made ill-advised home purchases? At the end of the day the answer is technically “yes” but reality is far more conflicting.

Should our Georgia Congressional Delegation be dedicated to strongly encouraging the United States Congress and the U.S. Military to advocate that all military and government contracts be awarded to American companies committed to domestic job creation and reinvestment in America’s manufacturing?

Again, this is a poorly worded question. The answer is “yes,” in general. However, I suspect that this is a result of Northrop Grumman recently winning an Air Force tanker contract, beating out U.S. manufacturer Boeing. Why should our military settle for an inferior option simply because a bidder is an American company? This is an example of why this too is not a clear cut question.

Other questions deal with bringing MARTA to Gwinnett (NO), whether the federal government is doing all it can to enforce immigration laws (NO!!) and whether the Republican party has moved too far to the left (YES!!!).

Democrat Questions

A string of questions hint strongly at an anti-development/anti-progress stance. They ask about managing traffic, promoting green space, and managing development, all code words for impeding development, progress and private property rights. However, because of the Democrats’ history being unfriendly to business, I fear such a stance would be worse than even that of some current commissioners. Also, two questions ask about expanding the Board of Commissioners and Gwinnett County School Board. These seem to me to be all about manufacturing a foothold for themselves on these bodies. Currently, the highly Democrat areas are contained and dominated in their districts by the more typical Gwinnett GOP voter. If such areas could be broken apart and the more Democrat-leaning areas given a more self-contained district, the ability to sneak a Democrat member onto either board would be enhanced. In general, I would probably support further subdivision (or at least be neutral to it), but with Democrats pushing for it, we must oppose their power-grabbing efforts!

The Gwinnett County School Board passed a $1.9 billion budget Thursday night.  I have to offer kudos to the board for holding the line on the tax rate.  Yes, there is the issue of tax hikes through valuation increases (see MillageRate.com for more discussion of this), but I am not sure where I stand on assigning responsibility for “backdoor tax increases” to elected officials. So for now, I have to give credit when elected do the right thing.

The most troubling thing I read is that the school system will pay for “four foreign language interpreters…to help the system communicate with parents and students who don’t speak English.”  I have mixed feelings on this.  I do not feel that is the taxpayers responsibility to provide services in any language other than English.  (This is why we need a law making English the official language now while we have a fighting chance to pass it.)  However, I also recognize that parents are crucial to the education process and educating immigrants’ children is important to allowing these kids grow into adults that can pursue the American dream and contribute to our society.  As often as such issues are presented as black and white, that is simply not the case.

On the way home tonight, I stopped a fast food restaurant near my house to grab a drink. As I sat in drive-thru line, I noticed a sign in the unused, first drive-up window that rubbed me the wrong way. The sign asked you to pull forward to the next window. The part that bothered me was that the same request was repeated in Spanish.

Illegal immigration is often discussed on a national level. The politicians in Washington can talk about amnesty, border fences, and guest worker programs all they like, but at the end of the day they show little desire to address an issue that is important to Americans. I recognize the matter is not as simplistic as many would like it to be: “Round ‘em up and ship ‘em back where they came from!” From economics to family dynamics to law enforcement logistics, illegal immigration poses many complicated questions. I welcome those who come to America legally, who want a better life for themselves and their family, who want to assimilate into our country. I even have some sympathy for illegal aliens who are living their lives otherwise legally and contributing to society. However, what really bothers me from immigrants, legal or illegal, are those that do not seem to have the desire to truly become Americans, who seem more attuned to having America resemble their home country. Not learning English is the most glaring manifestation of this refusal. As we allow Spanish to establish itself as a de facto second language in America, we are putting our American culture at risk in a way that has not been done with other immigrant waves in our history.

However, why should immigrants make the effort to learn English when our country makes it unnecessary for them to do so? You call a company’s customer service line and you are asked to press number “ocho” for Spanish. You pick up packaged consumer goods in Home Depot - where the signs on each aisle include Spanish - and the packaging has Spanish right next to English. You visit the ATM and you are presented with the option for English or Spanish. Business is doing far more than government to hasten the dilution of our culture.

So what does this have to do with Gwinnett County aside from the fact that there is an immigration issue here as there is in communities across this nation? Regardless of legal efforts to establish English as our official language (an action most politicians of both parties are unwilling to take due to their preference for votes versus protecting the American culture), nothing will change so long as we, in our local communities across America, do not take action. Besides, laws can only do so much. Businesses are private entities that are free to act as they choose within legal limits. If we are to salvage our American culture and send the message that America welcomes people from different countries but that we expect them to respect our culture and learn our language, we have to act within our sphere of influence. That means, we have to act locally.

I believe in the power of the free market. If we as citizens do not want to leave this issue to the self-serving politicians, we have to vote not only at the ballot box but with our wallets. When we encounter businesses that have little regard for our culture by conducting business with people
in languages other than English, we must be vocal with our displeasure and, if necessary, vote with our pocketbooks. Businesses exist to serve their customers and return value to their owners and shareholders. If doing business in Spanish serves that goal, that, understandably and reasonably, is what they will do. However, if the free market places a value on a business protecting English as our American language such that not doing so negatively impacts profits, we will see a change in the business practices. If the citizens in local communities across America demand this respect from local businesses, more can be done to protect the American identity than any politician can do in state legislatures or the Congress.

In this vein, Gwinnett Buzz has initiated an English, please! list. You can access this list from the menu at the top of this site. There, I will list businesses that I observe empowering the use of languages other than English in their business activities. I also intend to include a contact form where you can submit information on Gwinnett businesses that you encounter behaving in similar fashion. Because this has become so common, not patronizing these businesses may not always be practical. However, expressing our concerns about their business practices to their local and corporate management may be more a realistic way to express our displeasure. I am not suggesting destroying businesses but rather am encouraging them to think about our American culture as well as their profits, making them realize that encouraging the use of English is the most profitable route for them. Together, we can work to preserve our American heritage and ensure that the America to which many immigrants are attracted today remains as strong and as appealing for future generations of established Americans, new Americans, and future immigrants. We can take the first step toward this by insisting in Gwinnett County for “English, please!”

(Note: I would hasten to add that our responsibility as neighbors does not end at placing barriers to the use of languages other than English. We must assist the members of community in learning English by developing and offering classes or sponsoring individuals to attend classes to learn English. Our churches and civic groups can play a significant role in helping our fellow man while protecting our American culture. Again, if we pull together, we can accomplish things on own without relying on government to act for us. As such, I encourage you to submit information businesses, churches, civic groups, or other organizations that are assisting Gwinnett residents in learning English. I will post this information - perhaps in Spanish! - on the English, please! page.)