Gwinnett Buzz

DA Danny Porter will be asking the County Commission on Tuesday for persmission to dip into drug seizure funds in response to Gov. Sonny Perdue’s mandatory state budget cuts.  The funds would cover positions in the DA’s office that receive funding form the state.  Seems like a reasonable request to me.

The Gwinnett County Police Department have released a report report noting that 2008 crime stats in Gwinnett are improved.  I find this ironic given Lorraine Green’s runoff mailer.  She takes an inflammatory headline - “Drug wars, kidnapping move into Gwinnett” - and says “After Four Years, We Are Not Safer.”  However, even if 2008 is worse than 2005, you cannot blame the first three years on Charles Bannister without giving him the credit for last year. Lorraine, you can’t have it both ways.  So which is it?  If crime is Charles’ fault, then he deserves credit for the improvements of the past year.  If you do not want to give him credit for the improvements, then you cannot lay all the problems at his feet at the same time.

(In reality, I question just have much a single Gwinnett comissioner impacts this either way short of gutting a police department.  Yet, politicians love to accept credit for decreases in crime and point fingers for increases in crime.

The Gwinnett County schools are keeping their police force busy.  While most of the incidents in that list are bona fide criminal activity - underage drinking and drug possession, for example - some make you wonder if school has become a police state.  Two incidents are pranks are questionable if they merit giving students a criminal record, even if only of the juvenile variety.

Police were seeking warrants to arrest three teens who covered two staircases with cooking oil, eggs, flour, oil and shaving cream as a prank near the final days of school. The students — two 17-year-old females and an 18-year-old female — face charges of reckless conduct and disruption of public schools.

Potentially dangerous?  Absolutely.  Worthy of punishment?  No doubt.  A nice stint of suspension is certainly warranted.  Criminal?  I think that is a bit much.

A Meadowcreek High School student was arrested for disorderly conduct after he allegedly threw a water balloon into a crowd during the last days of school. A police officer on the scene saw the prank.

Does someone really need to be arrested for throwing a water balloon?  C’mon!  Perhaps there is more to the story than is being reported, but this hardly seems like it should result in criminal charges.  Give the kid a few days detention, perhaps even scrubbing toilets or something.  He won’t want to throw a water balloon again!

There were also several instances of kids bringing knives or razor blades to school.  No, there is no need for a kid to have this at school, but just confiscate the items, throw the kids in detention, possibly cleaning restrooms with water balloon kid and be done with it.  Unless they were using the knife or threatening someone with it, I again question if an arrest is necessary.

I read these incidents and I just wonder about what kind of trouble myself or friends could have been in had there been such overreaction in punishment 20 years ago.  I knew some guys who picked up and carried a friend’s car to a different parking space (to be fair, I am not sure it did not cause some damage to the vehicle).  Would they today be charged with grand theft auto?  I knew a guy in band who got caught smoking on a bus coming back to school.  Would the school police come to write him a ticket today?  When you read cases like these, is there any wonder so many parents don’t want their kids in public schools and opt for private schools or home-schooling?  We need a return to common sense in punishment and stop saddling kids with some form of a record for doing the dumb things that kids have always done.

Cody Rhoden has been indicted on four charges of vehicular homicide among other charges.

In an earlier court hearing, a Gwinnett police investigator said Rhoden had been drinking at an Atlanta Braves’ game and sped home in excess of 100 mph when he caused the chain-reaction crash.

Absolutely infuriating if true.  This accident is why my blood rises when I see maniacs weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds.

When you read this story about Demetrius Randle, you cannot help but have mixed emotions.  You find yourself saddened at the ordeal this man is going through.  You then find yourself angry that his struggle and the loss of his family members and the limo driver resulted from a careless driver who apparently had little regard for others as he whipped through traffic that tragic night.  However, you find yourself encouraged at how a family can come together and how a man has fought against enormous odds and has seen at least some measure of progress.  Cody Rhoden deserves his day in court, but if he is convicted, he should be forced to contribute to Demetrius Randle’s care for the rest of his life.  Eventually Cody Rhoden will be a free man, but Demetrius Randle may never be the free man he was before that night on I-85.

I often blog on the Buzz about the idea of material impact, the concept of whether the use of one’s property materially violates the ability of another property owner to use or enjoy his or her property.  I advocate the use of this concept in land use decisions made by government because I see this as valuable in protecting our private property rights.  However, material impact should not be taken as a blanket approval for accepting any use of of a property.  The case of Randy DeCarlo, an animal rescue advocate, illustrates this point.

Mr. DeCarlo was cited with 24 violations of the county’s noise ordinance due to his 24 hound dogs. Now, I love dogs and I appreciate that Mr. DeCarlo wants to get involved in rescuing these precious creatures.  However, I have been annoyed at the continuous barking of a single dog from a neighbor’s yard.  I cannot imagine the noise and nuisance that 24 baying hound dogs would cause to neighbors.  I think it is very reasonable to say this would be a definite impediment to someone enjoying the use of their nearby property.  While I applaud Mr. DeCarlo’s love of dogs, I have to agree that citing him for a noise disturbance is most likely warranted.

Vandals spray-painted despicable symbols and epithets on a van at a predominantly Korean church in Suwanee over the weekend. Suwanee police think this could be more about kids acting out than prejudice, but, regardless, I hope the Suwanee police are quickly able to identify and apprehend the culprits. Those who did this should receive a real punishment and not just a slap on the wrist.

That being said, I am not suggesting that they should be punished any more severely than had they spray-painted smiley faces on the van. The property damage is criminal - in this case a felony due to the value - regardless of what was painted. As despicable as the words in this act are, to effectively punish the perps for what was painted constitutes criminalizing thought. In America, our expressions are protected, even those expressions are sickening. That is why I oppose hate crimes law even in cases such as this.

Sunday afternoon, Astrid Hidalgo died as the result of a falling tree. As tragic as this is, what could make it more tragic is the delayed response of emergency units to the scene. I want to preface my comments by saying, first and foremost, my sympathy and prayers to Hidalgo’s family. I cannot imagine the anguish they are suffering right now. Secondly, I want to stress that I am not, in any way, suggesting that the delayed response was the cause of this young lady’s death. In all likelihood, simply a case of a tragic sequence of events. However, as I read the timeline from Sunday afternoon, a question did occur to me. Why did it take five to seven minutes to dispatch an ambulance even after the 911 answering facility obtained an address for this tragedy?

The radio system is reported to have come back online at 4:35 and reliable address information was obtained from a 911 call that arrived at 4:43. Assuming a call duration of approximately two minutes, the operator should have had an address by 4:45, yet an ambulance was not dispatched until 4:51. Why the approximate six minute delay? Now, I understand that with the computer aided dispatching system down, that must have been a chaotic scene. It is certainly possible that the operator that took the 4:43 call was not the same operator who took previous calls reporting the incident. As such, the operator may not have had corroborating calls reporting the event and may not have had a full picture of what had occurred. I do not want to be critical because our law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMTs, and E911 dispatchers make many sacrifices for the community. Their service is noted and appreciated. I just am curious about the six minute delay given that the radio system was operating. Hopefully, the GCPD will clarify this point and eliminate any concerns Gwinnett citizens may have about our 911 answering center.

At the end of the day, according to the medical examiner, those six minutes would not have saved Astrid Hidalgo. However, perhaps it would have brought peace to a grieving father that would not have to wonder “what if they had been there five minutes sooner.” I just hope and pray that God may grant this family the peace to persevere through this tragedy.

Apparently so, according to a post on the Corinth Hill HOA blog. 

You must be kidding. 

With Gwinnett’s problems with traffic, illegal immigration, budget, and other issues, the county commission took the time to deal with graduation banners?  Do we really need a law addressing them?  Do we need Gwinnett cops and code enforcers wasting time trying to figure out if a banner has been up for 59 days or 61?  Why should Charles Bannister and company have any say in what sign you put up, at a neighborhood entrance or in your own front yard?  (I can somewhat see a rationale for the entrance signs because this is a common area and some signs have a tendency to linger well after graduation has passed, but still the thought of the county commission worrying about this seems over-the-top!)

Personally, I think graduation banners are tacky and borderline cheesy (referring to the ones that go on the entrance of subdivisions).  Why does anyone outside of your friends and family have any interest in who is graduating from high school?  If you want to put a sign in your yard celebrating Johnny or Janie’s accomplishment, it is your yard, have at it.  However, even if they are tacky,  I am not going to make an issue out of the neighborhood entrance signs because they are only there a month or so.  Also, I recognize that to many people, high school graudation seems like this huge event in your life.  (Trust me…as someone who has been there…it’s not that big of a deal.  Now graduating from college - well except for UGA - now that is a big deal.  But high school?  Not so much.)

The big takeaway is that yet again we have an example of government sticking its nose where it does not belong.  When are we as citizens going to say enough and tell government to back off?  “Give me liberty - and a comprehensive sign ordinance - or give me death!”

Gwinnett Buzz was present at the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Building for the April Public Hearing of the Gwinnett Board of Commissioners. I had attended mainly to cover what promised to be a contentious zoning issue in the Collins Hill area. However, that case was tabled until the May hearing, which will hopefully allow time for me to do a thorough analysis of this application thanks to the information provided by Buzz Brockway. However, there were still quite a few issues that deserve attention.Note, Kevin Kenerly was not present due to his father’s illness. The Buzz wishes Mr. Kenerly well.

Recall when reading about this month’s cases, the only test that should be considered by government is whether a proposed use materially impacts the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties by their owners. Adherence to such a standard would ensure protections for fellow neighbors but not allowing mere likes and dislikes to trump basic property rights. However, reality is that the law is sadly far more extensive and intrusive in citizens’ lives. Even so, commissioners should strive to only apply the absolute minimum level of government interference legally necessary when rendering their decisions.

Solid Waste Management Plan

The commission approved a new Solid Waste Management Plan that is very business unfriendly and very restrictive of the free market. However, this warrants a separate post, so I will not go into further detail here. Look for a post on this terrible decision by the BoC.

New Mercies Christian Church (2008-0326 CIC-08-009/2008-0327 SUP-08-026)

Commissioner: Beaudreau (District 3)

This one should have been easy. New Mercies Christian Church occupies a former grocery store at the intersection of Five Forks Trickum Road and Killian Hill Road. The church was previously using the Publix parking lot across Five Forks from the church for overflow parking. I imagine that you can immediately see the safety concern with this arrangement. To rectify the situation, the church was seeking a simple change of conditions and Special Use Permit for two pieces of property behind the facility so as to build a parking lot. No big deal right? Yes, this lot is adjacent to another property and there is the potential that there could be some disruption that could reasonably impact the neighboring property owner. However, the twist in this story is that the two properties are currently zoned as M-1. What use, by existing zoning and law, would be permitted on this property? According to the Gwinnett County zoning definitions, M-1 is a Light Industrial District permitting “light industrial development.” Open and shut right? A parking lot is no where near as intrusive to neighbors as the legally permissible industrial use, right? Apparently not. Even though the adjacent property owner was was not present to protest, even though the Planning Department and Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, Commissioner Beaudreau decided to table the matter so he could have to go out and walk the property. What for? All this does is unnecessarily delay construction of the parking lot, thereby prolonging the period that those attending the church have to cross a busy Five Forks Trickum Road. Surely Mr. Beaudreau will not find any other reasons to delay or deny this very reasonable request.

Penske Truck Rental (Timothy Roe) (2008-0285 SUP-08-019)

Commissioner: Green (District 1)

See property in Microsoft Live Maps Birds-eye View

This one is classic Homeowners Association: we don’t like the way it looks so, even though it won’t have any real impact on our lives, we are going to encourage government to interfere in private property rights. Mr. Roe was seeking permission to rent Penske trucks from this oil change facility. His representative explained that steps were taken with Penske to make the use less intrusive to the area. However, during their opposition neighbors from the Springmont HOA could offer little substantive reason why this business should not operate at this location beyond their dislike of the use and aesthetics. They even tried to justify their stance by arguing that renting trucks and changing oil are non-related businesses! Well a barber shop and a cafe are not related businesses either, but they both exist in many retail centers. However, as you can see from the map view, this is hardly a pristine, scenic residential area in which a truck rental office would mar the character of the area. The facility is on a major thoroughfare, Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road, adjacent to a gas station and across Riverside Parkway from a former grocery store. Exactly how will a few trucks - which are admittedly not the most attractive things you will ever lay eyes upon - in a parking lot prevent you from enjoying a nice evening on your rear deck, lounging in your family room watching a movie, or enjoying a family dinner in your kitchen or dining room? Precisely - it won’t. However, rather than having the courage to stand up to the homeowners association effort to elevate personal preferences ahead of a man’s livelihood, Commissioner Green aligned herself against business by standing with the homeowners’ special interest group.

In denying this reasonable application, she expressed that a truck rental business was an “eyesore” and that it was difficult to screen such an intense use of the property. First, being an “eyesore” is immaterial. What is an eyesore to one person may not be to another. You may think my truck rental business is an eyesore, but I might find that Georgia Bulldog flag on the front of your house to be the same. Should I be able to have the government force you to take your flag down? Second, the inability to screen the trucks is demonstrably false. The day after the hearing, I took the liberty of visiting the area in question. As I drove south down Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road, had I not been looking for them, the five or six trucks parked behind the oil change facility would not have been highly noticeable. They were a bit more visible after I turned around and drove northbound, but again, nothing that should make any real difference in the lives of Springmont residents. I then drove into the subdivision and upon my exit, before turning onto Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road, I snapped this photo of the truck rental facility as seen from the entrance of the neighborhood. The image quality is not that great (I took it with my phone), but do you see any yellow trucks? If you look closely through the bay doors of the building, you can see the trucks parked behind the building. Does this justify the government telling a legitimate business that it cannot operate? I say resoundingly, NO!

Granted, this scene would be quite different if trucks were parked in the front of the building as the HOA claims was the case at times in the past. However, rather than impeding a businessman’s livelihood and the community’s access to needed services, Green could have simply stipulated that no trucks were allowed to be parked in the front of the building. While this is still not a stipulation that government should be making on a non-material impact, at least it would serve as a compromise to all involved. However, we again see Green being unfriendly to private property rights and kowtowing to self-centered homeowners associations.

I would encourage those of you who support ruling such as this to justify Commissioner’s Green’s actions on this matter. I fail to see how you can, but I am willing to listen to your points.

Note: There are several other matters from the meeting on which I intend to comment. However, because of the extreme tardiness of this analysis, I am posting this part immediately and will try to add a part two shortly.