Gwinnett Buzz

The Gwinnett County Commission on Tuesday killed the Pleasant Hill Village mixed-use development in Duluth.  The project, slated to be adjacent to Shorty Howell Park, was deemed by outgoing District 3 Commissioner Lorraine Green (how good does it feel to precede Green’s name and title with “outgoing!”) to be too dense for the area.  Green commented:

“The density here at 1.9 million square feet is just way too much. This density, this height is just not what the area needs right now.”

Even on her way out the door, Lorraine Green shows her inclination to play nanny to District 1 residents rather than limiting her governmental role to that of referee.  Apparently, there must be a pretty strong business case for this project - thus, implying that it is something that is demanded by the market - if a developer is willing to sink $390 million in the project in this economic environment.

I am not going to dig too deeply into this one as I have not even caught up with several topics from my recent hiatus from the blog.  Perhaps there is merit in the board’s decision, but I do want to point out a few surface inconsistencies with Lorraine Green’s conclusion.  According to developer L. Anthony Greene (no relation to the Commissioner), “The people in the planning department said this was the best project they had ever seen.”  If this is accurate, why would the board want to deny this project, especially in area that is pursuing revitalization?  While not directly part of the Gwinnett Place CID, the project is slightly more than a mile from the CID.  Isn’t it reasonable to think that such a development could contribute to revitalization efforts around Gwinnett Place?  In a broader sense, why does the county employ a staff of land use professionals to assess proposals only to have the amateurs who happened to win an election routinely cast aside the professional recommendations?  I would suggest that it is politics but that is a different post for a different day.

As for density in the area, a quick look at the surrounding properties on Pleasant Hill is instructive.  Across the street is a lumber company, hardly a light use in the immediate vicinity of neighborhoods.  Just south on Pleasant Hill is a Wal-Mart Supercenter, a retail center with a Super H Mart, and a Nissan car dealer.  This location is hardly in the heart of a sleepy residential area.

Now, we have to wait and see if Tony Greene sues Gwinnett County over this project.  If he does and he wins, the losers will be us Gwinnett taxpayers who would again have to foot the bill for a legal defense of the votes of one of our anti-development elected officials.

I thought I would finally weigh in with some thoughts on the outcome of the GOP runoff Tuesday night.  I am thoroughly thrilled that Chairman Charles Bannister defeated Commissioner Lorraine Green.  I view this as a victory, if only symbolically, for private property rights in Gwinnett.  While I don’t think most voters really think carefully about property rights, I do think that, as chairman, Green would have be less of a threat to specific zoning cases as opposed to her term in District 1.  However, with her poor record on property rights and apparent preference for more government, I am glad that such positions were not rewarded with a higher seat.  Charles Bannister may not be the perfect candidate or Chairman, but he has done an adequate job for four years and I feel much more comfortable with him in the center chair.

I did hate to see Bruce LeVell fail to defeat Shirley Lasseter in District 1.  Bruce ran, in my opinion, by far the cleanest, most positive campaign in Gwinnett this year.  Hopefully, this will not be the last time we see his name in local politics.  As for Lasseter, she was not my first choice, but I am pleased to see her as take over Lorraine Green’s seat instead of Carol Hassell.  I am cautiously optimistic about Lasseter’s stance on property rights.  I think she is likely to be a definite improvement over the previous two District 1 commissioners.  Of course the last two wound up running for Chairman, which brings us to some very early predictions for 2012.

I think there is a definite chance that Charles Bannister will call it a career in 2012.  He would be 73 in four years.  If he does hang up it, I fully expect Mike Beaudreau to throw his hat into the Chairman’s ring.  Mike is young, has “politician good looks” and has a history of organization leadership roles including the Clemson College Republicans.  I have to believe he has higher political aspirations than just being a district commissioner.  I would not be entirely shocked if Lorraine Green made another go for it given how close she came, but after four years of not having to deal with the political grind, she may not want the hassle all over again.  I also have to speculate whether  Lasseter will be groomed by Bannister to run for Chairman.  I have read on Gwinnett political message boards that Bannister and she are “allies.”  If that were to happen, races for both the District 1 and 3 seats would be thrown wide open to new faces.  Could Bruce LeVell have another go?  Would Doug Stacks return?  While 2012 poses some interesting potential scenarios, we cannot forget that Districts 2 and 4 will be contested in 2010.

This next election for those seats could pose an enormous sea change in Gwinnett politics.  The AJC published an article today on Gwinnett becoming a majority-minority county.  I found the following analysis very pertinent to these projections:

The changes in Gwinnett’s racial and ethnic makeup will also affect the ballot box eventually.

State Sen. Curt Thompson (D-Norcross) represents one of the most diverse districts in the metro area. He has said he has to campaign in Spanish, Korean, Hindi, Vietnamese and Mandarin to keep his seat.

Could 2010 be the year we see the Democrats gain a seat on the commission for the first time in decades?  Bert Nasuti’s District 2 is comprised of Norcross and Lilburn, two areas that have experienced a significant demographic shift.  I don’t know if we would see a Democratic commissioner in 2010, especially if Nasuti runs for reelection, but I think this will be the first district to fall to the Democrats.  I seem to recall that current District 4 commissioner Kevin Kenerly said during his last campaign that this would be his last term.   Even without an incumbent should Kenerly not run, District 4 is likely fairly safe for the GOP as there is a significant portion of the district north of Lawrenceville going toward Sugar Hill and Braselton.

While we cannot know what will happen in the next four years, I think the one thing we can expect is a definite change in the composition of the Board of Commissioners.  While we saw a very bitter and contention chairman’s race this summer, the differences between Charles Bannister and Lorrine Green will likely pale in comparison to what we could expect from the Democrats if they manage to get their hands on the three of the five commission votes.  That could well make even the most ardent opponent of Lorraine Green and Mike Beaudreau, embrace them!  Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen, this ride is bound to very interesting and maybe even a bit bumpy.

What makes Lorraine Green think I wanted five recorded voicemails from her today?  What arrogance!  In fact, the only automated calls I have received during the runoff period have been from - yep, you guessed it - Lorraine Green.  Three of today’s messages did not indicate who placed the calls.  However, each message used phrases nearly identical to a mesasge that did state it was on behalf of Green: “all registered voters are eligible to vote” or “vote at your regular polling place before  7 p.m. today.”  I realize that the Do Not Call registry does not apply to political candidates, but don’t candidates realize that when they call voters who have otherwise indicated they do not want unsolicitied phone calls, they might end up driving potential votes away rather than pulling them in?  If I had been on the fence today, five calls in one day would have certainly pushed me to vote for Charles Bannister.  Wake up, candidates!  If you voluntarily observe the Do Not Call list, you are likely to win more respect from voters!

I received this Letter to the Editor (the first to the Buzz….a milestone!).  I certainly do not agree with Mr. Bienkowski, but in the interest of fairness, I wanted to post his thoughts.

To the Editor, plus a news story suggestion:

For some reason the proposed Beaver Ruin Park project has been a main focus point in the Gwinnett county commissioners race between Charles Bannister and Lorraine Green in the current campaign. Mr. Bannister has made it quite clear in past editorials and in recent political campaign ads that this parcel is not worthy of a park and is simply worthless swamp.

I would like to convey some factual information concerning this property. Firstly I am one of over a dozen individuals who have volunteered over the past year on the non-paid citizens planning committee for this future Beaver Ruin park project. I am quite familiar with this property having walked it extensively well over a dozen times over the last few years. The plan is to shape this parcel into a park that all of the citizens of Gwinnett will be proud. This planning process is still ongoing. But as it stands now it will have similar elements as the chattahoochee nature center. It will include plant restoration and educational aspects. It will be a passive park with boardwalks and trails. It will be a joy for children and adults and an asset and a learning experience for school fieldtrips. With the donated parcels and recreation easement this park will be close to 100 acres.

It has a thriving eco-system with an abundance of wildlife. The acquisition of this property was a tremendous coup for the county. If the final plans are approved and funded this park will be a crown jewel for any county park and will be enjoyed for many generations to come. Everyone in Gwinnett knows we have lost many various properties in the last few decades in this county to extensive development. Many would have been put to far greater use as green space. Ms. Green has not only been an advocate for this land she has been the number one commissioner for many other park purchases though out the county. How Mr. Bannister can condemn her for this advocacy position is a disgrace. Another point of fact is that 13,375 voters cast ballots in the last election to press the commission to do more to promote green space in this county. I can only hope that voters will turn out and support the candidate who has been at the for front in pressing the need for additional green space and has been working to improve the quality of life for all the citizens of Gwinnett. As a final note I hope we all remember that our armed forces continue to fight so we can have the freedom to cast a vote. Everyone needs to exercise this privilege and turn out in force this Tuesday August the 5th.

Sincerely,

Edward Bienkowski
Duluth, Georgia

CBS 46 has done another piece that touches on Lorraine Green.  This time her political backer, Sheriff Butch Conway, is the focus of a story examining his role in taping a conversation with “government watchdog George Anderson,” a conversation which Anderson claims Conway said was off the record.  I read a blog post stemming from this situation earlier this evening that first brought to my attention the controversy surrounding Conway.  The Sheriff’s response to CBS 46 - “Hogwash…absolute hogwash.”  (I do have to admit, it is nice to see Gwinnett still retains a bit of its Southern flavor!)

I will not link to that post because it contains some very serious accusations and I cannot detemine whether there is any validity to the claims.  While I am comfortable linking to the reports of established news organizations, blogs can be the wild west and you must be careful not allow your reputation to be linked to somsone who may be less than honest.  If future reports from legitimate news outlets confirm any of the accusations contained in the blog post, you can count on the Buzz to point you to this information.  However, at the same time, you can also count on the Buzz not to participate in propagating any unfounded charges against others.  I may be very critical of the politics of certain elected officials, but I do not beleive in promoting unsubstantiated rumors or character attacks from other sources.

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.

Two weeks ago, I told you about a CBS 46 Investigates news story on the Beaver Ruin Park land deal.  Since then, I have educated myself more on this deal and am now able to offer some insight on what this situation says about Lorraine Green and her qualifications to be Commission Chairman.

The central question in this controversy is whether Gwinnett County overpaid for the Beaver Ruin Park property bounded by I-85, Beaver Ruin Road and a parcel of land that fronts Satellite Boulevard.  I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on various apartment development and valuation information I dug up online.  The valuation depends on the ability of the property to be used for an apartment complex of fairly high quality (I used figures available from a Post Apartments annual report from a recent year) with around 300 units. The $4.6 million valuation on the property does seem justified so long as that parcel could be developed as apartments.  This factor is key because if that land could not be used for apartments - whether because it is not technically suitable or due to lack of necessary governmental approval - then the future profits from an apartment complex that are required to support the $4.6 million valuation would not be realizable.  As such, the land likely could not be valued at more than the $2.9 million amount assigned by the county tax office.  The question that must be asked is this: could the landowner realistically expect to develop apartments on this property?

In a post at TalkGwinnett!, Gwinnett political observer Bob Griggs discusses the expected outcome of a reported lawsuit filed by the prospective developer over the zoning denial on this property:

An appraisal for sale, on the other hand, can take into account a future use that affects value. This case is a perfect example; Mason had sued the county over a rezoning denied. The county had reportedly been notified that Mason was going to prevail. He claimed that he could build apartments on the tract.

The highlighted comment is very key, for if the county knew they were going to lose a lawsuit, then it would be appropriate to value the property assuming apartments could be built.  I have not been able to independently verify this assertion, so I cannot confirm that such a notification was made to the county or whether the claim that apartments could be built on the tract are accurate.  If either of these were untrue, then it is readily apparently that the county grossly overpaid for this property by approximately $1.7 million of taxpayer money.  This would hardly be defensible by the park’s champion, Lorraine Green, even there was nothing crooked about the deal.  However, even if both of Griggs’ claims are true, that does not allow Lorraine Green to keep the dirt off of her hands from this land use decision.

If the county was going to lose the court case and apartments could be build on the property, then Gwinnett residents must ask why did the county deny the rezoning in the first place?  Why would Lorraine Green have led a stand against property rights in her district?  In this scenario, the request to build apartments would have been quite obviously justified given an expected court decision that would favor the developer.  Apartments, despite how much they are demonized, are needed businesses that provide a service to many respectable Gwinnett residents.  If the county were to lose the suit, why did the Lorraine Green willingly waste our tax dollars in an effort to deny a citizen his property rights?  Well, Lorraine tells us precisely why she did so in talking to CBS 46:

“This is about keeping a promise, a promise to my constituents that we would not put any more apartments in the district,” Green said. She says Gwinnett County bought the land so the county could control development and stop apartment construction.

There you have it.  In order to play politics, to pander to those voters who would trample on property rights to satisfy their own personal preferences, Lorraine Green was willing to waste your tax dollars and mine.  What is worse, she showed so little respect for property rights that she was willing to use these rights as a political football.  Even if a zoning denial was justified on Beaver Ruin Rd., a statement by a commissioner to effectively promise a blanket denial of any applications for a legal business automatically implies no respect for property rights.  There is no way an elected official can reasonably be fair about property rights when she has made a promise to deny a request before she has even heard the merits of a particular application.

Now, in order to give Lorraine Green a chance to come out of this land deal with her reputation intact, let’s step back and consider another possibility.  If the county was destined to lose a lawsuit - set aside the above argument for a moment - and the $4.6 million was a fair value for the property, was a park an appropriate use of such high value property?  Another poster on TalkGwinnett! who resides near the Beaver Ruin Park argued that that area was underserved by Gwinnett County parks.  Might this land be one of the few remaining chances to provide a park to that area?  As such, would the county have been justified to pay a premium to ensure that area residents received the same benefits as others around Gwinnett?  I decided to take a look at this possible justification.

Within three miles of the Beaver Ruin Park site are the following five Gwinnett County Parks and Recreation facilities:

1. Singleton Road Activity Building
2. Cemetery Field
3. Pinckneyville Park
4. West Gwinnett Park and Aquatic Complex
5. Shorty Howell Park

If the search radius is pushed out to five miles, the following facilities are added to the list:

1. McDaniel Farm Park
2. Sweetwater Park
3. Bethesda Park
4. Harmony Grove Soccer Complex
5. Graves Park
6. Best Friend Park

Thus, within a five mile radius of the Beaver Ruin Park site, there are 11 GCPR facilities. That is underserved? I realize that one has to take density into consideration, but that is a large number of choices for someone who lives adjacent to Beaver Ruin Park.  Let’s compare this to parks within the proximity of Sugarloaf Parkway and US 29, hardly an unpopulated area.  Within approximately three miles of this intersection are the following facilities or parks:

1. Sweetwater Park
2. Gwinnett Historical Courthouse
3. Lawrenceville Female Seminary

Only one bona fide park within this miles of this major intersection.  This is compared to three bona fide parks (four if Cemetery Field is counted) within the same distance of Beaver Ruin Park, one of which even includes an aquatic center!  If we look within five miles of Sugarloaf and US 29, we add the following:

1. Ronald Reagan Park
2. Rhodes Jordan Park
3. Bethesda Park
4. Collins Hill Park

So within five miles of this major intersection there are seven GCPR facilities, but two of those are buildings, so really only five parks.  This versus 11 within the same radius of Beaver Ruin Park.  Thus, I think the notion that the Beaver Ruin area is underserved by parks can be put to rest.

This brings us back to the original question, was the Beaver Ruin land the “tremendous buy” Lorraine Green tells CBS 46 it was?  Even assuming the valuation is valid and apartments could be built there, did the county need to buy such expensive land for an area that has numerous park options in a fairly close vicinity? Or was the land purchase more evidence of Lorraine Green playing politics with our tax dollars at the potentially demonstrable expense of property rights?  One other exhibit helps us come to a conclusion.  You can look at the site plan for this park here.  Lorraine calls this a “passive park.”  What this site plan shows me is a park that has had just enough improvements to justify calling it a park.  In other words a park with just enough improvements to justify wasting tax dollars to allow Lorraine Green to play politics.

So with all this evidence, even if nothing was technically corrupt or unethical, how can someone defend the actions of Lorraine Green on this land deal?  To do so requires at a minimum one to support trampling on property rights or wasting tax dollars for political gain.  Furthermore, do we really want a Commission Chairman that would force a property owner to go to great expense and difficulty to simply exercise property rights that are obviously his? I am sure the “Greenbama” backers will find some way to defend her actions as they continually do over at TalkGwinnett! but I think most reasonable Gwinnettians can quite clearly see where Lorraine Green stands when it comes to your property rights.

The Beaver Ruin land deal is a losing situation for Lorraine Green all around. It was either an abuse of taxpayer dollars in overpaying for a piece of property or it was an abuse of government authority in interfering with the rightful property rights of a landowner and then wasting tax dollars to continue the political gamesmanship.  At the end of the day, Lorraine Green has shown in this one case why the citizens of Gwinnett should very firmly say “No!” to her in tomorrow’s runoff and select Charles Bannister for a second term. Even if you are not too thrilled with some of Bannister’s campaign material, what is more of an affront - slimy political mailers or an abuse of government power that disrespects property rights?  One might just not sit well with you, the other might one day take money out of pocket.

I am waiting for Mike Beaudreau’s endorsement of Commission Chairman Charles Bannister to be announced any minute.  I have received two mailers during the runoff period, both from Lorraine Green, both with the same headline that is little more than an effort to smear Bannister and finger him as the root cause of crime in Gwinnett:

Drug wars, kidnappings move into Gwinnett

I know, all the Lorraine Green supporters will dismiss this as little more than “comparison” campaigning.  After all, according to the crowd at TalkGwinnet!, we all know that Bannister sat around playing his fiddle while Gwinnett was consumed with crime.  In addition, the mailer claims that Bannister attempted to block 287g.  Whatever the details of that vote, Green acknowledges - and even states - that Charles voted to “table it” which she immediately characterizes a s meaning “block it.”  Anyone who does not regularly pay attention to government hearings (sadly, most people) might not realize that this is highly misleading.  Tabling is not blocking.  Tabling is tabling.  Voting no is blocking.  There are many legitimate reasons to table a matter. I bet even Lorraine has tabled some issues from District 1 in the last four years.

So we have here two instances of Lorraine being negative in her mailer, after she made a pledge, in response to Mike Beaudreau, to run a clean campaign.

Mike, I am anxiously awaiting a video of your press conference to endorse Charles Bannister to appear on YouTube. I am also eager to get confirmation of the thousands of voters you will bringing with you to defeat Lorraine Green next week.  When can we expect your press conference?

Yeah, I know.  Don’t hold my breath.  However, won’t it be interesting to see how he justifies endorsing Green if that is what winds up happening?

Examining a situation that has simmered for some time now, CBS 46 tonight aired a 46 News Investigates piece called the “Gwinnett Land Controversy.”  In the piece, 46 News reporter Wendy Saltzman delved into the question of why Gwinnett County paid more for a piece of land on Beaver Ruin Road than the county tax assesor said the land was worth.  Saltzman interviewed Commission Chairman Charles Bannister as well as his opponent for the chairman’s seat in the August 5 runoff, Commissioner Lorraine Green.  Bannister, who voted against the land deal, told Satzman that Gwinnett “pretty much” overpaid for a piece of swampland.  Green countered that the purchase was “about keeping a promise” and that Gwinnett got a “tremendous buy.”

CBS 46 has several clips from their 46 News Investigates series on their website, but this story has not yet been posted.  I am hoping that by tomorrow I can provide a link to this story or possibly embed the video itself.  If that does not work out, I intend to summarize and transcribe the highlights of the story along with my commentary on Green’s points.  Even if there is nothing unethical or illegal with this land deal, Green demonstrates in the piece via her own words how she is willing to favor government authority and make a blanket land use decision without fairly considering the merits of individual planning applications.  Her target is apartments, hardly a sympathetic land use to many, but still a question of private property rights, nonetheless.  Be sure to check back with the Buzz or CBS 46 tomorrow for more on this important story.

Mike Beaudreau wants Charles Bannister and Lorraine Green to play nice in campaigning for the commission chairman runoff race.

Dispatching an e-mail to both incumbent Commission Chairman Charles Bannister and fellow Commissioner Lorraine Green, who faces Bannister in a runoff, Beaudreau asked the opponents to sign a “clean campaign pledge.” He asked that they focus their campaign from now till the Aug. 5 runoff on “their vision for the county.”

During his campaign, Beaudreau says he talked to “people who were just disgusted by the volume of negativity and the lies.”

“Kettle?”

“Yes, this is Kettle.”

“Hey, this is Pot.  You’re black.”

Does Beaudreau really want to talk about politicians engaging in negativity?  As I type I am looking at a mailer from Beaudreau.  He accuses his opponent, Doug Stacks, as having plans that are “out of step with homeowner interests” and that Stacks could not even “talk about his real agenda.”  No negativity there.  On the reverse, Beaudreau attempts to smear Doug’s legitimate profession as a real estate broker, listing Doug’s profession in comparison to Mike’s “stand” on development.  I guess this is supposed to positive.  The mailer, listing the AJC as a source, says that Doug Stacks is a “high-density growth advocate.”  I have not seen anything in the AJC, including a June 16 article that Beaudreau prominently references on the mailer, that suggests that this is anything but spin at best.

I am not trying to refight a race that is over.  Beaudreau won by a very large margin and I accept that.  However, Beaudreau accusing other candidates of negative campaigning rings a bit hollow given that he has used similar tactics.  I have said that, so long as it campaigning is grounded in truth and offers sources, I do not have a problem with so-called negative campaigning.  However, I get very irritated when politicians say one thing and do something else, whether it be implicitly as Mike did with the campaign donations or explicitly as with negative campaigning.

One thing that is worth pointing out is various pledges commissioners and candidates are making.   Beaudreau made a couple of promises in his email:

“[Beaudreau agreed] to stay out of the race if both candidates agree to the pledge and keep their word.

If not, he would endorse the one who will — “and bring a few thousand Gwinnett residents with me.”

Lorraine Green’s response to Beaudreau was that she “heartily agreed and would absolutely agree to make such a pledge.”  Bannister has not formerly responded but his campaign manager said the chairman would ” run an honest, issue-based campaign.”

Let’s see if these politicians keep their pledges.  I think the one most likey not to keep his pledge is Beaudreau.  I do not anticipate there being an ounce of difference in the next two weeks to what we saw from Bannister and Green leading up to the primary election.  As I said above, this is fine and does not necessarily violate a “clean campaign” pledge.  However, I expect that within a week or so Beaudreau will wade into the waters of the chairman race again waving a big green flag (pun intended) finding some way to claim that Bannister is not running a clean campaign.  In fact, this would be a brilliant campaign tactic in favor of the Green camp as it would allow Mike to endorse Green, something given his and Green’s views on government regulation in land use, I suspect Beaudreau is just itching to do.  Furthermore, it would garner press coverage of a commissioner just off a sizable victory accusing Bannister of running a dirty campaign.  If this is what happens, this tactic hopefully will not be enormously successful as the thousands of voters Beaudreau promises to bringare likely already full-fledged Green supporters.