Gwinnett Buzz

With nearly all precincts reporting, Commission Chairman Charles Bannister and District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau have easily won reelection.  In school board races, District 1 board member Carol Boyce and District 3 board member Mary Kay Murphy both won fairly easy victories.  In School Board District 5 things appear to be a bit closer, but Louse Radloff appears headed to victory over Democrat challenger Ravindra Kuma.  Tom Lawler will hold onto his position as Superior Court Clerk.

However, not all incumbents fared well.  In a poor move by Gwinnett voters, Richard Winegarden will fall to Karen Beyers, a candidate who had no judicial experience coming into this election.

In the SPLOST vote, Gwinnett voters extended the 1-cent sales taxes by nearly 20,000 votes.

On a state level, Saxby Chambliss thankfully was relected to the United States Senate.  This was important to keeping enough Republicans in the Senate to maintain the threat of a filibuster against any extremely liberal legislation from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk.  Congressman John Linder, who represents a large portion of the county, defeated Doug Heckman handily. All three Georgia constitutional amendments appear likely to pass, though Amendments 2 and 3 are a little tight with about 10% of the precincts still out.  I supported, with some concerns, Amendments 2 and 3 and am glad to see them gain approval.  However, I am disappointed to see Amendment 1 pass with its promise of placing additional funding responsibility for local schools on taxpayers throughout the state.  Amendment 2 was very important to providing the funding needed for the TADs that Gwinnett voters approved in the primary in July.

Thus, overall, a positive night for Gwinnett amidst a sad night for America overall.  Hopefully, as Republican conservatives seek to take back our national party and win back the voters that the big spending GOP of the last six years have allowed to flock to Barack Obama, Gwinnett and it’s strong conservative base can play a role in this effort.  Winning back the wayward center right voters is so critical to protecting the freedoms and values that America holds dear and that are sure to be threatened by the liberal Democrats starting in January.

The Gwinnett commission races in the general election are really not all that exciting.  Despite shifts in the county’s demographics in recent years, Gwinnett is still a primarily Republican county.  Thus, I do not expect the two Republican incumbents to have much trouble regaining their seats.  Nevertheless, the Buzz is a blog that takes a stand, whether popular or not, so I would like to make formal endorsements in both the Commission Chairman and District 3 Commissioner races.

Commission Chairman

The Gwinnett Buzz endorses Republican Chairman Charles Bannister to retain his seat as head of the Gwinnett County Commission. The Buzz was a supporter of Chairman Bannister during this summer’s primaries and nothing has happened to weaken this backing.  Mr. Bannister has done an adequate job as Chairman these last fours years and has earned the chance to continue in this role.  He has placed an emphasis on tax cuts, a position that will be welcome as we face the risk of the increased federal taxation in the coming years.

Commission District 3

The Gwinnett Buzz endorses Republican Commissioner Mike Beaudreau to retain his seat on the Gwinnett County Commission. Now, if you are a long time reader of the Buzz and followed the often intense primary campaign in July, you know that I was a strong supporter of challenger Doug Stacks.  As such, you may be stunned to see me endorsing the very candidate about whom I wrote several harsh critiques.  If so, neither you nor my friends in the Stacks campaign should worry.  I would still back Doug  today if he were in the race.  My positions on land use and property rights have wavered not at all.  However, our time to defeat Mike was in July.

The District 3 voters spoke loud and clear that they preferred Beaudreau to Stacks.  I don’t like that, but I can accept that.  I endorse Commission Beaudreau out of political practicality. First, Mike is a known quantity.  Whether we agree with him or not, we know where he stands and we know what to expect.  Democrat challenger Earn Herndon of Dacula is quite the opposite - an unknown.  Given the track record of the Democrat Party, I would expect that Herndon’s positions on land use and property rights are likely similar to those held by Beaudreau, if no worse!  Second, Mr. Beaudreau is a good person.  Setting politics aside, he is active in his church and community.  Having spoke with him in the past, I can attest that has an approachable personality.  In this day and age of self-serving, arrogant politicians in a sea of political bitterness, such traits count for something.  Finally, there is the practical reality that we do not want to allow the Democrats to gain even a single seat on the Gwinnett County Commission.  We need to stave off massive increases both in our property taxes and in the size of county government as long as possible.

Thus, all of these reasons points to a single logical conclusion.  Endorse the Republican and support the party.  That does not mean that you nor the Buzz should not remain vigilant and hold Commissioner Beaudreau accountable for his votes in the upcoming term.  This does not mean that you nor the Buzz, if Beaudreau does not change his positions, should not strongly consider any primary opponents in 2012 should Mike run again.  However, if on no other day than November 4, 2008, Mike Beaudreau deserves your vote and the Buzz urges you to support the incumbent Republcan commissioner.

One of the topics that I highlighted during my recent hiatus from the Buzz was the announced cost overruns for the Gwinnett Braves stadium currently under construction in the Mall of Georgia area.  We first learned a week and a half ago that the cost for the new stadium would come in at $59 million, $19 million more than the original estimate of $40 million.  This represents an overrun of nearly 50%! The overrun itself does not make this inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars any more egregious than it already was, but it does highlight the cavalier attitude our elected officials take to using our money.  Once committed to a project, going back to the virtually bottomless well of the public funds is an easier political move than defending the full level of spending at the outset.  Politicians don’t have to carefully consider the business case for the additional costs since the funds can be taken by force from Gwinnett taxpayers.  They only have to calculate the political impact and count on the fact that many voters either fall in line like sheep and gleefully hand over their money or that they are too absorbed in trivial pursuits until a week or two before an election.

So what items are contributing to these overruns?  Surely, this is a case of unexpected increases in the cost of materials, labor, services and other costs associated with a building project, right?  As football commentator Lee Corso would say, “Not so fast, my friend!”

More than a third of the increased cost comes from upgrades from the original plans that include an addition to the concourse to make it completely circle the stadium, a canopy over parts of the stadium and upgraded finishes.

Another third results from additional site work to put stormwater detention underground, build beefier retaining walls necessary to maximize use of the site, increased sewer costs and unexpected rock removal costs, Tucker said.

The increase also includes $1.5 million to make the stadium more environmentally friendly, in part by using partially treated wastewater to irrigate the field and flush toilets.

These enhancements do not seem to fall into the category of unexpected hurdles found after construction began that had to be addressed.  Convenient that they did not get included in the initial design that was foisted upon taxpayers.  And “upgraded finishes?”  Much easier to splurge when the money is there for the taking.  Of the $19 million overrun, only $3.2 million or approximately 17%, can be attributed to the typical cause of higher than anticipated project costs.  However, if you consider this from the perspective of a politician, this all makes sense.

Had the enhancements been included at the time of the stadium proposal, the initial cost would have been over $50 million.  Much easier to commit to the cheaper base model then upgrade to the top-of-the-line model after you have begun  the project.  The Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau admited that the “cost had escalated dramatically because of design decisions made since work at the site began.”  Consider the defenses of members of the County Commission.  District 2 Commissioner Bert Nasuti said, “We’ve got only one opportunity to build it right.”  He was also reported as calling this a wise investment that would produce more revenue than cost.  A large business or factory would bring significant revenue to Gwinnett County, but we don’t see the government building these type facilities for private companies - nor should they!  Perhaps a company locating to Gwinnett may get a preferential tax deal, but that falls far short of building a $59 million facility using $31 million of taxpayer dollars.  District 4 Commissioner Kevin Kenerly said, “I don’t want just to go to a high school field.  I want a first-class facility there.”  Easy to do when you can just take the money from others to realize your goal.  At least District 3 Commissioner Mike Beaudreau displayed some concern about this misuse of taxpayer dollars and implied that he had considered the various business cases available at this juncture.

But I’m not pleased about it, obviously, at all.  I’m very frustrated. But at this point, I looked at every other recourse possible, including plowing it under, and it would all end up being more expensive.

I also take exception to the fact that the board put this question among the “non-controversial” items in their recent meeting.  While I doubt that the comments of citizens would have changed the vote, Gwinnett taxpayers, the very people who are funding the dreams and aspirations of Nasuti and Kenerly, were denied by the board the chance to be heard on the record.  Again, this makes sense from the political point of view: you are about to pick someone’s pocket, so don’t give them a chance to call attention to your actions, especially when you have to go and ask these same people to keep your job when you are next up for reelection.

There is more to say on this issue, but I wanted to first summarize the issue and provide some first thoughts in this initial post before offering a broader framing in a subsequent post.

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?

Normally a primary election is simply a step on the road to elected office, but in a county such as Gwinnett with a predominantly Republican voter base, the primary is often the election that determines who will represent the people during the coming term.  Tonight some candidates tasted victory, several tasted defeat and still others hang in limbo as they face the opportunity or threat of a runoff.

I spent this evening at the Doug Stacks election night gathering at Lil River Grill on the square in Lawrenceville (beautiful restaurant, if you have never been there!).  While the results from District 3 were not as we had hoped, it was a good time to meet people and make new friends.  (To any Buzz reader I met tonight, it was a pleasure meeting you and I hope that you have found something in the Buzz that will keep you reading past the election.)  Unfortunately, Mike Beaudreau will go on to represent the district for another term assuming the nearly impossible does not occur in the general election where he will face Earl Herndon.  I am disappointed but I was realistic.  I understand the mindset of many Gwinnett residents and expected them to buy into Beaudreau’s candidacy.  That is the their privilege in a country where we elect our leaders by popular vote.  However, the majority does not always rule.

Yes, the majority carried the night and they do rule in selecting the District 3 commissioner.  Where they do not rule is in taking away our private property rights.  A victory does not give Beaudreau, homeowner activists, or any other government official the right to deprive of us our private property rights.  For that reason, we have laws to protect those rights from the tyranny of the majority.  Hopefully, Mike Beaudreau will see that being fair to all that come before the Board of Commissioners is the way to govern in his second term. I hope that Mike gives me the opportunity to applaud his decisions and celebrate the fairness of his judgment in the next four years.  If not, my goal for the Buzz is to remain a watchdog and advocate for property rights.  On a lighter note, I do understand one thing more clearly after tonight.  I now can appreciate why Neal Boortz always talked about why Hillary getting elected would be a boon for his radio show.  The Buzz promises to be a much more interesting place if the next four years of Mike Beaudreau match the first four.

District 3 was not the only commission race tonight.  In the crucial chairman’s race, as I write this post, Charles Bannister is mere tenths of a percentage point away from winning the Republican nomination outright and moving on to the general without a runoff.  Incumbents do not generally do well in runoffs because all those who voted for opponents were dissatisfied enough to choose another option.  This was precisely what happened in 2004 when Bannister took then-Chairman Wayne Hill into electoral overtime. That summer, I fully expected the anti-Hill voters backing third-place finisher Marcia Neaton to flock to Bannister.  They did and Bannister won the runoff after finishing second in the primary.  This time the role is reversed and Bannister faces the prospect of being the incumbent in a runoff, this time against Lorraine Green.  An interesting twist is that Lorraine Green is somewhat of an incumbent as a sitting commissioner.  If the numbers hold and these two face off in three weeks, projecting the outcome is tricky.  Glenn Pirkle, with all due respect, was not a serious candidate and is not clearly labeled as a “developer candidate” or a “homeowner candidate.”  I suspect his voters were simply saying  “none of the above.”  The question would become were PIrkle supporters generally more opposed to Green or Bannister?  The margin plays in Bannister’s favor.  With the chairman mere fractions from a 50%+1 majority, Green would have to pull nearly 100% of Pirkle’s voters to win a runoff.  I find this highly unlikely.  However, the runoff is a new election.  Turnout becomes key as voters have to trudge back to the polling place for possibly just that one race.  Whichever candidate’s supporters are more energetic and motivated could prove decisive.  Lorraine Green has her vocal supporters who seem to be motivated not just by support for her but dislike for Bannister.  Are Bannister’s backers equally as passionate about him?  Given that the chairman’s race was probably the biggest draw on a fairly sparse Republican primary ballot, I suspect that many of the today’s voters will be inspired enough to vote again.  I expect it would be a close runoff, but I would take Bannister in an absolute squeaker.

District 1 is almost certainly going to be a runoof between Shirley Lasseter and someone.  The question is will she face Bruce LeVell or Carol Hassell?  I don’t suspect it much matters.  With 94.6% of precincts reporting, Lasseter has just over 42% of the vote.  There is not an incumbent so that factor in projecting the runoff can be tossed out the window.  I suspect the vast majority of votes in this race were cast in favor of a candidate as opposed to against another.  With few voters of the “anyone but Shirley” perspective, I look for the third place finisher’s votes to be fairly evenly distributed with Shirley Lasseter emerging as the District 1 commissioner replacing Lorraine Green.  (”Replacing Lorraine Green” - if Bannister can just get over 50% tonight, that is a very sweet-sounding phrase!).  I am not a huge fan of Shirley but I am even less of a fan of Carol Hassell and would gladly take Shirley in the runoff.  I still hold out hope that Bruce LeVell can hang onto his less than 100 vote edge over Hassell to get in the runoff and then find a way to win but, I think that would be an uphill battle.

A quick note.  TADs appear to be on the way to approval by the voters and GOP voters say no to MARTA while Democrats say yes.  In total, MARTA barely fails.

Gwinnett political observer, Bob Griggs, recently sent out an edition of his newsletter entitled “Do you REALLY know Doug Stacks?“  Reading his newsletter, Bob is obviously not a supporter of Doug Stacks.  However, some of the points he makes about Doug are either spin or opinion and demand a response.  I am grateful, however, to have comments from my commission endorsements quote in Bob’s newsletter!  I just wish he would have characterize my views more accurately:

A local pro-developer blogger endorsed Stacks, saying about Beaudreau: “Mike has been beholden to homeowner special interests and basically brags about this.” But even the blogger had to admit: “…Mike is the kind of person we need in politics.”

Interesting.  I did not realize that I am a “pro-developer” blogger.  I thought I was just an advocate for property rights!  As much as some in Gwinnett don’t want to admit it, developers have property rights too.  Thus, I guess being fair to developers qualifies as being “pro-developer.”

In addition, I did say Mike Beaudreau is a the kind of person we need in politics. Bob, however, left out the balance of my comments that outlined Beaudreau’s questionable brand of conservatism and how his own record makes him undeserving of reelection. If Mike were up for Man of the Year, he would have a much more credible candidacy.

Moving onto Bob’s other comments on the District 3 candidates:

I believe that Beaudreau has accepted contributions from “developer interests.” He and I have had this discussion on a couple of occasions. I have a much stricter definition of “developer,” it seems.

While I cannot speak for Doug Stacks, I did an analysis of Mike’s contributions. I came to the conclusion that Mike may not have taken donations from developers directly (a donation from MHC Development notwithstanding) but he sure seems to have taken donations from those that benefit from developers. Bob only quotes a portion of Mike’s promise regarding developer contributions. The full comment on Mike’s website is:

In order to avoid conflicts of interest between the citizens he represents and those who stand to gain financially by the decisions he makes as commissioner, Mike has refused to take campaign contributions from developers, and will continue to do so in the future.

That smacks of splitting hairs to me. Perhaps Beaudreau has not violated the letter of his promise, but I ask, does it not appear that he may have violated the spirit of his promise? I won’t go into the detailed reasoning here - you can read my previous analysis for that - but basically I would not care who his donors are, developer, developer’s interests, or Joe Citizen had Mike not made an issue of it and then danced on the periphery of his promise. I am not suggesting he has done anything unethical, but we must question why the discrepancy, explicit or implicit, between his promise and his actions.

Bob then goes on to contradict himself on several points.

Bob apparently supports my conclusion on the donations when he says that Mike has taken donations from developer interests.  Given that, why does Bob not seem to have any serious issue with Mike Beaudreau taking such donations while simultaneously criticizing Doug Stacks for taking development money?

Bob also says that Mike has not hidden any donations because he disclosed them on his campaign finance forms.  Doug Stacks has dong likewise as Bob notes yet Bob accuses Doug of “purposely [hiding] his campaign contribution report?” This makes no sense. Perhaps Doug did wait to the last possible day to file, but isn’t that what the purpose of a deadline is? Bob’s issue should be with Gwinnett County elections office and its deadlines and time to post the forms online.  However, Bob implies that Doug Stacks has done something underhanded by being in compliance with the county’s requirements.

I am not an expert on election finance by any stretch, but ,reviewing past disclosures on the Gwinnett Elections website, it appears that candidates in active campaigns file quarterly reports. The Mike Beaudreau report which I analyzed and which is being questioned is dated March 31, 2008. I note that Mike Beaudreau nor Doug Stacks has a June 30 report posted as yet.  Did Mike have to file a June 30 report? If he did and even if he filed it on June 30, no such report is posted.  So assuming both candidates have to file a second quarter report, why the criticism for Doug Stacks when no June reports for either candidate have been posted?

Now let’s look at Bob’s list of reasons not to vote for Doug Stacks:

1. Wow. Doug is a real estate broker. The horror of having an legitimate profession!  Mike Beaudreau is in sales?  I deal with sales people all the time in my job?  Should I toss a blanket characterization on Mike because of his legitimate career?  To hear the Gwinnett anti-private property rights crowd talk, real estate brokers are down there with drug dealers and ladies of the night on the profession scale. Selling real estate, commercial or residential is a perfectly respectable and needed profession. No harm here.

2. Oh no! Doug deals with those horrible, nasty developers! Since Bob dislikes developers so much, I am amazed he has time to keep his website up to date since I am sure he grows his own food, milks his own cows, and makes his own clothes, lest he patronize those terrible stores that…*gasp*…a developer was involved in building.  Better yet, next time someone goes shopping, goes bowling, goes to a movie, or goes out to eat, thank a developer and the businesspeople who have places to operate their business thanks to a developer.

3. Doug works for the City of Lil burn which has its own planning and zoning oversight.  Even on issues the Board of Commissioners might hear that would impact the city, LIlburn is in District 2.  With district courtesy, most if not all of Doug votes for any District 2 issues would fall inline with the District 2 commissioner.  Thus, the threat of conflict of interest is minimal.

4. Bob basically acknowledged that Mike Beaudreau’s campaign was financed by developer interests’ dollars.The  point?

5. Debunked above.

6. Bob, this is the best you can do? Should Doug just mail out nine pages of a document to every voter so as not to have to do any editing to highlight the pertinent info? This is a silly charge.  Bob has inferred that Doug was trying “to make it look like Beaudreau had received nothing but contributions from developers.” That is nothing more than his own interpretation. More reasonably, Doug simply highlighted the material to fit the space.

7. This falls under the live by the sword, die by the sword. Homeowners try to hold hostage other property owners even remotely close to their property. Ever heard the saying “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it?” Well if the homeowners want to be sticklers about the planning and zoning rules and try to block everything they happen to not like, then why shouldn’t a developer say “Fine, we will just use this land for whatever the law allows..That ok? Hmmm…looks like it is zoned for a trailer park.” The Bay Creek HOA did not have an investment in that property at stake. In fact, aside from their personal preferences, I doubt they had little material gain or loss from this decision. I fully suspect their opposition was more about what they liked and did not want in their area. Well that is why we have private property rights. My rights should not be infringed unless it harms another; someone not liking something is not enough of a reason to block those rights.  I don’t live far from Bay Creek or the strawberry fields. They are nicel but I don’t own them and I have no right to tell the owner that he has to keep using that land for strawberry fields. I can vote with my wallet and patronize the business (which I don’t mainly because I don’t care to play farm laborer for a morning!) but that is all I have a right to do.

If I could point to one fact to succinctly support support my endorsements for the Gwinnett County Commission, this headline would be it: “Sierra Club endorses Green, Hassell, Beaudreau.”  When you are on the opposite side of the environmental activists, you are often making the right choice!

A quick look at the endorsements page on the Sierra Club website, shows the leftward lean of this organization.  Of 13 U.S. Senate seats in this fall’s election in which the club has made an endorsement, all 13 picks were Democrats.  Of 156 U.S. House races in which an endorsement is listed, 152 are Democrats.  And the cherry on top is an endorsement of Barack Obama for President.  Thus, out of 170 endorsements, the Sierra Club endorses 166 Democrats - a rate of 97.6%! This is also the same Sierra Club that a quick Google News search finds opposing efforts to expand energy supplies to meet the needs of Americans.  The Sierra Club even opposed an Arizona sales tax measure to improve transportation because it was too focused on roads. With the traffic issues that Gwinnett faces, do we really want to choose the candidates that are acceptable to an organization that constantly places an environmental agenda ahead of practical solutions to problems facing our country?

While the Green and Beaudreau were not quoted in the article, Carol Hassell seemed pleased with the endorsement.  Despite the Sierra Club’s record, Hassell is “honored and grateful” to be endorsed by the organization.  Apparently, this fits with the liberal, anti-business agenda she went on to describe.

I’m honored by and grateful for the Greater Gwinnett Group of the Sierra Club’s endorsement,” Hassell said. “I will continue to work to preserve green space in Gwinnett, which helps to moderate growth, and I fully intend to protect our communities by supporting revitalization - including transit alternatives and protecting green space as essential components.

I felt a definite anti-growth/anti-progress vibe from reading her ideas on her website and she has basically confirmed my impression.   Her term of “moderating growth” is a stance that would likely be highly unfriendly to business and would probably continue the assault on private property rights which has become all too common among certain members of the Gwinnett County Commission.

District 1 has a chance to get an objective, fair voice for all members of the western part of Gwinnett county. With a Sierra Club endorsement and Hassell’s stated ideas, the evidence is mounting that Hassell is most definitely the wrong choice for north Gwinnett.

(Note:  I have removed a link to a post made on TalkGwinnett.com that questioned whether Carol Hassell was really a Democrat in disguise.  After considering the points made by the original poster, I see no justification for such an extreme conclusion based on his claims.  While I do think that Hassell is the wrong choice in the District 1 race and that she may fall into the “liberal Republican” classification for local issues, to suggest she is nothing more than a bona fide Democrat is unfair.)

With just over a week until the GOP primary, the time has arrived for the Buzz to makes its endorsements in the Gwinnett Commission races: Chairman, District 1 and District 3.  For anyone who has been following this blog, these endorsements will not come as any great surprise.

Chairman

A week ago I thought I might come down to the wire on this contest.  I have long realized that this race was really between Charles Bannister and Lorraine Green.  Glenn Pirkle is simply in over his head and is not a serious candidate in my estimation.  As for Green versus Bannister, I eventually recognized that Charles Bannister’s tax relief plan was superior to that proposed by Green in that it provides relief for not only homeowners but also the businesses in Gwinnett that provide goods, services and job to county residents.  Even if Green’s plan were better on paper, her flip-flop on tax cuts in less than a two-month period forces one to question whether her proposal is simply a campaign tactic that would be set aside if it threatened the government services that she consistently backs.  Lorraine Green advocates change for Gwinnett, but this raises the real question in this race - what change do we need that she can really provide?

A glance through Green’s Plans for Change is a merely list of more government regulation.  That is not the change that Gwinnett needs.  I recently asked a friend who supports Green to tell me one thing that Charles Bannister has done wrong as Chairman.  The best he could articulate was that he does not like Charles and that Charles is satisfied with the status quo.  Given the changes that Green supports, the status quo is preferable.  Yes, Green is a better speaker than Bannister but if style was more important than substance I would be on the Barack Obama bandwagon.  The bottom-line is this - Charles Bannister’s job performance during his first term has earned him an opportunity for a second.  He has done an adequate job and he does not bring the downside of Green’s flip-flop on tax relief and support for more government.  The Buzz endorses the re-election Charles Bannister for Commission Chairman.

District 1

District 1 features a three-way race between Carol Hassell, Shirley Lasseter and Bruce LeVell.  I early on dismissed Lasseter as an option in this race.  Her performance as mayor of Duluth in the aftermath of the Runaway Bride fiasco soured me on her as I felt she unfairly piled on Jennifer Wilbanks.  Lasseter was also mayor during the development of the enormous Duluth City Hall.  Duluth’s new City Hall appears to be larger and grander than the courthouses for many counties in Georgia.  Gwinnett needs elected officials who will be more responsible with taxpayer funds and Shirley Lasseter’s City Hall is a testament to poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars.  Lasseter only confirmed my assessment of her candidacy with her performances in two candidates forums I attended.  She simply does not project the image and presence required of a commissioner for a county the size of Gwinnett.

Carol Hassell was also unimpressive in the candidates forums.  She was flat and uninspiring.  However, the knock on Hassell’s candidacy is her stand on the issues.  Similar to Green’s change agenda, Hassell’s Ideas for Tomorrow has a strong lean to additional government regulation in land use, precisely the problem Gwinnett needs to be moving away from.  Long-time Gwinnett political observer Bob Griggs characterizes Hassell as having a “reputation as a fairly-liberal ‘tree hugger.’”  A liberal tree-hugger who supports more government regulation?  Gwinnett should run, not walk, away from Carol Hassell as District 1 Commissioner.

You might assume this means that the Buzz backs Bruce LeVell simply by process of elimination.  Even if this were my rationale, given his opposition, this would be a more than justifiable cause for casting a ballot for LeVell.  However, Bruce LeVell also happens to be the strongest candidate in this race.  Bruce was the most passionate and well-spoken candidate in the forums.  Bruce focuses on the real issues that Gwinnett needs to address such as crime and public transportation.  LeVell’s experience on the MARTA Board of Directors and advocacy for light rail makes him qualified to lead Gwinnett at a time when questions about transportation will be paramount.  Finally, LeVell’s background as a successful small businessman should give him a greater sensitivity to balancing needs of business and homeowners in land use decisions.

The choice in District 1 is easy.  The Buzz endorses Bruce LeVell for District 1 Commissioner.

District 3

The choice in District 3 is the easiest of all the seats.  Mike Beaudreau’s first term as commssioner has been a blow to private property rights and the free market in southern Gwinnett.  This is a real shame.  I visited Beaudreau’s Facebook page yesterday and reading that, I cannot argue that Mike is the kind of person we need in politics.  If he were running for the State Legislature where individual land use decisions do not come into play, I suspect I would be a supporter.  However, Beaudreau is not running for state office or Man of the Year but rather District 3 Commissioner.  Therefore, we have to consider his record over the last four years and that record is seriously wanting.

Mike has been beholden to homeowner special interests and basically brags about this.  As a result of this bias, he has failed to protect the property rights of anyone other than homeowners, which is a serious matter because when anyone’s rights are violated, a dangerous precedent is established.  Mike has hampered the ability of his constituents to take advantage of the latest in wireless telecommunications services with his unreasonable and continued opposition to cell phone towers.  Beaudreau also supported the mandatory garbage pickup plan adopted by the Board of Commisioners, a program that substituted government decision for your freedom of choice.  Though Mike promotes “holding the line on…property…taxes,” he supported the deal to bring the Richmond Braves to Gwinnett despite the possibility that county backing of the project could result in a tax increase.  Mike Beaudreau claims he is a conservative but are limitations on property rights, restrictions on the free market, and a possible property tax hike the type of conservatism that most Gwinnettians support?  True conservatism seeks to protect our rights and limit the influence of government in our lives.  These are conservative ideals that Mike Beaudreau’s record do not reflect.

Doug Stacks is a political newcomer.  He does not have a long history as a career politician.  However, this is not a problem as I do not think potlical experience is mandatory to be a county commissioner.  In fact, we should not be afraid to embrace the American concept of citizen representation.  The biggest skill required of a county commissioner is common sense and a willingness to be fair to all members of the Gwinnett community.  This is not to say that Doug would not bring valuable skills to the position.  Doug has experience as a planning professional which should give him a deeper understanding of all facets of land use decisions and an appreciation for balancing the needs of all parties involved.  Doug understands that reasonable commercial growth enhances the tax base and helps to avoid placing an excessive burden on homeowners to fund Gwinnett County government.  Either of the tax proposals of the Chairman candidates depend upon a vibrant business community to work.  Doug’s approach would enhance the ability of a sales tax-based system to satisfy the funding needs of the county government.  Finally, Doug is a long-term Gwinnett resident.  He stands with those of us who know Gwinnett not just as where we live but as home.  When Doug says he has a “vested interest” in his community, I have little dificulty believing that to be the case.

The choice in District 3 is crystal clear.  The Buzz endorses Doug Stacks for District 3 Commissioner.

During the June 16 candidates forum, District 3 Commission challenger Doug Stacks leveled an unexpected charge against incumbent Mike Beaudreau.  Stacks claimed that, despite Beaudreau’s assertion to the contrary, the commissioner had accepted campaign donations from developers.  Stacks, flipping through several printed pages, cited Beaudreau campaign financial disclosures as the source of his information.  While I have been very critical of Mike Beaudreau’s record on the Commission, I did not want to simply create a Buzz post parroting Stacks’ claim.  Over the last two weeks, I have looked at Beaudreau’s Campaign Contribution Report of 31 March 2008, and my personal conclusion is that Mike may have some explaining to do.

I want to clearly state before going further that I do not think that Mike Beaudreau has engaged in any inappropriate or unethical behavior.  During the forum, Beaudreau responded to Stacks’ comments by standing by his promise to not accept contributions from developers “110 percent” and suggesting that we consider his record.  Here Mike is absolutely correct - his record certainly shows no bias toward developers as he has been hostile on more than one occasion to businesses coming before the board.  I have personally seen Mike rule against multiple cell phone towers, deny applications with the flimsy rational of avoiding “spot zonings,” and argue with a residential developer about whether homes in a proposed community should be allowed to have front-entry garages.  This much is clear - if Mike wants to run on being unfriendly to developers (and, in my opinion, private property rights), he has a strong record to on which to run.

Similarly, I do not think that a business making a campaign contribution is in any way inappropriate.  Despite the impression sometimes encountered in Gwinnett these days, being involved in real estate development is a perfectly legitimate business.  Government decisions and laws impact not only the homeowners that the likes of Beaudreau and Lorraine Green favor, but also businesses and their owners, managers and employees as well.  These businesses have every right to participate in government by making legal campaign contributions.  As such, the fact that any entity has made a legal contribution does not imply any unethical behavior.

Had Mike not raised the issue about not accepting developer donations, Doug Stacks’ charge and my investigation would have immaterial and unneeded.  The only reason to examine Beaudreau’s donor list is to consider whether Mike does as he says.  My investigation is solely whether a politician is being forthright with the voters.  For reference, here is Mike’s specific claim from his campaign website.

In order to avoid conflicts of interest between the citizens he represents and those who stand to gain financially by the decisions he makes as commissioner, Mike has refused to take campaign contributions from developers, and will continue to do so in the future.

Mike has made a very clear statement and, as an elected official, he should be subject to scrutiny as to how well he keeps his promises.

Below, I have simply listed some of the donors on the contribution report along with information and links that I obtained from a simple Google search on information contained within the report.  You have seen MIke’s claim and you can access the same information I uncovered and do any further investigation on your own.  You should make up your mind as to whether Mike is saying one thing and doing another.  The question I would suggest you keep in mind as you review this is.  Mike wants to “avoid conflicts of interest” with those “who stand to gain financially by the decisions he makes as commissioner.”  Laudable and I would state that his record shows no such conflict.  However, I have to ask, what about other entities that stand to gain from his decisions as commissioner?  Is it acceptable to take contributions from them?  Does he have a double standard between developers and other groups that may have a financial stake in the outcome of board votes?

Donor: Anderson, Tate & Carr, PC
The Lawrenceville law firm is listed on a state “Developments of Regional Impact” filing as representing Satellite Realty Holdings, LLC, developer of a project called the Satellite Business Center in Gwinnett.  Also, the firm was listed on another DRI filing for Y Group Enterprises, Inc., developer of a “Mixed Use: 3 12-story condo/office towers; retail; 12-story hotel” at Steve Reynolds and I-85.  Additionally, the firm is the employer of Michael Sullivan, the attorney that has represented T-Mobile in several recent Gwinnett cell tower applications, including the Lenora airport tower.

Donor: W.H. Britt
A W. H. Britt, at the time employed by W. H. Britt & Assoc., Inc. in Grayson, was listed among the Board of Directors of GBC Bancorp in a 1996 SEC filing.  W.H. Britt & Associates is listed as a commercial and residential developer on this page.

Donor: Jonathan M. Evans
Jonathan Evans is a civil engineer with Evans & Miller.  A Jon M. Evans is listed on the company profile as a founder of the company.  The company does work on site planning, site engineering, environmental engineering, transportation and construction engineering.  Previous projects include office and retail space in Braselton and office space in Snellville.

Donor: Hayes, James & Associates
The firm has been involved in several projects in Gwinnett including the new Gwinnett Medical Center-Duluth, the Georgia Baptist Convention headquarters off Sugarloaf Parkway, and transportation engineering on Hamilton Mill Parkway.

Donor: Donald E. Hill
Donald E. Hill is listed as a consulting engineer for United Consulting in this financial filing by the Saxby Chambliss for Senate campaign.  The firm’s website lists Mr. Hill as Chairman of the Board and Chief Engineer.  The firms services include geotechnical engineering, environmental consulting, geophysical exploration services, water resources, construction materials testing, and property inspection services. The firm lists among its clients, Beazer Homes, KB Homes, Jordan, Jones & Goulding, John Wieland Homes, and a variety of retail companies, all of which have had or currently have projects in Gwinnett County.

Donor: Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
The firm provides a variety of engineering, management and planning services.  The firm’s projects include Gwinnett’s F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center.

Donor: Mahaffey Pickens Tucker, LLP
Attorney R. Lee Tucker is nearly as much of a fixture at the Board of Commissioners monthly public hearings as the commissioners themselves!  The firm has represented numerous development projects that have come before the Board.  Check any public hearing agenda, and odds are you will find a project represented by Mr. Tucker.

Donor: MHC Development, Inc.
With a company name like that, do I really need to even dig deeper?  I could not find a website, so if someone responds and tells me they develop software or something else besides real estate, I will stand corrected.

Donor: E.R. Snell Contractors
E.R. Snell is a contracting firm based in Snellville.  Among other projects, the company has worked on Discover Mills and was recently awarded a project to expand Pleasant Hill Rd., a project approved by the Board of Commissioners.

So, there is Mike’s promise along with information on several donors reported by MIke’s very own campaign.  While technically, only one firm appears to be an active developer (MHC Development; W.H. Britt is listed as being retired), many of these companies work with developers as their attorneys or engineers.  These donors stand to gain financially when the Board of Commissioners makes decisions that greenlight a development.

Does Mike’s assertion of standing by his promise “110 percent” ring true given that he has not technically accepted donations from developers (MHC Development, notwithstanding)?  Or, is Mike splitting hairs or practicing political doublespeak ?  Does it even matter to you as a voter given his voting record?

As I have stated, I have been very critical of MIke Beaudreau’s candidacy and voting record.  However, I am fair and, as such, I would encourage Beaudreau to give the voters his side of the story.  I would encorage him to communicate to the Buzz readers why his “110 percent” commitment is not doublespeak.  He can leave a comment or he can email me a response that I would be happy to post in its entirety.

The question remains whether Mike Beaudreau has some explaining to do.

Sunday afternoon I was preparing lunch when there was a knock at the door.  Doug Stacks had stopped by to drop off a few campaign yard signs, one of which is now standing in my front yard.  Doug told me he has been putting out signs in south Gwinnett that afternoon.  I was glad to hear this, as I have been noting recently the distressingly high number of Beaudreau signs I have been seeing.  However, there is some interest out there about Doug because my So just who is Doug Stacks? article from late May is the third most viewed post on my site and the search term “doug stacks” is the third most common search that sends user to the Buzz from search engines.  (Thanks to Google Analytics for that insight!)  Tonight, Doug faces Beaudreau in a candidates forum at GJAC in Lawrenceville.  Hopefully, Doug will make a splash and start turning the heads of District 3 voters.