Gwinnett Buzz

The Snellville City Council deferred votes on two items regarding the crematory issue last night.  They did not act on the question of the air quality ordinance nor did they take up the matter of the facility’s building plans.  For now, there is no change in the situation.

Chris Nuzum is not taking the discrimination he is facing from the city of Snellville lying down.  His attorney has stated has indicated their intent to sue the city.

The attorney for the owner of a controversial crematory is ready to file a lawsuit against the city of Snellville if it tries to rule against the now-shuttered business.

…

“It was zoned that before Chris Nuzum bought it,” Moore said. “[The council] may have a different view today, but their view doesn’t hold water.”

Kelly Kautz is “pleased.”  The City of Snellville has won the latest round in its crusade against the Cremation Society of the South.  Simultaneously, the city has dealt a blow to small business and private property rights.  As a result of a Snellville Board of Appeals decision Tuesday,  the city today ordered the crematory to cease operations.  The question of whether to accept the changes to the building plan that was originally submitted to the city in comparison to what was actually built will now come before the city council.  This is the city council where several members have worked tirelessly to protect their political backsides while stomping all over Chris Nuzum’s property rights.  When this is heard, with a crowd likely packed with NIMBY neighbors of the crematory, what are the odds that the council will vote in a manner that will allow the crematory to resume business?  I would think slim to none.  Kautz and her council gang have clearly demonstrated they are more interesting in protecting their political power than protecting the rights of all members of the Snellville community.

While details of the appeals board reasoning is sketchy, one issue was the fact that the crematory has a smokestack.  That may sound like a pretty important deviation from the building plan.  However, this reason is as flimsy as tissue paper when you consider that the smokestack was build to look like a standard chimney, an architectural detail that fits perfectly for a business operating in a converted ranch-style home.  Setting aside the backdrop of the crematory controversy, residents should be apalled that the government can usurp a property owner’s rights for such a trivial point.

As is too often the case when government enters into a crusade against a private citizen, a lawsuit may be the only way for the citizen to protect his rights.  This appears to be the path that Chris Nuzum intends to follow.  Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer, one of the few fair-minded elected officials in Snellville, expects a similar course of action, saying, “It looks like we’re going to be in a lawsuit.”  As a Christian I do not support vengeance, but I do think Nuzum is well within bounds to seek redress in the court system.  The actions of those unfairly targeting his business are surely costing his business a significant amount of money.  According to the AJC, two nearby residents are behind the appeal that led to Tuesday’s decision:

Attorney Frank Jenkins, who argued Tuesday night on behalf of residents Milus and Charlene Maney, who filed the appeal, said the crematory should be shut down immediately.

While I am not an attorney, I would wonder, unless there is more impact to them other than proximity to the business and a chimney, if the Maneys have legal standing to pursue such an appeal.  (If they do, in the absence of a reasonable cause to appeal the city’s decision, the relevant ordinance should be changed such that nearby property owners cannot place their preferences over another person’s rights.)  Furthermore, even if the council were to accept the plan changes and allow the crematory to re-open, this vote may not come until November.  I would think that would give Nuzum cause to sue the city for loss of revenue.  Also, if the Maneys cannot show any substantitve cause for their appeal, Nuzum should be able to seek compensation from the couple (and perhaps get an ordinance that would such weak appeals to be overturned by the court).  If the law does not allow a victim of a specious legal action to seek such compensation, this law should be reconsidered by the state legislature in order to protect property owners from NIMBY crusades.

I find it disgraceful that as a legitimate member of the Snellville business community, operating a needed and respectable business, Chris Nuzum cannot expect simple fair treatment from several members of the Snellville City Council.  Politicians should pay for this affront to basic liberties with their jobs.  I earlier blogged that I doubted Kautz and company would be held responsible at election time since too many residents were more concerned about their wants and desires than the sanctity of property rights.  However, I take heart that the majority of comments to the AJC article are running against the NIMBY crowd.  If these commenters are other Snellville residents, perhaps there is hope that Kelly Kautz and her cohorts will not get away with their political games.  Regardless, this controversy is a frontal assault on property rights and a black eye for the City of Snellville.

Snellville City Councilwoman Kelly Kautz is continuing her politically-motivated assault on a private business.  Her proposed air quality ordinance could cost the Snellville crematory as much as $250,000 for air quality monitoring equipment.  I believe crematory owner Chris Nuzum hits the nail on the head in saying, “The city would like to make it cost prohibitive so we would have to close shop.”

These actions show that elected officials like Kelly Kautz are what is wrong with government.  She says she “doing this for the health of our citizens and our environment”, though this assertion rings hollow given that the need for or efficacy of this ordinance is questionable at best.  If Nuzum is right, Kautz is apparently willing to use the power of government to effectively put a legal business whose owner has followed all laws out of commission.  This is an absolute disgrace.  I do not know if Snellville has a recall law, but I would hope that someone would investigate whether such a citizen response is possible.  Regardless, if this is the disdain that a Snellville elected official shows to private business in her city, I am inclined to no longer spend any money with businesses within the Snellville city limits.  I hate to harm innocent businesses, but I would hope that eventually Snellville residents would realize that such behavior on the part of elected officials is absolutely unacceptable and would act to keep Snellville from being a dangerous precedence for other local governments.

This is another of those articles that I missed during last month’s blogging slowdown.  It is a little dated but I wanted to bring closure to a story I followed closely this summer.  In late August, Chick-fil-a in Snellville removed the the curb cut to Westridge Drive that was first approved then denied by the City of Snellville.  After completion of construction, the restanrant intended to approach the City about restitution for construction and removal costs but I have seen no reports as to whether the City would reimburse the restaurant.  If you know what came of this situation, please respond to this post and let us know.

Snellville City Council member Kelly Kautz is continuing her efforts to shore up her political standing. Unfortunately, to do so, she is recklessly pushing government overregulation. Due to my travels early last month, I never blogged about the opening of the Snellville crematory.  Despite politically-inspired efforts by Kautz and other council members to deny crematory owner Chris Nuzum’s property rights, City Manager Russell Treadway found that concerns over crematory emissions were unwarranted.  This apparently was not the end of the matter for some council members.  The council “voted for a new ordinance allowing city employees to regulate the emissions by various methods.”  Two weeks later, the city attorney informed the council that they had no authority to regulate emissions.  Kautz was undeterred as she and fellow council member Robert Jenkins both expressed disagreement with the attorney’s conclusion.  I must pause to observe: if you are simply going to brush aside the opinion of a city attorney, an attorney who by definition is acting on behalf of the City, then what is the point of having that city attorney offer advice?  To be fair, Kautz is an attorney herself so she may have a legal leg on which to stand.  However, Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer has noted that she is not an environmental lawyer but rather a trial lawyer.  This leads to reasonable skepticism over Kautz’s latest move.

Last week Kautz introduced a draft of an ordinance which limits the levels of “mercury and dioxin/furan emissions for any incinerator of bodies, body parts or infectious wastes.”  So what are the qualifications of a small-town lawyer, whose own law firm and campaign websites do not state any expertise in environmental law or science, to draft such a technical, scientific ordinance?  Apparently none since she could not explain in laymen’s terms what the ordinance limited.  She stated that the language “was modeled after a Pennsylvania ordinance, which was modeled after the Clean Air Act.”  Is it not clear what is going on here?

As I have been saying, this is nothing but politics.  Kautz is pushing this unnecessary law to rebuild her political capital.  You might think that since the crematory has opened that Kautz is motivated by simple concern for Snellville’s residents.  Perhaps, but there have been no reasonable questions raised in this case over air quality.  All such questions have appeared high political.  Also, the efficacy of a single town attempting to regulate air quality, something that would likely have to be done on a larger scale, is highly questionable.  If this were a legitimate effort to impact air quality, why is Kautz proposing a rushed “cut and paste” ordinance rather taking the time to consult with air quality experts in order to draft a more scientifically researched law?  I suspect that Kautz is continuing to push this matter in order to build a case that her opposition to the crematory was well-founded and not simply political.  Unfortunately for Kautz, the events of recent months do not bear this out.

What is clearly going on in Snellville is a continuation of the political games that started in the summer.  The residents of Snellville should see through this and, even if they were opposed to the crematory, recognize that the politicians are doing little more than pandering to them.  I would also hope that voters would recognize the circumstances and background of this case and respect Chris Nuzum’s property rights.  Sadly, based on a comment made at a council meeting last month, Kautz and company’s efforts are paying political dividends.

“For the council members that have tried their best … to fight for us, we thank you,” [Eric] Bonaparte said, but added that he’s disappointed in those on the other side of the debate.

I hope that the council will stop the political games and vote down this ordinance.  Leave a complex task such as regulating air quality to scientific experts at a state or federal level.  Political pandering is insulting enough on its own, but pushing ill-conceived laws for the personal benefit of politicians is how we wind up with tangled webs of government regulations that increase costs of doing business and stifle small enterprise.

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.

The Bay Creek HOA has posted a blog entry alerting their members of a possible upcoming rezoning battle.  The interesting thing here is that the proposed hotel is over a mile from the entrance of their neighborhood and on the opposite side of GA Highway 20.  This is hardly a development that is in their backyard and would have any material impact on the use of their homes and property.  I can only see this as another likely case of NIMBYism.  While I cannot say until I further investigate this sitaution whether their opposition has any merit, as someone who lives close to the Bay Creek development, this is a zoning case on which I can offer my two cents as more than just a blogger.  I would remind readers that the Bay Creek HOA has a history of NIMBY activism.  The HOA was actively involved in an effort to oppose the Strawberry Field zoning case last year, a case that reared its head in the District 3 Commission race this summer.

The AJC has reported that lawsuits filed by landowner Jack Bandy alleging violation of his property rights in the Duluth Wal-Mart Supercenter case have been dropped.  The suits were reportedly dropped in a manner that “could allow them to [be refiled] later.”  Hopefully, these cases will eventually be heard by a court.  When the government has possibly violated our property rights, ensuring that those infringing citizens’ rights are held accountable, in a court if necessary, is very important.  After all, since the elected officials often won’t be held accountable by NIMBY voters, courts are often the only option.

You knew this would happen.  It was pretty much inevitable.  As a result of the crematory flap, the threat of lawsuits now hang over the City of Snellville like a dark cloud.  City Attorney Michael Williams figures the city can bat 0.500 against these suits.  I am not an attorney, but I think Williams’ assessment is about right.  In my opinion, the likely outcomes of these two lawsuits are fairly obvious.

One one hand, the residents near the proposed crematory have gathered money for an attorney and have been a general thorn in the side of the Snellville City Council.  However, as I have asked here before, what exactly is the legal point they would make?  The council is under no legal obligation to enact ordinances to prohibit a crematory from operating on the property in question.  Perhaps, the residents do have an argument about diminished property value but, not being an attorney, I don’t know if that would pass legal muster either.

On the other hand, Chris Nuzum, owner of the crematory, would appear to have a pretty solid claim against the city if the council does not call a halt to its games and issue a Certificate of Occupancy in short order.  Nuzum has followed the rules but now a few members of council are using his property in a game of political football.  Even Mayor Jerry Oberholtzer sees this in saying, “Basically, we didn’t follow our own rules and we denied him the right of due process.”  I am not a fan of suing at the drop of a hat, but, when it comes to holding the government accountable for infringing on property rights, I am all for calling in the attorneys.  As such, I am glad to see that Nuzum is considering seeking restitution of any lost revenue from the City of Snellville.  Hopefully, the council members most responsible for these games will wind up losing more votes from other residents in Snellville who have to pay these games than the votes that would be gained by playing politics for crematory opponents.

Finally, I want to highlight a point made in the article.  I am not sure if there are any stragglers that do not see the political game here, but in case a few remaining Snellville residents think that the council is just doing its job, I thought this was very instructive.

The council doesn’t usually get involved in the permit process, overseen by the planning department.