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.

As the new North Logan Commons bows today with the opening of Lowe’s, AccessLoganville.com is reporting that the Best Buy store in Loganville will not open until Spring 2009.  The store will replace the current Best Buy at Park Place in Lilburn.

The Lowe’s store in North Logan Commons is slated to open on October 25.  Now those of us in the Loganville area who prefer Lowe’s don’t have to drive to Snellville for our home improvement needs!

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.

Earlier this week, I summarized the cost overruns for the new Gwinnett Braves baseball stadium that were funded by the Gwinnett County Commission.  Against that backdrop, I would now like to explore the financial wisdom behind this move.  I will set aside for the moment the non-financial question of whether government should be paying in the first place for a place of business - which, after all, is what a stadium is to a baseball team - for a private organization.  The reality is that we are in a financial strain in Gwinnett.  So why are our commissioners cavalierly throwing around millions of our dollars?

Several factors are contributing to the revenue pinch that Gwinnett is feeling right now.  On factor is the effect of slowing population growth on revenue generation.  While many would applaud this slowdown, unless the cost of government similarly slows, the gap between costs and revenue will have an impact on the county budget.  In response, several cost-savings measures have been implemented by the county:

Last week, the county announced a hiring freeze meant to put a dent in rising costs that will sap $20 million from the county’s budget this year. The tax commissioner’s office recently cut the work week to four days to save on energy costs, and police and fire employees have been asked to take measures to save on fuel costs.

Let’s consider this scenario.  If you are having to cut back on your living expenses - eliminating those premium cable channels or eating out less each week - because your household income has taken a hit, is that the time to go out and buy a new car that you don’t really need?  What if you pay for that car by drawing money from your rainy day fund, a fund that you have already been tapping in recent years to make ends meet?  Consider now that you are buying the car for a friend of the family.  This friend has the money to buy the car himself, but you are going to buy it and let him have primary use of the vehicle.  Also consider that, rather than getting a nice, serviceable Chevrolet or Buick, you and your friend decide that you are going to get a fine Cadillac.  After all, if you are going to buy the car, you might as well do it right.  Would you consider this wise management of your money?  Well, this is basically what the Gwinnett County Commission is doing with the Gwinnett Braves stadium.  Yes, it is an oversimplification and it does not adequately capture the expectation that the stadium will generate additional revenues from various sources for Gwinnett County, but I think this is a pretty fair representation of the situation.

This reckless use of our money is further compounded by the fact that the County denied quite a few law enforcement funding requests during the 2008 budget process.  I understand how budgeting processes work and I understand that departments ask for more than they expect to get so that their basic needs are met.  However, funding only a quarter of requested county positions seems too thin to account for normal budget inflation.  Some of the key positions denied include:

• Two victim assistance positions
• One prosecutor for Juvenile Court
• Two assistant district attorneys for the drug task force
• One criminal investigator for white-collar and computer crime
• Three additional investigators
• 20 Sheriff’s deputies and staff for criminal warrants
• 18 Sheriff department positions for jail operations

I do not know the total cost in compensation, benefits, training and other expenses that these positions would entail, but I think it is probably less than the $19 million that the commission just spent on upgraded leather, wheels, and navigation system for the their new stadium.  This failure to fund law enforcement positions is especially galling with today’s news of the impact on crime by illegal immigrants.

While Gwinnett County government does not have as poor a record of wasting taxpayer dollars as some other government entities, the Gwinnett Braves stadium shows absolute disrespect by our elected officials for the taxpayers of Gwinnett.  Bert Nasuti and Kevin Kenerly were quite smug in their comments defending this move.  County Administrator Jock Connell exhibited a similar tone in saying the reserve allows the County to pursue “opportunities,” noting, “We knew a time was coming when we would use these funds.”  What about opportunities that Gwinnett taxpayers would like to pursue with their funds?

$31 million of our money is being given to the Atlanta Braves organization, a business that can afford to pay four of its employees $14 million or more apiece in just 2008 alone.  This amount by itself could pay for the entire “enhanced” Gwinnett Braves facility!  The $31 million represents a transfer of $150 from each Gwinnett household to a business that pays multi-million dollar employees to play a game that you have to pay for your kids to play at a local park.  (Note:  This value uses the 2000 census count of households in Gwinnett County.)  I do not subscribe the wealth envy/class warfare politics so often used by Democrats.  Pro sports is a free market business and the Braves can spend whatever the market will bear on their players.  However, forceibly taking money from families that cannot even dream of making millions per year and giving it to a private business with such an enormous payroll is irresponsible on the part of elected officials.  To do so in a time when crime is a significant issue and those officials cannot even fully fund law enforcement budget requests is a dereliction of their duty to county residents.

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.

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.

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.