Gwinnett Buzz

Lakeview Plantation in Lawrenceville is embroiled in a dispute with the state Department of Natural Resources over repair costs to the dam creating the neighborhood lake.  The state is saying that the community is responsible for all necessary repairs to the dam but neighbors are balking at a potential six-figure cost. If the dam is faulty and threatens human life, the need to make repairs is clear.  The neighbors do not seem to dispute this point.  The neighborhood’s primary concern is apparently money.  Because  the homeowners association membership is not mandatory (something I applaud), the HOA annual budget is only around $14,000, a paltry summed when faced with repair costs that could approach a quarter-million dollars.  I can understand the cost concern, but that is akin to saying I am not going to fix my faulty brakes and replace my bald tires because it is expensive.  You can drive your car in that condition, but you are courting disaster.  That being said, the legitimacy of placing liens on all or a subset of homes in the subdivision likely depends on the legal ownership of the lake.

I say “legal ownership” because common sense dictates that a neighborhood lake is owned by the neighborhood.  As such, the owners should be liable for all costs associated with that lake.  However, when you are talking about placing liens on property, digging a little further into the legalese is necessary.  If I had purchased a home in Lakeview Plantation and no where within the legal documents required to complete that purchase was noted a ownership share or liability for repairs to common areas including the lake, I would be hesitant at the possibility of being hit with a charge of thousands of dollars.  At the same time, I would be torn because my share of responsibility would be fairly obvious to me.  This situation illustrates a weakness of a voluntary HOA when there is significant common property in a development.  If the HOA is the entity held liable for repair costs, is it fair that any homeowner could effectively “opt-out” of paying by simply resigning from or not joining the HOA?  Should only a subset of homeowners in a subdivision pay for maintenance costs for common area that is open to everyone?

This is obviously a difficult situation for the Lakeview Plantation and I do not envy their plight.  This is compounded by the fact that I have an extreme distate for HOAs and I applaud Lakeview’s voluntary association, but I recognize that could be a problem in this dispute.  Ultimately, looking at it as a Georgia taxpayer, I do not see why we should bear the cost to repair a private lake that, I assume, is not open for the enjoyment of anyone other than Lakeview Plantation residents.

Originally posted on the The Grayson Buzz in August, 2006.

Ascot Realty of Buford refuses to pay for land they’re developing on (GwinnettDailyOnline.com)

Lest readers of the Buzz think that I always side with the businessman or developer over the private individual, I bring to your attention the situation ongoing in Buford, GA. It seems that developer Ascot Realty has refused to satisfy a debt on land acquired for one of its residential developments. Surely there is a rational explanation for this, a reason that normally gets conveniently omitted from the opposition’s side of the story. Well, this time, there seems to be no rational explanation. Ascot claims in a response to the article that it has parted ways with its partner in the development and that the partner is the one that owes the balance of the money to be paid to Paul Martin and family. While I do not know the exact legal structure of the agreement with the Martins, normally if two parties enter into a debt agreement, either party can be held responsible for the entire obligation. Apparently, this is the conclusion that Gwinnett Daily attorneys have reached in covering this story. Thus, Ascot’s argument appears to be flimsy if not simply indefensible. Further damaging the company’s credibility, Ascot claims not to be involved with The Park at Copper Trail development. Funny that the company name would be prominently displayed on the subdivision marketing sign or that the company would list the neighborhood on its web site if that were true.

I have long advocated limited government interference in business and allowing the free market to regulate. In this spirit, I feel the obligation to highlight the questionable actions of a company and help in informing the public so that they can make informed decisions on whether they wish to do business with Ascot Realty. Perhaps Ascot has some legal grounds on which they can ultimately defend their refusal to satisfy their obligation. Regardless, the question remains: if a developer is going to take such a stance with people from which it buys land - an absolutely necessary “supplier” for real estate development - then how will they treat an individual homeowner after a sale closes?

This was originally posted on The Grayson Buzz in August, 2004.

Gwinnett Opinions-More letters to the editor (AJC.com) (Free subscription required)

There is just so much to respond to in today’s AJC Gwinnett letters to the editor! I would respond with the letter to the editor myself, but I do not know on which topic to focus! (Note: The above link will likely be out of date once AJC.com updates the letters. I will try to remember to update to the archive link but if I do not, just click on “Previous Letters.”)

David Kesler on the “anti-growth” phrase
David Kesler, head of the Gwinnett Place Neighborhood Alliance homeowners union takes exception to the AJC’s use of “anti-growth” to characterize the anti-progress (that is probably just as appropriate a term) crowd in Gwinnett. He tries to spin the term into “smart-growth” or “slow-growth” or “managed-growth” but it all boils down to one fact: to the advocates of these positions, virtually no project ever seems to meet the strict requirements of their smart/slow/managed-growth view. The de facto result is “no-growth.” I think the AJC used “anti-growth” appropriately as that is the eventual result of homeowner union activism.

Mr. Kesler closes with this gem:

“Smart growth” is a calculated effort by a local government to ensure that growth occurs where it is both appropriate and needed.“

As decided by whom, Mr. Kesler? Sorry, Mr. Kesler, but unless the use of my property materially impacts your use and enjoyment of yours, then you should have no role in determining what is “appropriate and needed.” Just evidence of how the homeowners unions seek an extension of the role of government into our lives - something that is neither appropriate nor needed.

Jay Wagner proposes some detrimental policy changes
As if on cue to vindicate the AJC’s use of “anti-growth”, Jay Wagner offers up a wish list of policy changes that would exacerbate all the problems in Gwinnett that the voters allegedly sought to change in defeating Wayne Hill. Several are standard fare for those seeking to impose their will on the county’s property owners: no rezonings when schools are overcrowded (that effectively shuts down all construction in Gwinnett) and a moratorium on apartment construction (forget that you own the property and that you have property rights, Jay Wagner does not like apartments so Mr. Property Owner should be prohibited from developing his property). The most egregious of Mr. Wagner’s wish list is restricting sales tax road funding to existing roadway enhancements and not permitting the county to contribute funds to a cross-county corridor. To be blunt, those last two are insane. To assume that not building new roads will staunch traffic growth is a pure head-in-the-sand mentality. Even if the anti-growth crowd is successful in shutting down all growth in Gwinnett, they will have no impact in neighboring counties. Unless Mr. Wagner proposes that only Gwinnett residents be permitted to traverse Gwinnett roadways (give the homeowners unions time to figure out to pursue this goal), the inter-county traffic will only increase, further choking our roads. If we refuse to plan for traffic growth, the already suffocating Gwinnett traffic will get much, much worse in a hurry. These types of proposals should scare every person who drives in Gwinnett County. Frankly, I have no problem with Mr. Wagner sitting in two hours worth of traffic every morning since he obviously voted against progress in Gwinnett, but the rest of us who had enough sense to not bury our heads like ostriches have to suffer as well. Let’s hope that Mr. Wagner is a lone voice in the wilderness or Gwinnett is going to be in worse shape than even I feared.

Clem Jones has a problem with Emory Morsberger defending his property rights
Mr. Jones’ letter is a classic anti-progress rant. He, too, tosses out the overcrowded schools argument. He complains that Mr. Morsberger is suing on the basis that state law prevents the county from refusing his building proposal based on school overcrowding, asking “Can you think of a better reason?” Sorry Mr. Jones, but in America, besides property rights, we have little annoyances called laws and when a governing body denies economic liberty while violating these laws, the victim is entitled to seek a remedy in the courts. In Mr. Jones’ world apparently, the ruling of the County Commission should be absolute (I wonder whether he would be such a staunch defender if the ruling had went in favor of Mr. Morsberger?) without regard to any relevant legal guidelines. He echoes a theme similar to that of Mr. Kesler in saying that the zoning process is intended to ensure that building proposals are “sound and will benefit the community.” Another Gwinnett citizen who wants the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my property.

Possibly the most troubling comment made by Mr. Jones is that Mr. Morsberger “puts his own interests ahead of the general population.” This is an incredibly anti-capitalistic statement. Consider this statement in light of this quote from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (courtesy of Nealz Nuze):

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Denise Dutton on parents dropping kids off at Snellville Middle School
The last letter on which I want to comment veers away from the anti-growth movement. Denise Dutton writes about the traffic difficulties associated with dropping off her children at Snellville Middle School. On one particular morning when the traffic was particularly bad (imagine the horror of a middle schooler getting a little wet!), Ms. Dutton complains about the Snellville police instructing parents to move to the shoulder of the road which includes “residential driveways, long grass, large mudholes, directional signs, and…trees.” She takes issue with the officer threatening drivers over his loudspeaker with “expensive” tickets if they did not clear the roadway. (Personally, I am glad to see police trying to improve traffic conditions and threatening tickets to those that truly are causing traffic problems as opposed to enhancing revenue with speeding tickets…but that is another post for another day.) The main point is her contention that drivers were “doing the best they could in the pouring rain.” No, Ms. Dutton, they were not doing the best they could. Have you ever noticed that big yellow bus that drives past your home every morning? It is not the latest in Gwinnett public transportation - it is a school bus, there to take your child to Snellville Middle School. The best you could have done would have been to let your youngster board that bus in the morning and enjoy a free ride to school. If all the parents who were pampering their kids in that school line that morning had done the same, there would have been no significant traffic problem and the Snellville PD would not have had to threaten anyone with tickets to keep the road clear for people who needed to get somewhere. The most laughable comment is her assessment that incidents like that morning is “not the way…to create a good education program for our children.” Sorry, but I do not follow. Perhaps Ms. Dutton could cite a study that states that parents dropping their kids off results in better academic performance than with kids who ride the bus. No, the real result of the incident that morning was that it failed to help parents continue to pamper their children and raise a generation of softies.

This was originally posted on The Grayson Buzz in July, 2004.

In doing a Google search on John Dunn earlier today I came across an interesting anti-Dunn site, Dunn’s History. Having just endoresed Dunn for Commissioner of Gwinnett’s District 3, I thought I would review the site. If anyone has followed the news regarding Commissioner Dunn in the last year or so, you are not surprised that the commissioner is not on too many Christmas card lists of so-called “Gwinnett homeowner activists.” (Disclaimer: I am a Gwinnett homeowner as well, but unlike many of these activists, I do not think that the fact that I have bought a home in Gwinnett gives me the right to tell other property owners that all development should stop because I am now happily domiciled in the area.)

Sure enough, this site came from the “pro-homeowner” perspective. (Funny that that perspective does not represent me, a homeowner!) Almost everything on the site has been through an enormous spin to portray John Dunn in a negative light. There is far too many examples to highlight here but one example is the controversy regarding Commissioner Dunn requesting former Gwinnett Planning Commissioner M.B. Strickland to resign from the Gwinnett Planning Commission. Dunn’s History implies that Dunn was trying to humiliate Strickland. I do not know the details of the situation so I cannot comment on whether Dunn’s actions were justified, but reading both a letter and an article linked from the site suggest that Dunn had legitimate concerns. These documents certainly do not seem to back up the scenario of an elected official attempting to humliate someone. Furthermore, the site attacks Dunn for attempting to legally amend the law to allow for terminating Planning Commission members. I am sorry, but I thought in America, that the proper way to effect change was to attempt to change laws and regulations through legal channels.

A further example of spin doctoring and, quite possibly hypocrisy, is the incident where Dunn’s campaign manager is accused on “harassing” Dunn’s History publisher Bob Griggs. While I admit that Bill McKinney does not seem like the type of person with whom I would like to spend an inordinate amount of time (of course my only exposure to Mr. McKinney is through Dunn’s History!), the irony of the accusation is that it lies in the middle of a page on the site dedicated to criticizing McKinney! On this page are several photos of McKinney, both actual and one that was obviously edited with a photo editor. The definition of harassment was McKinney attempting to take photos of Griggs, in public, after a political meeting. This was apparently done in protest of Griggs’ use of photos of McKinney on the internet! Now, while this may seem somewhat comical, how can someone publish an entire page, complete with photos, criticizing someone and then complain when the same thing is done to them in return? That, my friends, is called hypocrisy.

I encourage you to review the material on the site to learn about the political perspective from where much of anti-Dunn sentiment originates. Also, check out AboutGwinnett.com which is edited by Griggs. While I respect anyone’s right to hold a political view, when visiting either of these sites, you should keep in mind the apparent political perspective of the publisher and consider the articles with that knowledge. I freely admit I do not align myself with the homeowners advocacy crowd. Bettering my community is providing for better roads and allowing businesses to be established in my community, not suggesting that now that I have moved into the area, everything should freeze just like it was when I bought my home. I wonder what the people in the area thought of the developments where so many of our homeowner activists now live? A case in point is the letter cited on the main page of Dunn’s History from a homeowner in Plantation at Bay Creek taking John Dunn to task for receiving contributions from developers. I live a few miles from this neighborhood and it is so new that there is still construction in progress! As the letter writer points out, there are three hundred homes in the broader development, which I can personally verify is extensive. This is definitely a nice neighborhood, one that improves property values in the vicinity, and, in my opinion, preferable to apartment development. However, consider that this is in an area of the county that, until the last decade, was still very rural. I wonder what the local property owners thought when this 300 home development was proposed. I suppose the letter writer has no problem that the Bay Creek development was approved. Just seems somewhat hypocritical to now act as if growth and development is a social ill that cannot be tolerated. I highlight this only because on the surface homeowner activism seems to imply support for those who have worked to part of the American dream, homeownership. In reality, this is a political orientation that seeks to infringe others’ rights to property usage in deference to personal preferences of a segment of the population.

Check out these sites and others you may find decide for yourself. I encourage you to seek out both sides of the matter in order to get a complete picture. I hope that you come away as appalled at the hyposcrisy from this constituency as was I and that you chose to support Commissioner Dunn in the July 20 primary.