Gwinnett Buzz

There will be a Fair Tax rally at Gwinnett Center this Sunday, November 16, from 2:30 to 4:30.  Come hear former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Congressman John Linder (R-GA), FairTax.org Director of Communications Ken Hoagland, and WSB radio talk show host Neal Boortz promote this exciting alternative to our current bloated and oppressive income tax system.

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.

When you go to the polls on November 4 (or earlier if you decide to take advantage of early voting), there will be a ballot question seeking approval of an extension of the SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) for Gwinnett County.  Now you may find it odd that after constantly opposing taxation I would endorse a tax program.  There are several reasons this tax should be renewed by Gwinnett voters:

1.  The SPLOST more evenly spreads out the tax burden for Gwinnett County capital investments.  As a sales tax, the funding source does not rest solely on the backs of homeowners.  All Gwinnett residents who spend money in the county contribute to the costs of Gwinnett infrastructure.  This includes those who are do not directly pay property taxes by virtue of living in apartments or rental housing.  Also, non-Gwinnett residents who visit shopping districts within the county pay the tax.

2.  The tax goes to fund capital investment projects and cannot be used for operational expenses.  Over half of the tax proceeds will go to pay for roads and bridges as well as recreational facilities.  Public safety and libraries will receive approximately 10% of the funds.  Gwinnett cities will receive around 15% of the SPLOST for similar projects on the municipal level.

3.  Taxpayers can see how their money is used and, generally, it is used effectively.  Just last week, Gwinnett parks were named the best in the nation.  I noted several years ago the high quality of Gwinnett’s transportation infrastructure.  As you travel through Gwinnett, you can see for yourself new parks being constructed and expanded as well roads such as the Sugarloaf Parkway extension being built.  You can find more information on how Gwinnett County has used SPLOST proceeds in the past here.

SPLOST is an example of how government taxation should work.  The tax requires everyone in a community to contribute to funding county infrastructure.  The proceeds are only used for projects that fall within the legitimate responsibilities of government.  The results of the program are clearly visible and available to all who call Gwinnett home.  The Gwinnett Buzz, therefore, is pleased to continue to support this worthy tax and encourages you to do likewise.

The cities of Grayson and Snellville have determined how each would spend their share of SPLOST funds should voters approve the renewal of the sales tax in November.  Cities share in a portion of the SPLOST proceeds.

Grayson - Expand city hall, expand Grayson City Park, road and sidewalk maintenance

Snellville - New police station at Wisteria Drive and Clower Street

I cannot really argue with SPLOST.  It has been a very effective and fair tax.  While liking any tax is a stretch, a tax where taxpayers can so readily see how the money is spent is much easier to embrace.  Also, the fact that SPLOST insures that not just county property owners pay for parks, roads and government buildings makes for a much fairer system.  (I know, sales taxes, in that they are regressive, are not perfect but what tax is?)  While my impractical libertarian streak thinks we should have user fees for those who use various government amenities, I know this will likely never happen so the SPLOST is the next best funding source.

As the current SPLOST approaches expiration next year, county and city officials are putting together their wish lists.  The biggest red flag I see in the possible projects cited in an AJC article is an addition to the county courthouse building.  I am not immediately dismissing the need for this offhand, but we should be very observant as to the county’s plans for any expansion or new facility.  Aside from that item, I fully expect the plans for the SPLOST renewal to be another collection of projects that will contnue to make Gwinnett a great place to live.

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.

I admit, she about had me.  When I saw her in two different candidates forums, Lorraine Green was articulate and seemed to have some pretty good ideas for Gwinnett.  Despite her bias toward homeowners, I liked what she had to say about immigration and transportation.  She especially had me hooked on her HOST tax plan that promised to eliminate the county portion of the property tax in favor of an additional sales tax.  I even began to question my previously solid support for Charles Bannister.  However, until I read about Charles Bannister’s LOST tax plan, I did not notice the flaw in Green’s proposal.  After realizing a key difference between a HOST and a LOST property tax program, I now see that Lorraine Green’s tax proposal is just another example of her bias toward homeowners and disregard for Gwinnett businesses.

The [Bannister] plan to use a sales tax is similar to one announced two weeks ago by primary challenger Lorraine Green, although Green proposes a homestead option sales tax, which would give a 100 percent homestead exemption on property and keep commercial property taxes in place.

Bannister, though, wants to do a variation on the current local option sales tax program used in 147 counties. The one percent tax, he said, would allow for half of the county’s property tax revenues to be rolled back each year, giving both commercial property and homeowners a break. The property tax roll back would be computed each year.

While I still need to read more on the opposing concepts, what is apparent is that Green’s proposal is unfair to the businesses that make up an important part of the Gwinnett community. Lorraine pretty much admits the preferential treatment to homeowner.

Green said she believes the HOST program is the only viable one for the county, but she added that excess revenues from the sales tax would allow for a reduced millage rate for commercial property owners, too.

“My plan still gives commercial property owners a break, but it takes care of homeowners first,” she said.

Perhaps, but there is no guarantee this relief will come.  What if our current economic slowdown turns into a full-blown recession and the expected increase in sales tax revenues do not fully materialize?  Would there be any tax relief for businesses in such a scenario?  Sure, I might personally save a few more bucks with the HOST plan, but I believe fairness is important and the LOST proposal appears to do a better job ensuring equity to both homeowners and businesses.  If you are a business owner in Gwinnett, Lorraine is effectively saying that she puts your needs as Gwinnett taxpayers behind those of homeowners.  And for those of you who may be grumbling that I suggest that business deserves tax relief, I want to emphasize that many of these are small businesses that are owned and operated by or employ your neighbors and friends.  The Board of Commissioners already makes doing business in Gwinnett tough enough with some of their land use decisions; should this be compounded with an inequitable tax plan?  However, what is more important here is not the details of either tax plan but the political tactic being employed by Green.  (I intend have done a preliminary analysis of the potentials savings of  sales tax versus property tax and I am not sure that either a HOST or a LOST plan should be implemented!  Stay tuned for a deeper analysis in the near future.)

What I really failed to recognize as I fell under the spell of Lorraine’s slick candidates forum performances was the obvious flip-flop she did on taxes in the span of less than two months. In a candidates forum in early May, Green was reported to be skeptical of tax cuts:

County staff told the commission that it needs to raise taxes or cut services, she said. Cutting taxes isn’t an option, because county government can’t run a deficit, Green said.

So are we supposed to believe that circumstances changed in just over a month that caused her to propose tax cuts such a short time later?  Ironic that though Green has introduced herself in a forum as not being a career politician, she has mastered the skill of saying what is needed to get elected.  There is further evidence to be skeptical of her commitment to tax cuts.  Where she has been consistent is her unwavering support of government services.  She used services as a reason for not being able to cut taxes and she again raised the point in the article on the Bannister’s LOST proposal:

There’s no doubt the spending of the past three years will require a change in tax policy without significantly reducing services citizens have come to expect.

One must wonder what happens if  “Chariman Green” were faced with following through on tax relief or cutting back on government services. As a conservative, this is an easy question for me.  Tax relief.  There are only a few services we need from the county if we truly support limited government.  Would Green see tax relief as taking precedence maintaining the role of government?  I think not because she seems more consistent in her support of services than tax cuts.

Fortunately, I have managed to shake myself out of the spell of Lorraine Green’s smooth, sweet-tasting political posturing in time not to make a mistake in my vote for Chairman in the GOP primary.  I can now see that she is flopping like a fish out of water to say what voters want to hear.  Gwinnett voters need to be smart enough to look below the surface and realize that Green appears to be playing politics.

I have to wonder why politicians so often get the spotlight at major community events.  We often see elected officials shoveling dirt at groundbreakings and cutting ribbons at building grand openings, even though,the politician often has little meaningful involvement or role in the activities that precipitated such events.  Yes, they may vote to allow a complex to be built or play mediator between developers and area residents, but the heavy lifting is usually done by others.  Politicians did not design the new building - an architect did.  Politicians did not work out the nitty gritty details of the financing - a banker did.  Politicians did not develop the construction plan - engineers did.  Politicians did not take the risk to establish the business that will occupy the new complex, an entrepreneur did.  So what did the politician do to be there, front and center, smiling for the assembled media?  They convinced a large group of people to choose them over someone else for an elected office.  Understand, I am not suggesting that politicians are not talented, smart, and capable individuals because many are.  However, politicians campaign, and even the most unqualified person can wind up with the job if he or she has excellent people skills and connections.  Once in office, these individuals wield the power to make decisions on the work of experts that they themselves could probably not get hired to do.   We have recently seen a perfect example of this in Mike Beaudreau’s denial of the T-Mobile cell tower in south Gwinnett.

So what does this have to do with the Gwinnett Braves?
 
As I look at the photos of the new stadium groundbreaking near Mall of Georgia, I realize that we may finally have a case where the politicians should be participating in the event.  After all, our Gwinnett County Commission was so nice to promise the private business that is the Atlanta Braves that Gwinnett taxpayers would gladly cover any revenue shortfalls to ensure that the stadium debt gets paid.  Because our commissioners were so actively involved in arranging the financing of the deal (again, I stress, with our money), Mike Beaudreau and Bert Nasuti should be there tossing a big shovelful of dirt as well participating in the team logo unveiling.

The Gwinnett County School Board passed a $1.9 billion budget Thursday night.  I have to offer kudos to the board for holding the line on the tax rate.  Yes, there is the issue of tax hikes through valuation increases (see MillageRate.com for more discussion of this), but I am not sure where I stand on assigning responsibility for “backdoor tax increases” to elected officials. So for now, I have to give credit when elected do the right thing.

The most troubling thing I read is that the school system will pay for “four foreign language interpreters…to help the system communicate with parents and students who don’t speak English.”  I have mixed feelings on this.  I do not feel that is the taxpayers responsibility to provide services in any language other than English.  (This is why we need a law making English the official language now while we have a fighting chance to pass it.)  However, I also recognize that parents are crucial to the education process and educating immigrants’ children is important to allowing these kids grow into adults that can pursue the American dream and contribute to our society.  As often as such issues are presented as black and white, that is simply not the case.

Monday night in Lawrenceville, the Greater Gwinnett Republican Women hosted the first forum for commission chairman candidates .  The county budget was a big theme and it appears that Charles Bannister had the upper hand on the issue.  His approach: cut costs and try to cut taxes.  He apparently sees his approach as “Reaganesque.”  Granted, we have not seen the details of his tax cut plan, but the idea is promising.  I applaud his desire to cut taxes but the more important thing is that his reaction to the likely budget shortfall is to cut costs.  If he can craft a plan to include a tax cut, that would just be a cherry on top!  However, Lorraine Green does not seem to embrace this taxpayer-friendly position.

Green noted that a tax cut is not feasible since the county cannot run a deficit.  However, it is not clear whether she agreed on cutting costs before exploring a tax increase.  Green should be pressed on this issue.  She has already shown her unfriendliness to business and hostility to private property rights.  If she supports a property tax in lieu of trying to limit the size of government, I have to begin wondering if she should be running as a RINO candidate this summer - Republican in Name Only.  Commissioner Green, please tell us exactly what your position on cost cutting versus a tax increase is?  Will you pledge to the Gwinnett voter to not support increasing the property taxes if you become Commission Chairman?  There is a candidates forum tonight at Meadowcreek High School and I have submitted a question on this issue for the candidates.  Hopefully, this question will be asked and Green will have to clearly state her position on the record.