Gwinnett Buzz

Due to rainy weather Thursday and Friday, the final road surfacing for the I-85/GA 316 interchange is now slated for completion Monday afternoon.

For three years Gwinnett residents have negotiated construction of the new I-85/GA 316 interchange, but Saturday morning the project will be officially completed.  The interchange has made a marked improvement in westbound traffic on GA 316 during morning rush hour.  I had long since stopped going this way due to backups on GA 316, sometimes as far back as Sugarloaf Parkway.  However, with the new interchange motorists can usually travel at highway speed until getting to I-85.  As such, I have begun to use this route when going to work a little more often now.

Before closing, this anecdote in the article demands a brief comment:

“I’ve gotten some really ugly emails about that traffic signal on Saturdays — the one at Ga. 20 — saying ‘You all are Georgia Tech engineers, and just don’t want us to get to the stadium.’”

TERI POPE, Georgia DOT spokeswoman

What a laughable idea.  Tech engineers are the best of breed and would never risk their professional reputation for such a silly reason.  And as  a Tech alumnus and Lawrenceville native, I am very glad of this.  I would not want to have anything that keeps UGA fans in Lawrenceville any longer than absolutely necessary!  Go Jackets!

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.

Chick-fil-a on US 78 in Snellville wants a curb cut onto Westridge Drive.  However, in a hearing last night, the Snellville Board of Appeals denied a variance for the restaurant to use their newly completed entrance.  Here we have another case of commercial property owner versus residential property owners, though this is not a clear cut situation.  The biggest question that is unclear from either of the two AJC articles or from any of my internet searches is whether there will be a median opening at US 78 and Westridge Drive.  In my opinion, the fate of this curb cut really hinges on that detail.

I regularly stop at this restaurant on my way to work.  I was just thinking last week about access to Chick-fil-a when the US 78 median construction reaches this far east.  It was then that it dawned on me why the restaurant had built the new entrance at the back side of their parking lot  I assumed that once the median is in place there will be a turn at Westridge Drive and westbound customers could enter and leave the parking lot from the side street.  Whew!  No major change to my morning routine.  That is until I stumbled across the first AJC article and read the complaint of nearby resident Bill Donelson:

Homeowner Bill Donelson said the community does not want the curb cut because it will increase traffic and litter and endanger adults and kids who walk and play along Westridge and Cambridge Street, which connects nearby. He said he thinks the restaurant wants the additional access because of the median being built on U.S. 78.

(You can clearly see the orientation of the restaurant and Westridge Drive using the birds-eye view on Microsoft Live Maps.)

Mr. Donelson’s argument is not entirely without merit, though just how strong his argument is depends on whether there is a median opening at Westridge and US 78.  If there is no opening at Westridge, what does the restaurant really gain from this new entrance?  Westbound customers have to return to 78, turn right and make a U-turn at McGee Road.  In this case, I don’t see any justification for the variance.  Furthermore, the possibility of restaurant customers turning right from the new entrance and traveling through the neighborhood to return to 78 further east would pose the problems that Mr. Donelson cites.  However, if there is a median opening at Westridge and 78, then the situation is quite different.

I can understand that westbound traffic leaving the Chick-fil-a would find it easier to exit onto Westridge and turn left onto 78 rather than turning right out of the restaurant and immediately trying to make a U-turn at the Westridge Drive-US 78 intersection or at McGee Road.  This could well lead to more cars making a left turn from Westridge, especially during morning hours.  However, when I stop in the mornings, I do not generally experience long lines of cars trying to turn out of the restaurant parking lot nor have I ever seen significant traffic turning from Westridge Drive.  Thus, I am not sure just how severe of an impact such a traffic pattern would be.  Also, with a median opening at Westridge, the need for traffic to turn right from the restaurant onto Westridge and funnel through the neighborhood would be highly unlikely.  Even if the cut is never allowed to be used, I would think that cars trying to exit the restaurant and make the immediate U-turn at the Westridge median opening would be more difficult and hazardous to navigate than a few extra cars traveling mere yards on Westridge Drive. Finally, in this scenario, I do not see much validity to the pedestrian safety or litter concerns primarily due to the very short distance traffic would travel on Westridge Drive.

Given the above, knowing whether there is a median opening at US 78 and Westridge Drive is paramount to knowing what is the fair and equitable course of action in this case.  If there is a median opening, then I strongly feel that the decision of the Appeals Board is unfair and, frankly, unreasonable.  Technically, the restaurant agreed to no curb cuts onto Westridge Drive, but that was 20 years ago when US 78 did not have a median.  Fast forward 20 years and circumstances have changed.  The state DOT is reconfiguring the highway.  I realize that this change will inconvenience far more businesses than just Chick-fil-a.  If the restaurant were asking for a special design change to US 78 not afforded to other businesses, I oppose that.  However, it just so happens that this store is located adjacent to a public street.  If the residents do not want want any non-neighborhood traffic on any stretch of Westridge Road, then they should take over maintenance as a neighborhood and gate the community.  So long as taxpayer dollars are funding a street and a request such as the one by Chick-fil-a poses no serious harm or inconvenience, then reasonable accomodation should be made for the use of that road.

That being said, if there is no median opening planned at Westridge, then there is little justification for the new entrance, and the dangers and nuisances raised by Mr. Donelson ring true.  Under this circumstance, the Board of Appeals made a fair and equitable ruling tonight.  However, if Chick-fil-a is ultimately denied use of their new entrance, the City of Snellville should reimburse the restaurant for the cost of the construciton.  It appears that Chick-fil-a went through the proper procedures to request a permit and the City planning departmant made a mistake in green-lighting the construction.  In fact, Acting Planning Director Jason Thompson admits that he made a mistake according to the second AJC article.  Mistakes happen.  That is understandable.  But if your mistake causes another party to waste $25,000, you should be on the hook to make that party whole.

If anyone knows for sure whether there is a median opening planning for Westridge Road, please comment and let me and the Buzz readers know.

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.

Ramp meters on ramps to I-85 in Gwinnett go into operation next week.  GDOT tells us that the meters are to “relieve congestion.”  I am not convinced that they do not simply shift congestion to the surface streets, but time will tell.  Mark McKinnon of the DOT says the ramp meters “keep traffic ‘free-flowing.’”  So a few traffic lights on on-ramps have been all we have needed for years to solve our traffic problems on I-85?  I guess that money being spend on the new collector/distributor lanes north of Pleasant Hill Rd. would have been better utilized for a few traffic lights and a huge stock of replacement bulbs!

Seriously though, I don’t think we will be able to get any real guage on the effectiveness of these new traffic control devices until school return to session next month and traffic congestion returns to its normal, non-summer levels.  I know my average commute time this summer is down approximately 15%.

MARTA is holding a series of community meetings in Gwinnett this week.  The goal is to convince Gwinnett residents to show their support on a ballot question in next month’s primary regarding extending rail service to Gwinnett Place.  While a metro area as large as Atlanta should have both a more extensive subway/metro system as well as commuter rail, MARTA is not the answer for Gwinnett.

MARTA rail was very exciting when it began service 29 years ago this week.  I remember taking special trips as a child both with my family and with a day care center to ride the “MARTA train.”  MARTA rail elevated a then not-so-international Atlanta to the same tier as New York; I remember great pride thinking that our city had a subway!  However, in the last three decades, the rail system has not grown with Atlanta.  There are still the same basic North-South and East-West lines that have been largely in place for nearly 20 years.  Granted, the ability of the system to truly match the breadth of the entire metro area has been stunted both by being limited to Dekalb and Fulton counties as well as by attitudes in years past that did not recognize a large need for rail service.

Those times have changed with the metro area’s enormous growth.  Rail is a crucial component to addressing the transportation challenges Gwinnett and Atlanta faces in the coming years, but I must ask, is MARTA the best option?  If MARTA had proactively extended its service via additional rail, light rail and other innovative solutions during the last 20 years within the counties where they do operate, I would be more open to extending their rail lines to Gwinnett.  I think Lorraine Green made a very valid point in the candidates forum last week when she talked about needing to take on responsibility for our transportation future and not depend on the state.  While MARTA is not the state, I think the sentiment applies here as well.  Gwinnett will be better served managing our own rail service rather than relying on MARTA.

A key to the success of rail in Gwinnett is interconnectivity to the MARTA system.  Obviously, extension of the MARTA system would allow for this.  However, the article notes a proposed multi-modal center for Norcross but several Google searches could not find details on this proposal.  The MARTA plan is to extend heavy rail to this center and then run the more-cost-effective light rail on to Gwinnett Place.  To foster the needed connectivity, extension of the MARTA Doraville line to such a transit center would be advised.  However, any light rail radiating out from there could potentially be operated by Gwinnett transit.  (Incidentally, Bruce LeVell has been very involved in transit planning as a member of the MARTA Board of Directors, experience which further enhances his attractiveness as the new District 1 Commissioner.)

Future transportation planning for Gwinnett and metro Atlanta is far too complex for a simple blog post.  The time for rail in Gwinnett has come, but the question remains as to who will operate it.  MARTA?  Gwinnett?  Perhaps even a comprehensive metropolitan or state transportation authority?  I don’t think MARTA is the answer.  I recommend that we actively support rail planning but that we vote no on MARTA.

Lt. Govenor Casey Cagle recently gave a speech to Cobb Chamber of Commerce Chairman’s Club luncheon (yes, I know - this is a Gwinnett blog but Cagle’s topic applies equally to Gwinnett). The topic was traffic (see…I told you it was relevant to Gwinnett). Cagle talked about the need to address Atlanta’s traffic woes. I agree with him completely. In fact, I see this as one of, if not, the most pressing issue facing Gwinnett and metro Atlanta. While virtually all of the candidates for Gwinnett Commission seats address traffic, the reality is that this is a regional issue. We need leadership at the state level to look for effective solutions to the oppressive traffic in the metro area. Sonny Perdue has not seemed to get this; in my opinion he has done little or nothing to address Atlanta traffic. As we approach the 2010 gubernatorial race, selecting a candidate who gets it on traffic will be critical.

Lest you think the Buzz always sides with developers and construction, the case of connector streets near US 78 in the Evermore CID is more vexing that the reversible lanes that construction on the highway is replacing. I certainly sympathize with the residents who stand to lose significant chunks of their property. In general, I support road development including reengineering, expansion and new highways because these projects typically provide more efficient travel, something that is especially important for an area like Gwinnett that is drowning in traffic. Unfortunately, sometimes road development negatively impacts private property owners in the vicinity of these projects. Despite this, roadwork that benefits tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people cannot be stopped because of these impacts. Such work is one of the limited cases that have to supercede private property rights to ensure that our communities have the basic infrastructure we require. That being said, I am not sure that the potential negative impacts of the proposed connector streets are justified.

The question at the heart of this dilemma is what is the true purpose of these roads? Are they like the collector-distributor lane system on I-85 that eases travel on the main interstate by offloading entry and exit traffic onto the C/D lanes? Or do these streets proposed more to improve access to businesses along US 78 than to help traffic on the main road? The article is not completely clear on the intent of the CID, but there are hints that these streets are more to benefit the business owners than US 78 travelers. As such, I would tend to agree with the residents that these streets should not be built as proposed. It would be grossly unfair to take away these homeowners’ property primarily to benefit other private property owners. Conversely, if these streets would provide a significant traffic benefit to traffic on the main road, I would be inclined to support the project.

While I understand that the new median in US 78 will affect businesses fronting the highway, that is one of the negative impacts of road development that I spoke of above. However, there is no justification to offload this impact to other private property owners. The residents along US 78 deserve a clear expression of the intent of the project with evidence to back-up any beneficial claims by the CID.

Last week, I attended the candidates forum sponsored by the Gwinnett Village CID for county commission candidates at Meadowcreek High School. This post a week late and I apologize for that to Buzz readers. I am learning that providing thoughtful commentary and doing more than simply posting links, takes more time than one would think. However, I am committed to providing quality insight on Gwinnett issues and happenings and I will strive to improve these turnaround times!

The forum hosted candidates for County Commission chairman and District 1 Commissioner. In this post, I will focus on the chairman candidates. The forum lasted for an hour and a half with candidates offering 60 second answers to various questions posed by the moderator, Channel 2 reporter and Duluth resident Rachel Kim. As such, there were far too many questions and responses to go over each and every one. What I hope to provide here is an overview of my general impression of the candidates, analysis of positions that should be closely examined by the voters, and highlights of their comments.

All three of the chairman candidates - Charles Bannister, Lorraine Green and Glenn Pirkle - participated in the forum. Though I hate to give her credit, Green had the best “stage presence” and was the most well-spoken and passionate. of the three. Bannister often provided short, terse answers that lacked any real passion. Pirkle - well, I am sure he is a nice man - was out of his element and simply seemed out of place. Normally, you would expect a “citizen” candidate with virtually no chance of winning to be someone who is hoping to draw attention to particular issue that is not receiving significant focus from the frontrunners. Pirkle did not even seem to have such an agenda. In my opinion, unless he demonstrates more awareness and understanding of all the issues in the race, he should not be included in any further forums.

Overall, Bannister and Green sounded similar on many issues such as transportation and traffic, illegal immigration, and crime. Regarding TADs, which the commission recently added to the July ballot, both Bannister and Green effectively agreed that this tool would not be for every situation but would allow Gwinnett County to focus on redevelopment or job promotion. Also, both candidates agreed on the importance of addressing illegal immigration. When asked about enforcing ordinances regarding overcrowding in single family homes, both noted limits on the number of people that can live in a single dwelling. While I understand the point of this law is address essentially bunkhouse-style living arrangements in single-family homes, I am concerned that the government could technically bar a family from living together. While most families don’t have eight immediate relatives living at in the same home, a husband and wife, two elderly parents, and four kids, would place such a family at the legal limit. Green noted that the ordinance did not target such a situation, but with the lack of common sense sometimes seen in enforcing laws, I can imagine headlines of the county forcing Grandma to be tossed out to comply with maximum resident ordinance. Though I do have some trouble with the government dictating private family living arrangements, I do applaud efforts to address quality of life issues, especially those that touch on the periphery of illegal immigration. However, if the government infringes upon the right of a single law-abiding citizen or family, then it would be better to fore go such laws. However, Green and Bannister did not agree on all points. The pair sparred over the actual number of cops added to the police force since 2005 when both took office. I have to admit I was not clear on Green’s point, but she definitely took issue with the net addition to the police force, noting a significant number of officers had left the department during the period. While their views on these matters were fairly innocuous, both again displayed a taste for the overburdening presence of government in land use.

Being an event sponsored by the Gwinnett Village CID, an area where revitalization and redevelopment are prominent issues, these topics were leading themes. Both candidates threw out troubling sentiments such as controlling growth and inserting government decisions in place of market decisions. When asked if the current zoning code was sufficient - a code that I would propose is far too extensive and should be reworked to focus on the concept of material impact - both candidates supported changing the code. Green even referred to the code as a living document. I received the distinct impression that neither were favoring reworking the ordinances to enhance private property rights but rather to instill more government control. Regarding redevelopment, Green again displayed her penchant for government decision-making in suggesting that brownfield development be made easier while greenfield development made harder. (Message to greenfield property owners - forget trying gain economically from your property because the government would rather give an advantage to other property owners.) Green further commented that she did not know if the economics were there to support high-rise development in Gwinnett. I would suggest that it is not her or the board’s place to determine whether the economics exist. That is a financial and business decision best left to the free market. If there is a business case for such a development, let private industry make that determination and have the government only ensure that the land use does infrnge upon the property rights of others. I do agree that I would personally prefer to see empty retail centers revitalized or redeveloped as I would assume would most Gwinnett residents. The question is how do you encourage this without stepping on property rights? A better approach would be to give incentives for redevelopment without overtly restricting greenfield development. Leave this to a market decision which would factor in any relevant incentives. This is a far better option than a government prohibition. Bannister’s position seemed to come closer to this ideal when he suggested the creation of overlay districts that allow for by-right building where property is already appropriately zoned.

While neither Green or Bannister offered a complete package, Bannister continues to be the preferred choice in this race. His apparently less stringent views on government intrusion in land use coupled with his desire to cut taxes, continues to place him as the best of the choices for commission chairmain.